Document stringlengths 87 1.67M | Source stringclasses 5 values |
|---|---|
-- Teva’s Patents Infringed, U.S. Judge Rules
Patent claims that Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA) brought against Novartis AG’s (NVS)
Sandoz unit, Mylan Inc. (MYL) and Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MNTA) are
infringed, valid and enforceable, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones in Manhattan today ruled
that drug applications for the multiple sclerosis medicine
Copaxone made by Sandoz and Mylan “infringe all of the asserted
claims,” according to a court order. The order doesn’t name Momenta, though in a statement
issued by Globe Newswire, the company’s Chief Executive Officer
Craig Wheeler said the company will appeal the ruling. “We are disappointed that the court determined that Teva’s
patents were valid and infringed, and we look forward to reading
the full opinion to understand its reasoning,” Wheeler said in
the statement. “We remain confident in our legal position and
we intend to appeal.” Teva sued Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis and Cambridge,
Massachusetts-based Momenta, saying that copies of Copaxone
would infringe four patents that expire in 2014. Nina Devlin, a Mylan spokeswoman, and Novartis spokeswoman
Julie Masow didn’t immediately return calls after regular
business hours seeking comment on the ruling. The case is Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
08-cv-07611, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story:
Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at
jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Michael Hytha at
mhytha@bloomberg.net | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
New Guinea campaign
The New Guinea campaign of the Pacific War lasted from January 1942 until the end of the war in August 1945. During the initial phase in early 1942, the Empire of Japan invaded the Territory of New Guinea on 23 January and Territory of Papua on 21 July and overran western New Guinea (part of the Netherlands East Indies) beginning on 29 March. During the second phase, lasting from late 1942 until the Japanese surrender, the Allies—consisting primarily of Australian forces—cleared the Japanese first from Papua, then New Guinea, and finally from the Dutch colony.
The campaign resulted in a crushing defeat and heavy losses for the Empire of Japan. As in most Pacific War campaigns, disease and starvation claimed more Japanese lives than enemy action. Most Japanese troops never even came into contact with Allied forces and were instead simply cut off and subjected to an effective blockade by Allied naval forces. Garrisons were effectively besieged and denied shipments of food and medical supplies, and as a result some claim that 97% of Japanese deaths in this campaign were from non-combat causes. According to John Laffin, the campaign "was arguably the most arduous fought by any Allied troops during World War II."
Capture of Rabaul
The struggle for New Guinea began with the capture by the Japanese of the city of Rabaul at the northeastern tip of New Britain in January 1942. Rabaul overlooks Simpson Harbour, a considerable natural anchorage and was ideal for the construction of airfields. Over the next year, the Japanese built up the area into a major air and naval base. The Allies responded with multiple bombing raids on Rabaul as well as action off Bougainville.
The Japanese Eighth Area Army, under General Hitoshi Imamura at Rabaul, was responsible for both the New Guinea and Solomon Islands campaigns. The Japanese 18th Army, under Lieutenant General Hatazō Adachi, was responsible for Japanese operations on mainland New Guinea.
The colonial capital of Port Moresby on the south coast of Papua was the strategic key for the Japanese in this area of operations. Capturing it would both neutralize the Allies' principal forward base and serve as a springboard for a possible invasion of Australia. For the same reasons, General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander Allied Forces South West Pacific Area, was determined to hold it. MacArthur was further determined to conquer all of New Guinea in his progress toward the eventual recapture of the Philippines. General Headquarters South West Pacific Area Operational Instruction No.7 of 25 May 1942, issued by MacArthur, placed all Australian and US Army, Air Force and Navy Forces in the Port Moresby Area under the control of New Guinea Force.
Seizure of Lae and Salamaua
Due north of Port Moresby, on the northeast coast of Papua, are the Huon Gulf and the Huon Peninsula. The Japanese entered Lae and Salamaua, two towns on Huon Gulf, on 8 March 1942, unopposed. MacArthur would have liked to deny this area to the Japanese, but he had neither sufficient air nor naval forces to undertake a counterlanding. The Japanese at Rabaul and other bases on New Britain would have easily overwhelmed any such effort (by mid-September, MacArthur's entire naval force under Vice Admiral Arthur S. Carpender consisted of 5 cruisers, 8 destroyers, 20 submarines, and 7 small craft). The only Allied response was a bombing raid of Lae and Salamaua by aircraft flying over the Owen Stanley Range from the carriers USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Yorktown (CV-5), leading the Japanese to reinforce these sites.
Attempt on Port Moresby
Operation Mo was the designation given by the Japanese to their initial plan to take possession of Port Moresby. Their operation plan decreed a five-pronged attack: one task force to establish a seaplane base at Tulagi in the lower Solomons, one to establish a seaplane base in the Louisiade Archipelago off the eastern tip of New Guinea, one of transports to land troops near Port Moresby, one with a light carrier to cover the landing, and one with two fleet carriers to sink the Allied forces sent in response. In the resulting 4–8 May 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea, the Allies suffered higher losses in ships but achieved a crucial strategic victory by turning the Japanese landing force back, thereby removing the threat to Port Moresby, at least for the time being.
After this failure, the Japanese decided on a longer term, two-pronged assault for their next attempt on Port Moresby. Forward positions would first be established at Milne Bay, located in the forked eastern end of the Papuan peninsula, and at Buna, a village on the northeast coast of Papua about halfway between Huon Gulf and Milne Bay. Simultaneous operations from these two locations, one amphibious and one overland, would converge on the target city.
Kokoda Track
Buna was easily taken as the Allies had no military presence there (MacArthur wisely chose not to attempt an occupation by paratroopers since any such force would have been easily wiped out by the Japanese). The Japanese occupied the village with an initial force of 1,500 on 21 July 1942 and by 22 August had 11,430 men under arms at Buna.
The Japanese objective was to seize Port Moresby by an overland advance from the north coast, following the Kokoda Track over the mountains of the Owen Stanley Range, as part of a strategy to isolate Australia from the United States. By 17 September the Japanese had reached the village of Ioribaiwa, just 30 km from the Allied airdrome at Port Moresby. The Australians held firm and began their counterdrive on 26 September. According to historian Samuel Eliot Morison, "...the Japanese retreat down the Kokoda Track had turned into a rout. Thousands perished from starvation and disease; the commanding general, Horii, was drowned." Thus was the overland threat to Port Moresby permanently removed.
Air operations
Since Port Moresby was the only port supporting operations in Papua, its defence was critical to the campaign. The air defences consisted of P-39 and P-40 fighters. Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) radar could not provide sufficient warning of Japanese attacks, so reliance was placed on coastwatchers and spotters in the hills until an American radar unit arrived in September with better equipment. Japanese bombers were often escorted by fighters which came in at 30000 ft—too high to be intercepted by the P-39s and P-40s—giving the Japanese an altitude advantage in air combat. The cost to the Allied fighters was high. Before June, between 20 and 25 P-39s had been lost in air combat, while three more had been destroyed on the ground, and eight had been destroyed in landings by accident. The following month at least 20 fighters were lost in combat, while eight were destroyed in July.
The Australian and American anti-aircraft gunners of the Composite Anti-Aircraft Defences played a crucial role in protecting Port Moresby, which suffered 78 air raids by 17 August 1942. A gradual improvement the numbers and skill of anti-aircraft gunners forced the Japanese bombers up to higher altitude, where they were less accurate, and then, in August, to raiding by night.
Although RAAF PBY Catalinas and Lockheed Hudsons were based at Port Moresby, because of the Japanese air attacks, long-range bombers like B-17s, B-25s, and B-26s could not be safely based there and were instead staged through from bases in Australia. This resulted in considerable fatigue for the air crews. Due to USAAF doctrine and a lack of long-range escorts, long-range bomber raids on targets like Rabaul went in unescorted and suffered heavy losses, prompting severe criticism of Lieutenant General George Brett by war correspondents for misusing his forces. But fighters did provide cover for the transports and for bombers when their targets were within range. Aircraft based at Port Moresby and Milne Bay fought to prevent the Japanese from basing aircraft at Buna, and attempted to prevent the Japanese reinforcement of the Buna area. As the Japanese ground forces pressed toward Port Moresby, the Allied Air Forces struck supply points along the Kokoda Track. Japanese makeshift bridges were attacked by P-40s with 500 lb bombs.
Allied defence of Milne Bay
While it was beyond MacArthur's capabilities to deny Buna to the Japanese, the same could not be said of Milne Bay, which was easily accessible by Allied naval forces. In early June, US Army engineers, Australian infantry and an anti-aircraft battery were landed at Gili Gili, and work was begun on an airfield. By 22 August, about 8,500 Australians and 1,300 Americans were on site. The Japanese arrived and the 25 August – 7 September Battle of Milne Bay was underway. Morison sums up the results this way:
"...the enemy had shot his bolt; he never showed up again in these waters. The Battle for Milne Bay was a small one as World War II engagements went, but very important. Except for the initial assault on Wake Island, this was the first time that a Japanese amphibious operation had been thrown for a loss ... Furthermore, the Milne Bay affair demonstrated once again that an amphibious assault without air protection, and with an assault force inferior to that of the defenders, could not succeed."
The D'Entrecasteaux Islands lie directly off the northeast coast of the lower portion of the Papuan peninsula. The westernmost island of this group, Goodenough, had been occupied in August 1942 by 353 stranded troops from bombed Japanese landing craft. The destroyer Yayoi, sent to recover these men, was bombed and sunk on 11 September. A force of 800 Australian troops landed on 22 October on either side of the Japanese position. Beleaguered, the survivors of the Japanese garrison were evacuated by submarine on the night of 26 October. The Allies proceeded to turn the island into an air base.
Allied recapture of Buna and Gona
The Japanese drive to conquer all of New Guinea had been decisively stopped. MacArthur was determined to liberate the island as a stepping-stone to the reconquest of the Philippines. MacArthur's rollback began on 16 November. The inexperience of the US 32nd Infantry Division, just out of training camp and unschooled in jungle warfare, was nearly disastrous. Instances were noted of officers completely out of their depth, of men eating meals when they should have been on the firing line, even of cowardice. MacArthur relieved the division commander and on 30 November instructed Lieutenant General Robert L. Eichelberger, commander of the US I Corps, to go to the front personally with the charge "to remove all officers who won't fight ... if necessary, put sergeants in charge of battalions ... I want you to take Buna, or not come back alive."
The Australian 7th Division under the command of Major General George Alan Vasey, along with the revitalized US 32nd Division, restarted the Allied offensive. Gona fell to the Australians on 9 December 1942, Buna to the US 32nd on 2 January 1943, and Sanananda, located between the two larger villages, fell to the Australians on 22 January.
Operation Lilliput (18 December 1942 – June 1943) was an ongoing resupply operation ferrying troops and supplies from Milne Bay to Oro Bay, a little more than halfway between Milne Bay and the Buna–Gona area.
Battle of Wau
Wau is a village in the interior of the Papuan Peninsula, approximately 50 km southwest of Salamaua. An airfield had been built there during an area gold rush in the 1920s and 1930s. This airfield was of great value to the Australians during the fighting for northeast Papua.
Once the Japanese had decided to give up on Guadalcanal, the capture of Port Moresby loomed even larger in their strategic thinking. Taking the airfield at Wau was a crucial step in this process, and to this end, the 51st Division was transferred from Indochina and placed under Imamura's Eighth Area Army at Rabaul; one regiment arrived at Lae in early January 1943. In addition, about 5,400 survivors of the Japanese defeat at Buna-Gona were moved into the Lae-Salamaua area. Opposing these forces were the Australian 2/5th, 2/6th and 2/7th Battalions along with Lieutenant Colonel Norman Fleay's Kanga Force.
The Australians decisively turned back the Japanese assault in the ensuing 29–31 January 1943 Battle of Wau. "Within a few days, the enemy was retreating from the Wau Valley, where he had suffered a serious defeat, harassed all the way back to Mubo..." About one week later, the Japanese completed their evacuation of Guadalcanal.
Japanese drive on Wau
General Imamura and his naval counterpart at Rabaul, Admiral Jinichi Kusaka, commander Southeast Area Fleet, resolved to reinforce their ground forces at Lae for one final all-out attempt against Wau. If the transports succeeded in staying behind a weather front and were protected the whole way by fighters from the various airfields surrounding the Bismarck Sea, they might make it to Lae with an acceptable level of loss, i.e., at worst half the task force would be sunk en route. It is indicative of the extent to which Japanese ambitions had fallen at this point in the war that a 50% loss of ground troops aboard ship was considered acceptable.
Three factors conspired to create disaster for the Japanese. First, they had woefully underestimated the strength of the Allied air forces. Second, the Allies had become convinced that the Japanese were preparing a major seaborne reinforcement and so had stepped up their air searches. Most important of all, the bombers of MacArthur's air forces, under the command of Lieutenant General George C. Kenney, had been modified to enable new offensive tactics. The noses of several Douglas A-20 Havoc light bombers had been refitted with eight 50-caliber machine guns for strafing slow-moving ships. In addition, their bomb bays were filled with 500-pound bombs to be used in the newly devised practice of skip bombing.
About 6,900 troops aboard eight transports, escorted by eight destroyers, departed Rabaul at midnight 28 February under the command of Rear Admiral Masatomi Kimura. Through the afternoon of 1 March, the overcast weather held at which point everything began to go wrong for the Japanese. The weather changed direction and Kimura's slow-moving task force was spotted by an Allied scout plane. By the time the Allied bombers and PT boats finished their work on 3 March, Kimura had lost all eight transports and four of his eight destroyers.
The remaining destroyers with about 2,700 surviving troops limped back to Rabaul. According to Morison, the Japanese "...never again risked a transport larger than a small coaster or barge in waters shadowed by American planes. His contemplated offensive against Wau died a-borning."
Operation I-Go
Marshal Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto promised the emperor that he would pay back the Allies for the disaster at the Bismarck Sea with a series of massive airstrikes. For this, he ordered the air arm of Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa's Third Fleet carriers to reinforce the Eleventh Air Fleet at Rabaul. To demonstrate the seriousness of the effort to the Supreme War Council, multiple shifts of high-ranking personnel were also effected: both Yamamoto and Ozawa moved their headquarters to Rabaul; and Eighth Fleet commander Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa as well as General Imamura's chief of staff were sent to Tokyo with advice and explanations for the respective General Staffs (Admiral Tomoshige Samejima replaced Mikawa as Eighth Fleet commander).
Operation I-Go was to be carried out in two phases, one against the lower Solomons and one against Papua. The first strike, on 7 April, was against Allied shipping in the waters between Guadalcanal and Tulagi. At 177 planes, this was the largest Japanese air attack since Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto then turned his attention to New Guinea: 94 planes struck Oro Bay on 11 April; 174 planes hit Port Moresby on 12 April; and in the largest raid of all, 188 aircraft struck Milne Bay on 14 April.
I-Go demonstrated that the Japanese command was not learning the lessons of air power that the Allies were. The Allied reduction of Rabaul was only made possible by relentless air strikes that took place day after day, but Yamamoto thought the damage inflicted by a few attacks of large formations would derail Allied plans long enough for Japan to prepare a defence in depth. Also, Yamamoto accepted at face value his fliers' over-optimistic reports of damage: they reported a score of one cruiser, two destroyers and 25 transports, as well as 175 Allied planes, a figure that should certainly have aroused some skepticism. Actual Allied losses amounted to one destroyer, one oiler, one corvette, two cargo ships and approximately 25 aircraft. These meager results were not commensurate with either the resources expended or the expectations that had been promoted.
Allied strategy toward Rabaul
In order to reduce and capture the vast Japanese naval and air facilities at Rabaul, two major moves were planned for the end of June:
* Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner's Task Force 31 undertook the New Georgia campaign (Operation Toenails), the invasion of the New Georgia Islands halfway up the Solomons chain (30 June – 7 October 1943).
* Rear Admiral Daniel E. Barbey's Task Force 76 carried out two back-to-back landings. Operation Chronicle, the capture of the Trobriand Islands between Papua and the Solomons (22 – 30 June 1943), and the landing of a combined American/Australian force at Nassau Bay on the Papuan coast just south of Huon Gulf (30 June – 6 July 1943).
Eventually, the Joint Chiefs of Staff realized that a landing and siege of "Fortress Rabaul" would be far too costly and that the Allies' ultimate strategic purposes could be achieved by simply neutralizing and bypassing it. At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, the leaders of the Allied nations agreed to this change in strategy focusing on neutralizing Rabaul rather than capturing it.
From Wau to Salamaua
Despite the disaster of the Bismarck Sea, the Japanese could not give up on recapturing Wau, and they kept significant resources in the territory of Papua, on north shore of the eastern end New Guinea. The Australians were there to restrict Japanese build up there, as any base construction or build up there would threaten the southern shore of New Guinea and across the sea to the northern shores of Australia.
* Salamaua-Lae campaign (22 April – 16 Sep 1943)
* Landing at Nassau Bay
* First Battle of Mubo
* First Battle of Bobdubi
* Battle of Lababia Ridge
* Second Battle of Bobdubi
* Second Battle of Mubo
* Battle of Roosevelt Ridge
* Battle of Mount Tambu
* 'Operation Postern
* Landing at Lae
* Landing at Nadzab
* Bombing of Wewak (17–21 August 1943)
* Finisterre Range campaign (1943–1944)
* Battle of Kaiapit
* Battle of Dumpu
* Battle of John's Knoll–Trevor's Ridge
* Battle of The Pimple
* Battle of Shaggy Ridge
* Battle of Madang
* Huon Peninsula campaign (22 September 1943 – 1 March 1944)
* Battle of Scarlet Beach
* Battle of Finschhafen
* Battle of Sattelberg
* Battle of Jivevaneng
* Battle of Wareo
* Battle of Sio
* Landing at Saidor
* Bombing of Rabaul (November 1943)
* New Britain campaign (15 December 1943 – 21 August 1945)
1944–1945
* Admiralty Islands campaign (1944)
* Western New Guinea campaign (1944–1945)
* Landing at Aitape
* Landing at Hollandia
* Battle of Wakde
* Battle of Lone Tree Hill (1944)
* Battle of Morotai
* Battle of Biak
* Battle of Noemfoor
* Battle of Driniumor River
* Battle of Sansapor
* Aitape–Wewak campaign | WIKI |
User:RogelioP
Drummer With a Day Job based in New York City USA. BIO: Mild-mannered serious Broadcast Engineer by day, lose hair laid back progressive easy going outspoken metalhead all other times. | WIKI |
Thesis
Analysis of Epigenetic Markers Following Methylation Modulator Treatments in Human Cell Lines
DNA storage in the nuclei of cells is important for both compaction and the regulation of gene expression. DNA packaging is altered by chemical modifications to the tails of the histone octamer around which the DNA is wrapped, specifically histones H3 and H4. Collectively these various histone marks make up a pattern which has been termed the “histone code”. The multiple interactions between histone modifications and gene expression is not well known in diseased cells. The objective of this study is to better understand the histone modification differences between normal and cancerous cells, and the potential for manipulating this code, due to the reversible state of modifications. By comparing malignant and non-malignant cells before and after treatment with inhibitors targeting histone modification pathways, we are able to observe changes in histone post-translational modification (PTM) levels. These changes indicate it is possible to change the histone pathways to effect gene expression.
Relationships
Items | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Golden Kamuy (disambiguation)
Golden Kamuy is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Satoru Noda.
Golden Kamuy may also refer to:
* Golden Kamuy (film)
* Golden Kamuy season 1
* Golden Kamuy season 2
* Golden Kamuy season 3
* Golden Kamuy season 4
* List of Golden Kamuy chapters
* List of Golden Kamuy characters
* List of Golden Kamuy episodes | WIKI |
Eden Thottam
Eden Thottam is a 1980 Indian Malayalam film, directed by P. Chandrakumar and produced by M. Mani. The film stars Sukumari, Jayabharathi and M. G. Soman in the lead roles. The film has musical score by Shyam.
Cast
* Sukumari as Usha's mother
* Jayabharathi as Shantha
* Sankaradi as Rappai
* Sreelatha Namboothiri as Maami Chettathi
* Ambika as Usha
* KPAC Sunny as Varghese
* M. G. Soman as Thomaskutty
* Mala Aravindan as Rajappan
* T. P. Madhavan as Thomaskutty's father
Soundtrack
The music was composed by Shyam and the lyrics were written by Sathyan Anthikkad. | WIKI |
Talk:Sandaime J Soul Brothers
Merger proposal
* The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it. The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {requested article} into this talk page's article was: .Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge. — — — — —
Formal request has been received to merge: J Soul Brothers into Sandaime J Soul Brothers; dated: January 2, 2020. Proposer's Rationale: ''The [second] article is about the third generation of the group J Soul Brothers. The [first] article which is about the original J Soul Brothers is very brief, contains info about the second generation but lacks all the info about its current generation. The merge would also follow suit with the original article in the Japanese Wikipedia. Either merge Sandaime J Soul Brothers into J Soul Brothers, or delete J Soul Brothers and move all its info to the article of the third generation in the history section. I am considering both mergers because the article that was created first was Sandaime J Soul Brothers. Takacchin10_10''. Discuss below. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
* Oppose: Neutral: Although I understand the sentiment, and would agree with a merge under differing circumstances, the Sandaime article is already pushing 90K text size (that's splitting—not merging—territory) and probably shouldn't be merged with anything unless a re-write could possibly reduce its current size. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
* I think a slight rewrite along with a separate article for their discography (which takes a lot of space on this page) can reduce the size of the article just enough for this to be viable. Any thoughts on the proposal to delete the J Soul Brothers article? Ideally, I think some info of that article could be included on the history section of this one. Overall I just think it is unnecesary to have two articles of what is essentially the same group. Takacchin10_10 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
* If you could do a re-write and work it all into the "History" sub-section, I have no objection to a merge. Wouldn't want to outright delete the thing though. Striking my Oppose. Good luck. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
* Support: For the reasons I stated above I would support and proceed to merge said articles, making a re-write to the "History" section to include everything that is necessary from the second article into the main one. I also intend to make a separate page for the whole discography of the J Soul Brothers, while I do that I'll wait for some time to see if anyone opposes before I make a bold move. Thank you. Takacchin10_10 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Supportper nom. ~ HAL 333 02:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
— — — — — The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC) A copy of this template can be found here. | WIKI |
Matt Windows
Matthew Guy Newman Windows (born 5 April 1973) is a former English cricketer. He attended Clifton College in Bristol, representing the First XI for many years as well as being a double foster cup champion at rackets. He is a right-handed batsman and a slow left-arm bowler. He played First Class cricket for Gloucestershire for his entire career (1992–2006). He scored 9,103 runs including 16 Centuries.
Windows played four Youth Test matches in 1992, making his debut against Pakistan and appearing three times in the Sri Lankan visit in August/September of the same year. He won the NBC Denis Compton award in 1998. Windows' father is former Gloucestershire cricketer Anthony Windows, and his cousins once-removed are John Hampshire and Alan Hampshire. He married Emma Virjee in 2002. | WIKI |
Page:Vance--The trey o hearts.djvu/45
Rh but a minute sufficed: within its span a tongue of flame licked up, wrapped itself round the hempen cord, and ate it through. Immediately Alan kicked his feet free and crawled from the pyre.
As for his hands—Alan's hunting-knife was still in its sheath belted to the small of his back. Tearing at the belt with his hampered fingers, he contrived to shift it round within comparatively easy reach. Withdrawing and conveying the blade to his mouth, he gripped it between his teeth and severed the cords round his wrists.
Already the glare was silhouetting the trees not a hundred yards away. Before Alan could turn and run he saw the flames bridge fifty yards at a bound and set a dead pine blazing. And then he was pelting like a madman across the clearing. Presently the trail branched right and left; Alan darted to the left at a venture, and soon broke from the forest to the shore of a lake, within few hundred feet of the dam that choked its outlet—a substantial dam, well-banked and timbered, through whose spillway a heavy volume of water cascaded with a roar.
A glance showed Alan that his only way of escape was via the dam, and that there was a canoe at mid-lake bearing to the farther shore Judith Trine and the Indian. Suddenly Jacob turned his head sharply and dropped the paddle. The next instant a bullet | WIKI |
Page:Steam heating and ventilation (IA steamheatingvent00monrrich).pdf/35
steam being allowed to circulate in them. The steam mains, where necessary, are drained into the return pipes through thermostatic valves. The return mains being under suction, and having no direct connection with the steam pipes, can, a certain extent, be run independent of the usual necessity of draining by gravity, in some cases the water being lifted out of radiators placed below the return mains.
In the Union Depot at Columbus, Ohio, which is equipped with this system, the radiators in the basement are about 13 feet below the supply and return mains, which run parallel along the basement ceiling, and the return water is drawn up out of the radiators without any water-hammer or other inconvenience.
A modification of the Paul system was recently installed in a large office building in Chicago which has given decided satisfaction. Instead of the air valve on each radiator, a small tee with an aperture only 1/16 inch in diameter was screwed into the air hole of the radiator, and these connected together into a system of small air pipes running to an air pump or exhauster. This maintains a constant suction on the air holes. Although there is apparently a continual leakage of steam in this system,, it is not more than with the automatic air valves, as the latter are seldom maintained in perfect adjustment. The tees were made with a plug on the outside which could be removed for the purpose of cleaning the pin-hole by means of a wire.
Plants equipped with vacuum systems frequently operate slightly below the atmospheric pressure, and besides entirely doing away with back pressure on engines and removing the air from the system, there are many incidental advantages in the operation of plants of this character which will lead to a very extended adoption. The principal objection to vacuum systems lies in the fact that the exhausters or vacuum pumps take considerable live steam to operate them, and almost as much in moderate weather as on very cold days.
The recent development of vacuum pumps, however, has been of great value to steam-heating work. Pumps of this class are now made which will not run away when all the water is pumped out of the suction, the water end of the pump receiving only air and steam. They will run along slowly under such conditions, taking care of the water as it comes. If a pump of this description is connected to the lower point of the main return from | WIKI |
McGivney, New Brunswick
McGivney is a settlement in New Brunswick, located 14.78 km SW of Boiestown, on the Canadian National Railway line, in Stanley Parish, York County.
History
A post office was active here from 1909 to 1974, when the settlement was known as McGivney Junction. One was also located here from 1955 until 1970.
McGivney, NB is where the CN Miramichi subdivision (McGivney - Newcastle) and the CN Nashwaak subdivision (McGivney - Fredericton) met the CN Napadogan subdivision (Moncton - Edmundston). Freight and passenger trains rolled through on the Napadogan sub, while local freights went north and south on the other two subdivisions. In time, the Miramichi and Nashwaak subdivisions were abandoned, and all that remains is the Napadogan subdivision with its occasional freight trains.
No. 32 Ordnance Depot
Opened in 1942 on Highway #8 in the Village of McGivney as No. 1 Magazine Company, a detachment of No. 7 Ordnance Depot. The Depot, run by the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, consisted of 24 buildings. The Depot remained open after World War II and was renamed No. 2 Ordnance Depot, but not long after, it was changed to No. 32 Ordnance Depot. Permanent married quarters were added in the 1950s. As a result of the unification of the Canadian armed forces, the Depot was renamed No. 32 Canadian Forces Ammunition Depot in 1966, but this would be short-lived. The unification led to the consolidation of numerous military establishments. No. 32 CFAD was deemed redundant and as a result, closed in 1969.
Today some of the Depot's buildings remain, including the ammunition storage bunkers and less than half of the PMQs. The camp chapel is now a Baptist church and Sergeants’ Mess was relocated off site, for use as the South Portage Recreation Center. | WIKI |
All Apps and Add-ons
Highlighted
Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Explorer
Problem Scenario.
I am using Splunk DB Connect 3.2 with MS SQL Server as a connection
Establishing the connection and having Splunk input from the connection are working fine
The output is also working fine if I do not enable the "Upsert"
Whenever I try to enable the "Upsert" value, the job always fails.
Below are the error messages I am receiving. Request assistance.
2020-01-19 23:50:01.109 +0530 [QuartzSchedulerWorker-26] INFO com.splunk.dbx.connector.logger.AuditLogger - operation=dboutput connectionname=localmssqlconn stanzaname=Testing state=error sql='SELECT [ID],[FirstName] FROM "OfficePOCs"."dbo"."Personsv1" WHERE ID=? ; UPDATE "OfficePOCs"."dbo"."Personsv1" SET [ID]=?,[FirstName]=? WHERE ID=?' message='uniqueKey not found in mappings'
2020-01-19 23:50:01.109 +0530 [QuartzScheduler_Worker-26] ERROR org.easybatch.core.job.BatchJob - Unable to write records
java.lang.RuntimeException: uniqueKey not found in mappings
at com.splunk.dbx.service.output.OutputServiceImpl.lambda$processUpdate$2(OutputServiceImpl.java:126)
at java.util.Optional.orElseThrow(Unknown Source)
at com.splunk.dbx.service.output.OutputServiceImpl.processUpdate(OutputServiceImpl.java:126)
at com.splunk.dbx.service.output.OutputServiceImpl.output(OutputServiceImpl.java:67)
at com.splunk.dbx.server.dboutput.recordwriter.DbOutputRecordWriter.writeRecords(DbOutputRecordWriter.java:47)
at org.easybatch.core.job.BatchJob.writeBatch(BatchJob.java:203)
at org.easybatch.core.job.BatchJob.call(BatchJob.java:79)
at org.easybatch.extensions.quartz.Job.execute(Job.java:59)
at org.quartz.core.JobRunShell.run(JobRunShell.java:202)
at org.quartz.simpl.SimpleThreadPool$WorkerThread.run(SimpleThreadPool.java:573)
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Communicator
Did you map primary key in DB which you used as unique key in upsert?
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Explorer
I tried making the column "ID" as Unique and also tried Primary Key. Still I get this error. But from the tutorials and documentation there was no mention that the column we are setting as Upsert needs to be Unique or Primary. Please suggest.
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Communicator
The error is related to unique key.
Can you share $SPLUNKHOME/etc/apps/splunkappdbconnect/local/db_outputs.conf ?
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Explorer
Yes please. Below are the 3 outputs I created. But still getting error in the 3 outputs.
[localmssqloutput]
connection = localmssql
conn
customizedmappings = id:id:4,name:Name:12,Dept:Team:12
disabled = 1
interval = */1 * * * *
is
savedsearch = 0
query
earliesttime = -24h@h
query
latesttime = now
scheduled = 1
search = | makeresults \
| eval id = 7,name="Testing",Dept="Test"
table
name = "OfficePOCs"."dbo"."Office"
uiquerycatalog = OfficePOCs
uiqueryschema = dbo
uiquerytable = Office
uniquekey = id
using
upsert = 1
query_timeout = 30
[localmssqloutputwithuniqueKey]
connection = localmssql
conn
customizedmappings = ID:ID:4
disabled = 1
interval = */1 * * * *
is
savedsearch = 0
query
earliesttime = -24h@h
query
latesttime = now
scheduled = 1
search = | makeresults \
| eval ID=3,FirstName="Lokesh",LastName="V",age=25
table
name = "OfficePOCs"."dbo"."Persons"
uiquerycatalog = OfficePOCs
uiqueryschema = dbo
uiquerytable = Persons
uniquekey = ID
using
upsert = 1
query_timeout = 30
[Testing]
connection = localmssqlconn
customized
mappings = id:ID:4,name:FirstName:12
disabled = 1
interval = */1 * * * *
issavedsearch = 0
queryearliesttime = -24h@h
querylatesttime = now
scheduled = 1
search = | makeresults\
| eval id="3",name="lok",name2="lokiii",age=3
tablename = "OfficePOCs"."dbo"."Personsv1"
ui
querycatalog = OfficePOCs
ui
queryschema = dbo
ui
querytable = Personsv1
unique
key = ID
usingupsert = 1
query
timeout = 30
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Explorer
Stanza : localmssql_output
The Splunk Search Query as input is as below.
| makeresults
| eval id = 7,name="Testing",Dept="Test"
The DB Output table(MS SQL) into which I am trying to insert the data is as below
select * from dbo.OfficeV1
id int
Name varchar
Team varchar
LastUpdated datetime
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Communicator
try this
[localmssql_output]
connection = localmssql_conn
customized_mappings = id:id:4,name:Name:12,Dept:Team:12
disabled = 0
interval = /1 *
is_saved_search = 0
query_earliest_time = -24h@h
query_latest_time = now
scheduled = 1
search = | makeresults \
| eval id = 7,name="Testing",Dept="Test",table_name = "OfficePOCs"."dbo"."Office"
ui_query_catalog = OfficePOCs
ui_query_schema = dbo
ui_query_table = OfficeV1
unique_key = id
using_upsert = 1
query_timeout = 30
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Explorer
still no luck....having the same errors as above mentioned. Not sure what's wrong, the input works perfectly fine both Batch and Rising modes. Output also works fine withhout enabling "Upsert" mode. Only output is not working in "Upsert" mode.
Any thing I am missing?
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Engager
Currently experiencing the same issue on our instance, also running version 3.2 and using MS SQL.
I have an open case with Splunk support, performed some troubleshooting with a technician, but I'm still waiting to hear back from them on a possible resolution.
Perhaps this a bug with the application?
0 Karma
Highlighted
Re: Splunk DB Connect - Error after enabling "Upsert"
Loves-to-Learn
@jmolinajda have you arrived at any solution, I am still facing that issue. I have set the primary key at the DB end to be the exact same field in the splunk db_outputs.conf. I was not facing any issue in the older versions but the newer version is throwing this error. Can you help ?
0 Karma | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Depression Residential Treatment For Troubled Teens
Depression Residential Treatment For Troubled Teens
Depression is a very sad situation where people of all ages feel they have little hope or immense frustration or great sadness. And although depression can and does have a serious impact on the life of the sufferer and their family, there are a number of treatments available which can certainly help.
Experts tend to favor a combination of different treatments making use of medication, therapy and counseling. In a residential treatment center all three of these activities are available and used to assist the person with depression make some sense of their confusion. It may never be possible to remove the causes of depression but it is certainly possible to manage the situation and allow the sufferer to live a far more enjoyable and productive life.
Treatment for depression varies from patient to patient but if children are diagnosed with the condition, there will normally be a less rigorous and different treatment for the youngsters.
All residential treatment centers try to incorporate the warmth and friendly atmosphere of the patient’s home where the layout and furniture and furnishings aim to settle and help the residents.
Teens with depression will undergo a wide variety of tests each of which covers a different area such as an audio-visual test. Depression can be triggered by any one of several causes and it is so important to ascertain the mental and physical health of the patient.
In the residential center the teen will undertake speech therapy to give them better communication skills. Relating to people is vitally important and social therapy is another type of treatment. Then for future career progress the teens are given occupational therapy. The whole range of human abilities are tested and treated.
Then there are treatment options using the outdoor environment of the residential treatment center. The aim is to help the teens develop group process skills where they may be given a challenge and focus on achieving their goals working with other residents. And of course the resident patients will not remain in the training facility forever but rather return to live with their family. Therefore there are treatment programs which involve such things as traveling with their family or fellow residents. Remember the overall aim is to help the teen deal with their depression and return to the outside world cured and able to manage their condition.
It is important to understand that depression is not an exact science and nor is the treatment for depression. The condition affects people in different ways and to varying degrees. That is why there is a variety of treatment programs and why health experts recommend a combination of these therapies in order to best tackle depression.
It is possible for someone with depression to receive treatment while remaining at home but residential centers are highly recommended. The centers are set up to remind residents of their home and being in care gives each teen the chance to develop socially and gain strength in their recovery working not only with therapists but with other teens who have the same condition.
Here are additional resources you might be interested in:
Residential Treatment Counseling and Therapy
Teen Residential Treatment Program and Teen Treatment Centers
Share This Article With Others! | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Talk:Chandra Shekhar Prasad Verma
Starting an article
Starting a stub. Admantine123 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | WIKI |
Fixing failure of software upload to µController
December 5, 2019 - Reading time: ~1 minute
If uploading software from the Arduino IDE or the commandline via avrdude to a microcontroller like an Arduino or an ESP8266 fails due to missing access rights ("Permission denied"), what helps is either
sudo chmod a+rw /dev/ttyUSB0
or adding the user to the group "dialout":
sudo usermod -a -G dialout theuser
See: https://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=495039.0
Repairing the file system of Debian after hard shutdown
October 14, 2019 - Reading time: ~1 minute
Sometimes after a hard shutdown the file system of my laptop is corrupted and Debian starts in maintenance mode.
What helps is repairing the file system using the command
fsck -y /dev/sda1
See: https://serverfault.com/questions/348315/debian-system-wont-boot-due-to-corrupt-file-system | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Viktor Danov Viktor Danov - 11 months ago 47
C++ Question
Renaming a file with an en dash in the name in C++
In the project I'm working on, I work with files and I check if they exists before proceeding. Renaming or even working with files featuring that 'en dash' in the file path seems impossible.
std::string _old = "D:\\Folder\\This – by ABC.txt";
std::rename(_old.c_str(), "New.txt");
here the _old variable is interpreted as D:\Folder\This û by ABC.txt
I tried
setlocale(LC_ALL, "");
//and
setlocale(LC_ALL, "C");
//or
setlocale(LC_ALL, "en_US.UTF-8");
but none of them worked.. What should be done?
Answer Source
It really platform dependant, Unicode is headache. Depends on which compiler you use. For older ones from MS (VS2010 or older), you would need use API described in MSDN
for VS2015
std::string _old = u8"D:\\Folder\\This \xe2\x80\x93 by ABC.txt"s;
according to their docs. I can't check that one.
for mingw, gcc, etc.
std::string _old = u8"D:\\Folder\\This \xe2\x80\x93 by ABC.txt";
std::cout << _old.data();
output contains proper file name... | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
How DVR Works
Digital Video Recorder Basics
The back of the TiVo Series 2 80-hour DVR
The back of the TiVo Series 2 80-hour DVR
Photo courtesy of Amazon.com
In a nutshell, a DVR is a glorified hard drive inside a fancy box that looks nice in your entertainment center. The hard drive is connected to the outside world through a variety of jacks on the back of the box, usually the typical RCA connections that you would use to hook up, say, a cable box or a VCR.
The television signal comes into the DVR's built-in tuner through antenna, cable or satellite. If the signal comes from antenna or cable, it goes into an MPEG-2 encoder, which converts the data from analog to digital (MPEG-2, by the way, is the compression standard used to fit information onto a DVD). From the encoder, the signal is shipped off to two different places: first, to the hard drive for storage, and second, to an MPEG-2 decoder, which converts the signal back to analog and sends it to the television for viewing.
Some systems use dual tuners, allowing users to record different programs on different channels at the same time. On a few systems, you can even record two programs while watching a third pre-recorded show.
The device is driven by a customized operating system -- for instance, in the case of TiVo, the machine runs on a highly modified Linux installation. The operating system resides on the hard disk, along with the recording space, a buffer for live broadcasts, and in some cases a space for future expansion.
While the system might seem pretty ho-hum on first analysis, the digital storage of television signals opens up a whole new world of possibilities when it comes to playback and viewing.
First, a DVR is tapeless. With a VCR, the device itself is merely a recording tool; the blank cassette is the media. In a DVR, the media and tool are one and the same. This is obviously a plus if you never seem to be able to find a blank tape when it's time to record something, but it can also be a drawback. Because the media is hard-wired into the machine, adding additional storage space is not possible. There are Web sites that offer instructions on how to open a DVR and add a new hard drive, but beware -- this will definitely void your warranty. Getting more recording time is easy with a VCR -- just buy another box of blank tapes. More recording time on a DVR involves buying a new unit.
You can incorporate some DVRs into your home network, which can allow you to access your system remotely. You could set your DVR to record a specific show from halfway across the world with just a few clicks of your mouse.
Perhaps the most important benefit of DVRs is the unprecedented control over playback. With a VCR, you have to wait for a program to finish recording before you can start watching it. Since there's no tape to rewind, digital recording doesn't have this limitation. A program that started recording 10 minutes ago can be viewed at any time, even while it's still recording.
More to Explore | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
1916 United States presidential election in Nebraska
The 1916 United States presidential election in Nebraska took place on November 7, 1916, as part of the 1916 United States presidential election. Voters chose eight representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.
Nebraska was won by incumbent President Woodrow Wilson (D–Virginia), and incumbent Vice-President Thomas R. Marshall, with 55.28% of the popular vote, against former and future Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes (R–New York), running with the 26th vice president of the United States Charles W. Fairbanks, with 40.99% of the popular vote. , this is the last occasion when Keya Paha County voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate. | WIKI |
The music has stopped. We'll get paid soon, but we're not dancing.
The eviction moratorium has ended. Congress did absolutely nothing and went on a six-week vacation finger pointing the whole way.
Eviction Tsunami. Millions of families losing their homes. Families on the street. Rent can't be paid by renters, the landlords aren't getting paid and they can't pay their own bills.
Covid is back and killing people who haven't been vaccinated. I'm seeing it constantly at my job doing ER notifications. The debt ceiling hasn't been raised. Reverse repo is beyond $1 trillion, a dangerous and insane sign for Wall Street.
And we apes are about to get paid ridiculous, life-changing amounts of money. We're not happy at all. We're not dancing. We're pissed. Ticked off at this corrupt system that crushes so many lives.
The fight will not end with us getting paid. For some of us, being set for life with riches for us won't be enough. We want to change this broken world. And that is why I hold: to do what I can. They're not about to create millions of billionaires living in luxury. They're about to fund masses of Batmen and Batwomen.
**EDIT:** Couple of corrections and clarifications here:
1) **No dates. We get paid soon.** If, for example, that turns out to be January of next year, that’s still soon. And don't let any shill tell you it won't be gigantic.
2) I should’ve just left it as “covid cases are coming back up and killing people.” 0.8% of Covid deaths since May are people who have been vaccinated (source: AP News/Google). There are some breakthrough deaths and cases amongst vaccinated patients, since no vaccine is 100% protective. Covid has another problem: it gives people big hospital bills. That’s a problem. This is not a place for your Covid debates. **Regardless of what you believe, the point is Covid is still here longer than expected and is still a negative factor in the market and people’s lives.**
3) **We should strongly consider not fucking dancing at people suffering on the sidelines.** The Big Short scene nailed it. 6 miliion people or more potentially about to be kicked out of their homes is not something that should make us leap for joy. And it's a cringy bad look for anyone casually visiting the sub. I do think there is plenty of cause to celebrate the success of our DD, our theories, our community. The demise of the corrupt funds, brokers, banks, the corrupt system, is something we can celebrate and yes, dance to. A lot of us have done hard work on this. We deserve some happiness. But this moratorium, the idea of mass evictions, the direct suffering of people on the sidelines should not make us orgasmically scream "JACKED TO THE TITS" and start dancing. That leads people down the same path towards that one news story of the secret Wall Street party celebrating the recession and basking in the luxury of a bailout. Apes are better, our humanity is what sets us apart from Wall Street. We need to keep it. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Torma
Torma (Skt: Balingta, Tib: Tor-ma, Wylie: gtor ma) are sculptures made mostly of flour and butter used in tantric rituals or as offerings in Tibetan Buddhism. They may be dyed in different colors, often with white or red for the main body of the torma. They are made in specific shapes based on their purpose, usually conical in form. A very large, central shrine torma may be constructed for festivals, though typically they are small and placed directly on a shrine, on a plate, mounted on leather or held on a special base like a skull.
History
The tradition of offering cakes pre-dates Tibetan Buddhism, though traditional Indian offering cakes — called bali or balingha in Sanskrit — are flat instead of conical.
The Tibetan term comes from the root gtor-ba which means to "cast away, break up, or scatter". This implies both a sense of offering and of letting go or non-attachment.
Variations
Tormas have different uses. Some are created and placed on shrines for ceremonies or to represent deities. Others are used in feast practice and consumed by practitioners during the practice. Others are made to appease spirits, accumulate merit, or remove obstacles. They are mostly made of barley flour and butter, but traditionally other ingredients such as egg, milk, sugar, honey, and even meat may be included depending upon the purpose of the torma.
Deity tormas
Deity tormas (Wylie: rten gtor) are kept on the shrine, and represent a particular tantric deity. These tormas vary in complexity from a very simple cone painted white for peaceful deities like Tara and Avalokiteshvara, to very complex designs for semi-wrathful deities like Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara.
Food tormas
Food tormas (Wylie: skang gtor) are used in feast practices and are partially consumed by practitioners during the feast, with leftovers (Wylie: dme gtor) offered to lower beings after being blessed. In some traditions, food tormas are now made with more contemporary ingredients whereas others stay faithful to the barley flour tradition.
Offering tormas
Offering tormas may be made for and offered to deities (Wylie: sgrub gtor / mchod gtor), to Dharma Protectors, to obstructing spirits, or to other lower beings. Torma for obstructing spirits are called gektor (Wylie: gegs gtor).
Medicinal torma
A torma may be used in Tibetan medicine to extract an illness from a patient as a cure. The torma is then cast away.
Captured torma
A captured torma (Wylie: gta' gtor) may be used to speed completion of activities, by planning to offer the torma at the completion of the activity thereby encouraging successful activity.
Inner, secret and very secret torma
Practicing meditation with deity visualization is considered a form of torma offering, though no physical cake is created and then offered. Similarly, offering one's internal emotional and mental experiences and experience of suchness are non-physical forms of torma offerings. | WIKI |
Emilio Gutiérrez Caba
Emilio Gutiérrez Caba (born 26 September 1942) is a Spanish film and television actor.
Personal
Caba is the son of actors Emilio Gutiérrez Esteban and Irene Caba Alba and the brother of Irene Gutiérrez Caba and Julia, both dedicated to acting too. From his mother's side, he is the grandson of actress Irene Alba and the great-grandson of actor Pascual Alba. He is the nephew of actress Julia Caba Alba and the granduncle of actress Irene Escolar. He was born on 26 September 1942 at Valladolid's Calle Platerías while his parents were on tour, moving to Madrid three days later. He studied philosophy and began acting while at university.
Following a stage debut in 1962, he made his feature film debut in Jess Franco's El llanero (1963).
Awards
He has won two Goya Awards as Best Supporting Actor for his roles in La comunidad and El cielo abierto. | WIKI |
Commonwealth vs. Nancy Adkinson.
No. 10-P-432.
Middlesex.
May 5, 2011. -
October 5, 2011.
Present: Cypher, Brown, & Hanlon, JJ.
Due Process of Law, Competency to stand trial. Battered Woman Syndrome. Practice, Criminal, New trial, Defendant’s competency.
A Superior Court judge erred in denying the criminal defendant’s motion for a new trial, where a substantial question existed regarding the defendant’s competency to consult rationally with her lawyer in order to assist in her defense, and therefore her competency to stand trial, given the undisputed evidence of serious, violent, long-term physical and emotional abuse; substantial evidence that the defendant suffered from battered woman syndrome; and compelling evidence of the abuser’s ongoing control, to the defendant’s detriment. [583-591]
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 14 and July 25, 1996.
A motion for a new trial, filed on March 7, 2002, was heard by Thomas E. Connolly, J.
Robert S. Sinsheimer for the defendant.
Kevin J. Curtin, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Hanlon, J.
Along with her husband, the defendant was convicted of sexual abuse of her four minor sons and related drug offenses after a joint jury-waived trial in 1997. In 2002, she filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that battered woman syndrome had rendered her incompetent to stand trial, and thus she suffered a violation of her constitutional right to due process. *A judge other than the trial judge was assigned to hear the motion for a new trial. After reviewing the motion and supporting materials and conducting a three-day evidentiary hearing, the motion judge denied the motion. We reverse.
Facts. The facts found by the motion judge are substantially supported by the information and materials that were before him at the hearing; we supplement with uncontested material facts from the record in order to provide context. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Robinson, 449 Mass. 1, 5 (2007). The motion judge found that the defendant “experienced physical and emotional abuse from [her husband, Corby Adkinson,] throughout their lives together in Lowell. After nearly every one of his beatings, he would apologize and promise that he would never do that again. He would tell her how much he loved her, only to repeat later the same cycle of violence. Corby . . . was a ‘control freak,’ who wanted to know where [the defendant] was and who she was with at all times.”
The charged crimes involving the defendant’s sons, aged approximately eight to eleven, occurred between May, 1995, and November 23, 1995. Commonwealth v. Adkinson, 442 Mass. 410, 411 (2004). During that time, Corby sexually abused and raped each boy repeatedly and, according to the defendant, forced her participation as well. He constantly carried a large knife (the knife which was introduced into evidence by the prosecution at my trial), and he often used it to threaten and intimidate me.”* **** At some point in 1995, Corby apparently convinced the defendant and the children that the defendant’s ex-husband, Kenny Bock, was living under the floor boards in the attic and doing terrible things to them. He also convinced the defendant that Bock had been drugging the children. In fact, according to the defendant and her youngest son, Corby was using cocaine and administering it to her and to their children.
On November 23, 1995, Thanksgiving Day, one of the boys telephoned 911 and asked for help. The police responded; the children and the defendant were taken to Lowell General Hospital, where all four children tested positive for cocaine. The Department of Social Services (DSS) took emergency custody of all four children.
Thereafter, between Thanksgiving and December 23, 1995, according to the defendant’s affidavit and testimony at the motion hearing, Corby repeatedly instructed her on what she was to say to DSS with respect to the pending care and protection proceeding; when he thought that she disobeyed him, he beat her. On December 22, 1995, when Corby was rehearsing with the defendant what to say, he put a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her if she told anyone what had happened to their children. Afterwards, the defendant broke free and tried to escape, pushing a television out the window and then jumping through the window in a nightgown and bare feet. Eventually the police were called to the scene and the defendant was transported to a hospital. She told the hospital staff that Corby had put a knife to her throat, that he was molesting their children, and that he was drugging “us.” Several hours later, on December 23, 1995, she was transferred to the Solomon Mental Health Center (Solomon) for a psychiatric evaluation. There, she repeated the allegations of abuse that she and her children had endured.
Two days later, on Christmas Day, Corby’s lawyer, Edward J. Moloney, Sr., went to Solomon and spoke to the defendant. He told her that if she continued to talk as she had done to the Lowell police and the staff at Solomon, she would never get custody of her children back from DSS. Corby also visited the defendant at Solomon. Thereafter, the defendant told the staff that Corby was a good husband and father. On December 29, 1995, she was released from Solomon and she returned to live with Corby.
The defendant and her husband were arrested by the Lowell police and charged with the offenses against their children on January 17, 1996. The defendant was interviewed separately; after waiving her Miranda rights, she signed a detailed, four-page, typed statement disclosing sexual and drug abuse in the Adkinson family with explicit examples. She also described Corby’s extensive physical abuse of all the children and of her.
The next day, the defendant was transported to Lowell Division of the District Court Department, and Corby was among the other prisoners in the transport wagon. On the ride, he angrily warned her to “get [her] f-ing act together” and “get [her] story straight.” Attorney Douglas A. Parigian was assigned to represent the defendant at her arraignment on January 18, 1996. Corby was represented by Attorney Moloney. Thereafter, the defendant was held without bail at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Framingham (MCI Framingham), and Corby was held in the Cambridge jail.
The following day, January 19, 1996, Parigian met with his client at MCI Framingham, and spoke to her in detail. According to Parigian’s affidavit, the defendant described “a long history of physical and emotional abuse which she had suffered from her husband.” She told Parigian that “her husband limited the people she was allowed to speak with and did not allow her to have friends of her own.” She also said “she felt threatened by her husband.”
The motion judge credited Parigian’s statement in his affidavit that, based on these discussions with his client and his review of her four-page statement given to the Lowell police, he “began to explore a possible defense to the charges based on duress supported by Battered Women’s Syndrome — namely that her criminal acts against her children had been forced upon her by her battering husband” and that he so informed the defendant at their January 19, 1996, meeting.
Although the motion judge did not make any specific findings regarding what occurred between January 18, 1996, the defendant’s arraignment date, and February 22, 1996, when Parigian was replaced with another attorney, the following additional facts were adduced at the hearing and were not disputed. At some point on the District Court arraignment date, the defendant and Corby were lodged in adjacent holding cells. Parigian met with the defendant in the holding cell and began to discuss with her his recommendation that the cases be severed. Corby told Parigian that the cases would not be severed, and later that day, while they were still in the court house, he told the defendant to get a new lawyer.
Three days later, on January 21, 1996, Corby’s mother, Margaret Adkinson (Margaret), and Corby’s attorney, Moloney, visited the defendant at MCI Framingham. Margaret told the defendant she could trust Moloney, and she provided MCI Framingham, with the necessary documents that would permit the couple to correspond, contact that was usually prohibited between prisoners. Margaret also instructed the defendant to place her, Margaret’s, telephone number on the list of numbers that the defendant was permitted to call. The defendant was instructed by Margaret, and by Corby in his letters, to call Margaret daily. (Corby wrote, e.g., “I want you to call everyday,” and, “[Cjall mom everyday till sentencing”). In these conversations with the defendant, which continued until the trial date, Margaret relayed to the defendant what Corby wanted her to do. Corby sent letters almost daily to the defendant, repeating or making additional demands of her regarding specific communications she should have with various lawyers and others.
On January 30, 1996, Moloney wrote a letter to the defendant stating that he could not represent both her and Corby “[b]ecause of a possible conflict of interest”; he directed her to contact her attorney, Parigian, if she had any further questions. Corby immediately instructed the defendant to write to Moloney. Shortly thereafter, as the motion judge found, the defendant “wrote a one page letter dated February 3, 1996 to Mr. Moloney, indicating . . . that her four page statement to the Lowell Police is ‘false,’ ‘is not my statement,’ and that ‘the Lowell Police lied to me.’ ” In that letter, the defendant also told Moloney she “would like [a] Unified Defense and Coed defendants [sz'c], so [the two] lawyers can work together and so Corby and I can be together to prepare our Defense.”
About two weeks later, on February 13, 1996, Parigian again met with the defendant and discussed her desire to present a “unified defense” with her husband. According to the motion judge’s findings, the unified defense was that the “sexual allegations were the result of suggestive interviewing on the part of DSS, and/or that [the defendant’s] first husband, Kenny Boc[k], was responsible.” See Commonwealth v. Adkinson, 442 Mass. at 412-413 (defendant and codefendant pursued a “unified defense”). The defendant even provided Parigian with a copy of the decision in Perkins v. Wagner, 513 F. Supp. 904 (E.D. Pa. 1981), a case involving a request for visitation rights so that a husband and wife could prepare a coordinated defense. Parigian advised the defendant against this approach and explained that the Bruton case would likely prevent a joint trial and that her “own battered woman” defense was separate from any defense Corby might have. Within a day of this meeting, Corby orchestrated the retention of new counsel for the defendant. He contacted Attorney Albert Bielitz, arranged for him to represent the defendant in Superior Court, and arranged for payment of his fee.
Thereafter, on February 22, 2006, Parigian, unaware that Corby had arranged a change in counsel, was present at the defendant’s Superior Court arraignment, expecting to represent her. Bielitz was also present. According to the defendant, while she was waiting in the courtroom, Corby told her that he had hired Bielitz to represent her and that she should fire Parigian. Thereafter, the defendant was arraigned, and Bielitz entered an appearance on her behalf. The same day Corby wrote a letter to Bielitz stating, “We will definitely want to be tried together and we want court ordered visits as soon as possible which will include jail visits and holding cell visits before and after court. [The defendant], me, you, and Mr. Murphy must also get together at visit[s] to discuss this.” This letter was admitted in evidence at the hearing.
After the arraignment, Bielitz had “at best three or four meetings” alone with the defendant. At Corby’s request, Bielitz filed motions with the trial court renewing the request to permit written communications between the defendant and Corby and to arrange for her to be brought to the Cambridge jail for conferences with Corby, Bielitz, and Murphy to prepare a “unified defense.” The requests were allowed.
As the motion judge found, however, Bielitz was also of the belief that the two cases should be severed and tried separately, rather than presenting a joint trial with a unified defense. Yet, as Bielitz explained at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, “[E]very time I brought up anything other than [the defendant] and Corby going to trial together, Corby went crazy.”
For example, after one meeting in which Corby became particularly upset and almost violent, he wrote to Bielitz immediately afterwards, questioning his advice. On another occasion, when the parties were in court on September 19, 1996, for a motion related to obtaining expert funds, a similar event occurred. Bielitz was approached in the courthouse by the prosecutor who was handling the Commonwealth’s case. The prosecutor suggested that the Commonwealth would consider recommending a sentence of credit for time served and straight probation on a guilty plea, in exchange for the defendant’s testimony against her husband. Bielitz conveyed this offer to the defendant, while she was in lockup, and strongly urged her to consider it. When Corby was being taken out of the courthouse to be transported back to jail, having apparently either overheard or been informed about the offer, he began yelling at Bielitz, “there [are] to be no [plea] discussions.” According to Bielitz, a court officer had to push Corby away from the lawyer and into the elevator that would bring him to the transportation area. The defendant then told Bielitz that she did not want to hear anything about a plea.
Within the next few days, Corby and the defendant instituted a rule that no lawyer in the case was to meet with his client separately and that all meetings required the attendance of Corby and the defendant and the two lawyers. See Commonwealth v. Adkinson, 442 Mass. at 412 (both counsel had been instructed by their clients that no client meeting was to take place unless both clients were present). Bielitz and Murphy referred to this requirement as “Corby’s rule.” The motion judge found that the rule was written and signed by both Corby and the defendant and given to both lawyers. The motion judge found that Bielitz was thus “prohibited from speaking privately with his client and never again met privately with her right through to the delivery of the guilty verdicts by the Court.”
Shortly before trial began, at the attorneys’ request, Corby and the defendant each signed a statement to the effect that they had been advised on numerous occasions by their respective attorneys that “we should not be tried together. We have both decided we wish to present a unified defense and be tried together.” Bielitz testified that during the trial Corby was in “[tjotal control,” and the defendant just “sat there.”
During the trial itself, on the ninth day, the judge apparently became concerned about whether the defense had considered severance. Both defense lawyers affirmed that their respective clients wanted to proceed with a unified defense. Similar concerns were raised at the sentencing hearing. As the motion judge found, Bielitz sought permission from the defendant to be able to argue at sentencing how much she had been abused by her husband and constrained or coerced by him to commit the acts that formed the basis for the guilty verdicts. After a discussion at which Bielitz, Murphy, Corby, and the defendant were present, it was decided that Murphy would represent both Corby and the defendant at sentencing and that Bielitz would not address the judge at the defendant’s sentencing hearing. The trial judge questioned the defendant regarding this decision, but eventually acceded to her request to be represented by her husband’s lawyer. No mitigating factors related to the defendant’s long history of abuse were presented, and the trial judge sentenced her to from thirty-five to forty years.
Expert testimony. In support of her motion for a new trial, the defendant presented the testimony of three experts, psychologists Robert H. Joss and Carol Ball and a licensed clinical social worker, Mary Jo Haggerty. Haggerty and Dr. Joss had both met with the defendant before the trial on the underlying criminal case, and Dr. Ball conducted an evaluation two years later, in 1998, in preparation for providing psychiatric evidence in the children’s care and protection proceeding.
Dr. Joss testified that he was a “designated forensic psychologist . . . and a forensic mental health supervisor to the Department of Mental Health.” He was initially asked to evaluate the defendant on the issue of her “suggestibility” with a view to arguing that her postarrest statement to the Lowell police should be suppressed. At that time, he did not have a serious question about her competency. However, when informed of all of the circumstances of this case, including the procedural history, particularly the rule against private consultation with the lawyers, Dr. Joss came to the opinion that the defendant suffered from battered woman syndrome and that “it would have made her incompetent to make the decision to separate the trials.” He further opined that, “given the way that her husband structured things,” she would not have been able to “decide what was best for her in terms of the case and approach the case to find a solution to her own legal problem.” He also explained that the psychological testing conducted by Dr. Ball confirmed his view, in that the testing showed “evidence of anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress.”
The motion judge, with little explanation, found that Dr. Joss’s testimony was not credible and not reliable under the Daubert-Lanigan standard, despite the fact that no one had raised that issue at the hearing. In his view, “the examination for competenc[y] or incompetency is a lot more sophisticated with regards to examinations and interviews than has been exhibited by Dr. Joss.”
Mary Jo Haggerty testified that she was a licensed social worker with a master’s degree in clinical social work. She saw the defendant for counselling briefly in the fall of 1995 and also saw both Adkinsons for three sessions of couple’s counselling. The individual counselling was terminated after about a month when Corby called and told Haggerty that “[the defendant] no longer needed to be in therapy.” Corby was very controlling, very manipulative, very intimidating. He was a huge guy.” Finally, Haggerty testified that in thirty years of practice she had never seen a controlling relationship that reached the level she saw between the defendant and Corby.
Dr. Carol Ball testified that she has a Ph.D in psychology. She evaluated the defendant in 1998 at the request of her attorney for the care and protection proceeding on the issue of terminating the defendant’s parental rights. The defendant’s test results from 1998 showed that, at the time of the testing, “this woman was experiencing a severe mental disorder. The profile suggests a Bipolar Disorder, Generalized Anxiety and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. . . . [S]he shows an indication of Dependent Personality Disorder and Depressive Personality Traits. . . . The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the diagnosis of Battered Women’s Syndrome accounting for [the defendant’s] inability to protect herself and her children. . . . The pattern of violence towards [the defendant] and the children is quite clear in this case, and is substantiated by her children’s reports.”
The motion judge found that neither Ball nor Haggerty addressed the issue of competency. Although each expert testified to significant issues concerning the defendant’s competency, the judge did not consider any of the testimony in ruling on the motion, concluding, instead, that “[n]o rehable or credible expert testimony has been offered to support her claimed incompetency.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge denied the motion for a new trial in a written memorandum. He ruled that a competency hearing was not required at the time of trial because competency had never been raised as an issue before or during the trial and because the defendant demonstrated an understanding of the proceedings and an ability to consult with counsel, as evidenced by her jury waiver. The judge also rejected the defendant’s substantive claim that she was not competent to stand trial or to be sentenced.
The judge based his ruling that a competency hearing was not required on two grounds. First, he noted that the issue of the defendant’s competency was “never . . . raised by anyone” throughout the trial and pretrial proceedings and that there had been no suggestion during the three-week trial that the defendant was incompetent. Second, he reviewed the jury waiver colloquy conducted by the trial judge with the defendant and concluded that the defendant answered all of the questions in an appropriate and responsive manner. The judge reasoned that, because “[t]he standard that applies in deciding whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is the same as that which applies in determining an effective jury waiver,” citing Ciummei v. Commonwealth, 378 Mass. 504, 514 (1979), the judge’s acceptance of her jury waiver demonstrated her competency.
Further, according to the motion judge, the defendant’s predominant concern was to regain the custody of her children. The judge found that “[i]t was all or nothing, namely, she had to go to trial and hope that she received not guilty verdicts.” He continued, “Just because [her trial strategy was unsuccessful and] she lost with the fact finder does not mean that she was incompetent.”
Discussion. On appeal, the defendant argues that her rights were violated by reason of a failure to conduct a timely competency hearing before or during the trial. She also argues that the evidence demonstrated that she was incompetent to assist in her defense, because she suffered from battered woman syndrome as the result of abuse inflicted upon her by her husband, the codefendant, and that the motion judge’s conclusion to the contrary was wrong.
“It has long been the law of this Commonwealth that the ‘trial, conviction or sentencing of a person charged with a criminal offence while he is legally incompetent violates his constitutional rights of due process’ . . . , whether under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or under art. 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of this Commonwealth.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 51 52 (1978), quoting from Commonwealth v. Vailes, 360 Mass. 522, 524 (1971). “The test for competenc[y to stand trial] is uncontroversial; the accused, before and during the trial, must have ‘sufficient present ability to consult with [her] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding’ and must possess ‘a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against [her].’ ” Pike v. Guarino, 492 F.3d 61, 75 (1st Cir. 2007), cert. denied sub nom. Pike v. Bissonette, 552 U.S. 1066 (2007), quoting from Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960). Both prongs of this test must be met if a defendant is to be found competent to stand trial. See, e.g., Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. at 402; Commonwealth v. Goodreau, 442 Mass. 341, 350-351 (2004). “In those situations where there exists doubt as to whether the defendant satisfies [the Dusky] test [of competence], the judge must, on his own initiative, conduct a full hearing on the issue. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375[, 385 (1966)].” Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. at 54, quoting from Commonwealth v. Vailes, supra. “This doubt which necessitates a hearing has been more fully described as ‘a substantial question of possible doubt.’ ” Commonwealth v. Hill, supra, quoting from Rhay v. White, 385 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 1967). Failure to make an inquiry in these circumstances risks convicting an incompetent defendant; thus, omitting such an inquiry where a substantial question of possible doubt exists constitutes a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial and requires a new trial. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Robbins, 431 Mass. 442, 447 (2000); Commonwealth v. A.B., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 15 (2008).
We review the judge’s decision “to determine whether there has been a significant error of law or other abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303, 307 (1986). In the case before us, the motion judge was not the trial judge. Therefore, “deference is owed only to the motion judge’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses [at the hearing on the new trial motion]; [the appellate] court is in ‘as good a position as the motion judge to assess the trial record.’ ” Commonwealth v. Phinney, 446 Mass. 155, 158 (2006), quoting from Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169, 176 (1999). See Commonwealth v. Grace, supra. In addition, “[w]hen a new trial claim is constitutionally based, as in the instant case[], ‘this court will exercise its own judgment on the ultimate factual as well as legal conclusions.’ ” Commonwealth v. Healy, 438 Mass. 672, 678 (2003), quoting from Commonwealth v. Salvati, 420 Mass. 499, 500 (1995).
The judge’s decision that a competency hearing was not required in this case turns exclusively on the defendant’s behavior during trial. While a defendant’s demeanor at trial and in response to questioning by the judge “might be relevant to the ultimate decision as to [her competency],” decisional law has made clear that “it cannot be relied upon to dispense with a hearing on that very issue.” Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. at 386. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. at 58 (while “[w]e recognize that the defendant’s demeanor at trial and response to questioning by the judge were apparently not unusual. . . [and are] certainly relevant to a decision on the merits of the competency issue, [this] cannot be treated as dispositive of the question whether a hearing should be held on that issue”).
Similarly, the judge’s reliance on the fact that “competency to stand trial” was not an issue in the record of the trial or pretrial proceedings is misplaced, at least on the facts of this case. “Inquiry into the defendant’s claim of incompetenc[y] should not be easily foreclosed on the ground of waiver, since ‘it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently “waive” his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial.’ Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. [at 384], In his dissenting opinion in the same case, Mr. Justice Harlan said, at 388, that if there were error at the trial level on the question of the defendant’s competency] to stand trial, ‘such an error is not “waived” by failure to raise it .... Waiver is not an apposite concept where we premise a defendant so deranged that he cannot oversee his lawyers.’ ” Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. at 53-54.
Equally significant is the fact that the judge’s findings relate solely to that prong of the competency test that the defendant concedes has been established, namely, that she had a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against her. Our review cannot be so constrained; the other prong of the test requires that we determine whether the defendant could rationally consult with her attorney and assist in her defense.
In this case, the defendant’s claim rests on the “now-unremarkable proposition that battered woman [] syndrome can . . . render a criminal defendant incompetent.” Pike v. Guarino, 492 F.3d at 77. More specifically, the defendant argues that she was unable to consult with her attorney or assist in her defense. See Commonwealth v. Conaghan, 433 Mass. 105, 109 (2000) (“Evidence of battered woman syndrome is ‘material to the issue whether [the defendant] could assist her counsel in preparing a defense that served her best interests.’ McMaugh v. State, 612 A.2d 725, 732 [R.I. 1992]”).
The proper inquiry is whether, after a review of the relevant information and evidence available to the judge or to counsel both before and during the trial, there exists a “substantial question of possible doubt” as to whether the defendant was competent to stand trial. Commonwealth v. Robbins, 431 Mass. 442, 447 (2000). “The inquiry ‘is not why counsel failed to request a competency hearing or why the court failed to hold one on its own initiative, but whether, no less on hindsight than by foresight, there were elements of such indication in the situation as, if proper notice had been taken of them, could present a substantial question of possible doubt as to [the defendant’s] competency to stand trial.’ ” Commonwealth v. Companonio, 445 Mass. 39, 48 (2005), quoting from Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. at 54. See Commonwealth v. A.B., 72 Mass. App. Ct. at 14-16.
Substantial evidence was adduced in this case that the defendant was incapable of rationally assisting in her defense because of a focused and continuing pattern of abuse against her and domination over her by her husband and codefendant. The motion judge recognized what was obvious and undisputed in the record, that the defendant experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from Corby throughout their lives together. The judge also accepted, at least implicitly, that there was evidence the defendant suffered from battered woman syndrome. Each of the three experts described the defendant as a victim of battered woman syndrome, and each agreed that Corby exercised a tremendous degree of control over her. The opinions of the experts were corroborated by the defendant’s son and by both of the defendant’s attorneys, as well as the defendant’s own testimony.
In addition, truly startling evidence was presented at the hearing, and apparently credited by the judge, revealing the remarkable amount of control that Corby exercised over the defendant throughout the proceedings. Bielitz, in particular, testified about this in chilling detail. Once Corby isolated the defendant from her attorney, or at least from the opportunity to consult with him privately, he then insisted that the two proceed with a “unified defense” and prohibited any suggestion of a plea or separate trials. This “unified defense,” along with regular direct and indirect contact with the defendant, permitted Corby to maintain tight control over the defendant even though they were held in separate facilities. Contrast Pike v. Guarino, 492 F.3d at 76 (holding, inter alia, that, because the defendant and her boyfriend, the codefendant, had been held for more than a year on separate floors of the facility, their lack of physical proximity had caused his control over her to diminish).
In rejecting the testimony of the experts and the defendant’s argument, the judge’s reasoning was, essentially, circular: the defendant was able to make a decision because she made a decision. Although he concluded by saying that there was no credible or reliable evidence that the defendant lacked competency, the judge did not point to a single piece of evidence, apart from Dr. Joss’s expertise, that he disbelieved. This case is thus very different from the situation presented by Commonwealth v. Pike, 431 Mass. 212, 224-225 (2000), where the motion judge explicitly disbelieved the defendant’s testimony about her alleged abuse. Here, it appears that the judge credited all of the testimony regarding the history of violent abuse and regarding Corby Adkinson’s successful efforts to control the defendant’s defense. In the judge’s view, however, that evidence did not raise a doubt about the defendant’s competency, in part, perhaps, because his definition of competency was too narrow. In any event, we disagree with his conclusion.
We have considered and rejected another aspect of the motion judge’s decision. He placed, as does the Commonwealth, significant emphasis on the suggestion that the defendant’s goal of reunification with her children was the basis for her pursuit of the ill-advised unified defense, because a finding of not guilty was the only way she would ever regain custody of her children. In so doing the judge observed, accurately, that a defendant has a right to reject a defense suggested by her attorney and that a foolish or unsuccessful choice does not render her incompetent.
We note at the outset that the record support is thin for the finding that reunification with the children was the driving force supporting the defendant’s acquiescence in a unified defense; that finding is based almost exclusively on the fact that the defendant retracted her statement, made when she was in Solomon for a psychiatric evaluation, that Corby was abusive, after his lawyer told her on Christmas Day, 1995, that she had better stop telling the staff what was going on at home or she would never get her children back. The defendant also acknowledged on cross-examination at the hearing that she knew she would not get her children back if she was convicted. However, the record also shows that, when Bielitz testified at the motion hearing that it was “foolhardy” to go to trial, the prosecutor unsuccessfully pressed him to concede that the defendant chose trial because a not guilty verdict was the only way she could be reunited with her children and that was her paramount goal. Bielitz responded that he did not know if the defendant understood that strategy and that it was not the viewpoint he had adopted. In addition, the defendant testified at the motion hearing that she had wanted her children to be safe and “if that meant that they were in DSS custody, then that was safe to me.”
Even assuming, however, that reunification with her children was an important goal underlying the defendant’s decisions, our inquiry remains whether the evidence raises a substantial doubt as to the defendant’s ability to consult rationally with her attorney and assist her defense in achieving whatever goal she chose. The issue in a competency inquiry is not whether a defendant has made poor trial choices. See Commonwealth v. Robidoux, 450 Mass. 144, 156 (2007), quoting from Commonwealth v. Martin, 425 Mass. 718, 721 (1997) (defendant has a constitutional right to make decisions relating to his defense because “respect for individual autonomy requires that he be allowed to go to jail under his own banner if he so desires and he makes the choice ‘with eyes open’ ”). Rather, the question is whether the defendant, in making those choices, has the ability to consult rationally with counsel and assist in that defense.
We also note that, while a defendant is clearly entitled to pursue an ill-advised defense, the choice of a unified defense in this case does provide at least some additional evidence of the defendant’s incompetency. No one associated with this case believed that the defense was sound. Her own attorney called it “foolhardy,” and the motion judge apparently agreed. The defendant’s only viable defense at trial was one based on battered woman syndrome, presented in a separate trial. Yet she was prevented from choosing it by her fear of her husband and his ongoing control of her as shown by the evidence. Compare Commonwealth v. Roberio, 428 Mass. 278, 279-281 (1998), S.C., 440 Mass. 245 (2003) (failure to investigate an insanity defense constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel); Commonwealth v. A.B., 72 Mass. App. Ct. at 14 n.6 (defense based on criminal responsibility was only viable option for acquittal and failure to raise it presented troubling concerns about counsel’s performance).
On the facts of this case, where evidence of serious, violent, long-term physical and emotional abuse is undisputed; evidence that the defendant suffered from battered woman syndrome is substantial; and evidence of the abuser’s ongoing control, to the defendant’s detriment, is compelling, there is a substantial question regarding the competency of this defendant to consult rationally with her lawyer in order to assist in her defense, and therefore her competency to stand trial. Central to our analysis is the overwhelming evidence of Corby’s ongoing control throughout the proceedings, including in particular the fact that he was able to forestall the defendant’s private consultation with her attorney. See McMaugh v. State, 612 A.2d at 733 (defendant, a severely battered woman, found incompetent to stand trial where her husband and codefendant compelled her to accept his version of events, was present during every meeting with attorneys, and demanded that they be tried together, and defendant passively agreed), cited with approval in Commonwealth v. Conaghan, 433 Mass. at 111. It makes no difference whether trial counsel should have presented evidence of incompetency to the trial judge or whether the trial judge should have recognized that the unusual posture in which the case was presented raised concerns about the defendant’s competency; the motion for a new trial should have been allowed. Compare id. at 110-111. The motion judge’s ruling to the contrary was error.
The judgments are vacated, the findings are set aside, and the order denying the motion for a new trial is reversed.
So ordered.
The defendant appealed, but eventually sought and obtained a dismissal of her direct appeal. The direct appeal of her codefendant, Corby Adkinson (Corby), was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court, on the court’s own motion, and his convictions were affirmed in 2004. Commonwealth v. Adkinson, 442 Mass. 410 (2004). He later died in prison.
See Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961 (1956); Commonwealth v. Simpson, 428 Mass. 646, 649 (1999).
The trial judge had retired by the time the defendant moved for a new trial.
The submissions by the defendant with respect to the motion for a new trial included affidavits from both the defendant’s first and second trial attorneys, Douglas A. Parigian and Albert Bielitz, respectively, as well as affidavits and reports from clinicians from other, prior proceedings. The Commonwealth presented no expert testimony and called no witnesses.
In addition, Carol Ball, Ph.D., one of the defendant’s expert witnesses, evaluated the defendant in 1998 and testified at the hearing. Her report indicates that the defendant was bom to a single mother, the product of a rape by a man her mother was dating. She was placed in a State facility and then in a foster home before her mother regained custody of her when she was three years old.
The defendant first met Corby in California in 1982, when she was about twenty years old. At that time, she was divorced from her first husband, Kenny Bock, and living with their young daughter, Nicole. Early in the defendant’s relationship with Corby, she tried to end it, telling him to leave her alone. In response, Corby warned her that she would pay for rejecting him. Shortly afterwards, the defendant’s house caught fire; she was unable to
rescue her three year old daughter, who died in the flames. Authorities believed the fire had been intentionally set, but never charged anyone with the crime. The defendant suspected that Corby might have set the fire because she had rejected him.
Nevertheless, after the fire, the defendant, who was severely depressed, began to rely on Corby for support; eventually, they began living together. They moved to Florida, and in 1984 they moved to Lowell. Their first son was bom in May, 1984, and they married in September, 1984. They subsequently had three other sons. The defendant reported to Dr. Ball that Corby was physically, sexually, and verbally abusive throughout the marriage. Among other things, he raped and sodomized her when she was pregnant, injected her with dmgs, and prevented her from leaving the house unless he was with her or in a position to monitor her.
The defendant’s youngest son, now twenty years old, testified at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. “If my mom wanted to do something, it had to go through my father. Sometimes he’d give her an hour, maybe two, to go pick up groceries, get food . . . .” He described instances of horrific abuse, including one occasion when his mother tried to escape the house in the middle of the night. His father put him and his brothers in the car and went looking for her. When he found her, he pushed her into the car and, once home, began to beat her in the parents’ bedroom. “The door burst open and I saw my mom kind of stumble back . . . and she had like green and mixed with blood coming from her nose. She was a mess. She couldn’t open her left eye or one of the eyes. . . . And he steps on her feet. I’ll never forget it, and looked right at his foot and just laid into her face with his fist. And she fell back and he grabbed her, threw her up against the washer.” On another occasion, the defendant tried to intervene on her son’s behalf after his father had hit him with a baseball bat. “I walked in the door and I just got leveled. I mean right in the back. . . . [M]y mom stepped in and told him to ■ — • like what are you doing? I can’t believe you did that and tr[ied] to go after him. And he turned around and smacked her with the bat.” He did not testify in detail about the sexual abuse at the motion hearing; however, he related one incident in which his father was showing him and one of his brothers “things that he was doing to [their mother] . . . and one of the things had to do with jumper cables that he put on her nipples and was playing with her sexually.”
It has since been renamed the Department of Children and Families.
The motion judge found that the defendant was not sent to Solomon until after her arraignment in Lowell Division of the District Court Department, on January 18, 1996, but the record, including specific testimony related to the records from the hospital, reflects that she was admitted on December 23, 1995, and discharged on December 29, 1995.
Another prisoner who was in the wagon with the defendant and Corby corroborated the defendant’s account of this exchange.
Attorney Parigian stated in his affidavit that he did not know at the time that Moloney had visited his client in jail. Moloney knew that Parigian was representing the defendant because, according to Parigian’s affidavit, both attorneys had appeared on the same date at their respective clients’ arraignments. Parigian stated that Moloney did not ask his permission to visit his client and that, if Moloney had asked permission, he would have refused him permission.
Corby’s demands that the defendant call his mother every day appear in letters dated in 1997; they were admitted in evidence at the hearing. On Corby’s instruction, the defendant gave Corby’s earlier letters (two plastic trash bags containing one hundred or more letters) to his mother. See note 32, infra.
On the same date, Moloney sent a copy of the letter to Parigian and a copy of a motion he had filed seeking permission for Corby and the defendant to visit.
See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135-137 (1968) (severance is constitutionally compelled where an extrajudicial statement made by a nontestifying codefendant will be admitted and the statement implicates another defendant).
Specifically, the defendant testified that, when Corby learned that Parigian was urging her to sever her case from his, Corby told her to write to Albert Bielitz, an attorney whom Corby knew had entered a limited appearance on her behalf at her February 5 Superior Court bail reduction hearing, about a week before her meeting with Parigian on February 13. One day after the meeting with Parigian, the defendant wrote to Bielitz. In that letter, the defendant asked Bielitz to get in touch with Corby. Bielitz testified at the hearing on the motion for a new trial hearing that, when he received the defendant’s letter, he visited Corby in jail as instructed. Corby asked him to represent both him and his wife, and assured him that there would be no conflict of interest because they wanted to pursue a unified defense. Corby then retained Bielitz on behalf of the defendant, and Bielitz brought in a second attorney, one George Murphy, to represent Corby. Corby paid both attorneys. Moloney arranged for payment of the legal fees after the Adkinsons’ house was sold.
Bielitz testified that “[fjrom the moment I got the case, I considered it to be a case for a plea on behalf of [the defendant], I could not fathom going to trial together.” Bielitz stated that “virtually every single aspect of this unified defense harmed one party or the other.”
In that letter, dated June 11, 1996, Corby stated, “I am left with many reservations and doubts . . . that we are not on the same track and that we are not proceeding in a manner that I and [the defendant] had expected . . . .” Corby warned Bielitz that “[m]any things must change soon so that I and [the defendant] can proceed to gain our freedom as a unified defense and codefendants. This is a must for us.” Corby continued, “I am writing to [Murphy] who [the defendant] and I consider to be the lead lawyer in our unified defense.” Corby emphasized that “[the defendant] is not, nor am I interested in listening to any deals or plea bargains and we both are expecting to see each other soon and appear in court soon.”
Once, after the invocation of “Corby’s rule,” Bielitz went to MCI Framing-ham, to visit the defendant, but she would not come down and speak to him. The defendant testified that she did not speak to Bielitz without Corby being present because she was not “allowed to do anything else. I did what I was told to do.”
The defendant’s lawyer for the care and protection case relating to her children’s custody testified that Corby sent her a letter imposing a similar demand on her representation of the defendant in that matter.
The trial judge stated, “There has been some evidence . . . , including the statement of your client, that there well could be a potential for antagonistic defense in this particular case, as far as your client is concerned. Even some of her children . . . [testified] that your client was forced in one way or another or compelled by Mr. Murphy’s client, her husband, to do these particular acts.” The judge asked Bielitz to address whether severance had been considered and Bielitz responded that “from the day we became involved in this matter, both Mr. and Mrs. Adkinson stated they wanted a unified defense.”
Dr. Joss and Dr. Ball each obtained updated information in preparation for their testimony at the hearing on the motion for a new trial.
Dr. Joss had conducted a private consulting practice since 1994; prior to that, he had been the court psychologist in the Lynn District Court for eleven years, and before that had worked in the Salem District Court. He had been qualified as an expert in forensic psychology on “literally hundreds of occasions, in just about every Superior Court from Worcester east and Federal District Court, Springfield . . . [and in] many of the District Courts ...[,] Malden, Lynn, Gloucester, Salem, Peabody, Lawrence, Lowell, all the District Courts there.”
Dr. Joss testified, “It appeared to me that [the defendant] was significantly able to be pushed around interpersonally. The scores were in the ninety-fourth percentile.”
See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-595 (1993); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 24-26 (1994) (setting forth the factors a judge must consider in determining the reliability of proposed scientific evidence in those cases where the science has not been previously accepted as reliable in the relevant field).
Both Haggerty and the defendant testified that Corby Adkinson repeatedly telephoned the defendant during the therapy sessions, often as many as four or five times in a fifty-minute session.
Dr. Ball’s report, which was marked as an exhibit, related that she was an attending psychologist at McLean Hospital and had an appointment as a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, supervising doctoral and postdoctoral trainees in psychology.
The defendant did not specifically argue in her motion for a new trial that the failure to hold a competency hearing was error, but, as noted above, the motion judge correctly recognized that assessing the defendant’s competency in this case raised a question regarding whether a competency hearing should have been held, and the judge addressed that issue in his memorandum of decision, citing the two seminal cases on the issue, Commonwealth v. Vailes, 360 Mass. 522, 524 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 62 (1978). The defendant appeals from the judge’s conclusion that a hearing was not required.
On the motion for a new trial the defendant also argued that the evidence of battered woman syndrome established a defense of duress or coercion that should have been presented at trial. According to the defendant, she engaged her children in sexual acts and participated in giving them cocaine because she was forced to do so by the defendant, of whom she was afraid. She does not present this claim on appeal.
The judge addressed this prong only in the most conclusory way. “This Court believes and finds that at the time of trial, [the defendant] had a ‘sufficient ability to consult with her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings.’ ”
Battered woman syndrome has been defined and discussed extensively in our case law. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Pike, 431 Mass. 212, 218-222 (2000); Commonwealth v. Williams, 453 Mass. 203, 211-213 (2009); Commonwealth v. Fappiano, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 727, 730-734 (2007).
In his memorandum of decision addressing the claim of newly discovered evidence, the judge wrote that “[the defendant] and her attorneys clearly [emphasis supplied] knew that she could pursue a battered woman[] defense” as was evidenced in her discussions with “Parigian, in what she told the officers of the Lowell [p]olice [department on the night she was arrested, and in what she told the professional staff at Solomon when she was sent there for mental evaluation.” The motion judge also stated that it “was [the defendant] who made the decision not to use the battered woman[] syndrome defense.”
Bielitz provided a graphic description of that control, testifying, “She did what she was told. . . . It’s like — me having this cup of water and I put it down there; I don’t even have to tell it to stay there, it just stays there. It moves when I pick it up. I mean it was — it’s indescribable. I have never seen anything like ... it before. I’ve never seen anything like it since. And ... I don’t know how it happened.”
As noted, the contact included daily letters from Corby to the defendant; regular meetings with the defendant, the codefendant, and their attorneys to prepare for the defense; and daily telephone contact between the defendant and Corby’s mother, who further explained what Corby expected from the defendant. See note 11, supra.
The judge explained his reasoning thus: “This Court quite simply cannot and does not accept the testimony and opinions of D[r.] Joss regarding [the defendant’s] incompetency (i.e., that she was incompetent because she was unable to make a decision to seek the severance of her and Corby’s cases). D[r.] Joss’s opinion appears to rest in his belief and evidently in Attorney Bielitz’s belief that she must have been incompetent not to have asked for [the] cases [to] be severed. However, [the defendant] decided that they should be tried together . . . .”
Of course, credibility judgments are the province of the motion judge; however, to the extent that the judge here excluded Dr. Joss’s testimony on his own motion after the hearing, and without argument on the issue from either party or a substantive explanation for his decision, that ruling was an abuse of discretion. See and compare Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur, 457 Mass. 300, 326-328 (2010).
The motion judge asked: “[H]ow in God’s good name could any lawyer ever have predicted a not guilty in this case given [the defendant’s] statement to police . . . ?” (Emphasis supplied.)
Deciding as we do, we need not examine whether the trial judge was obliged to sever the trials, nor need we address the effectiveness of counsel or whether there was a breach of the duty to represent or the duty of undivided loyalty to the client. We have in mind the fact that this case was tried fifteen years ago at a time when battered woman syndrome was less commonly understood.
| CASELAW |
Miguel Casas
Miguel Casas (7 August 1920 – 6 November 2003) was a Spanish cyclist. He won the Volta a Catalunya in 1944. He also competed in the 1945 Vuelta a España, where he finished 18th overall.
Major results
* 1942
* 1st Stage 5 Volta a Catalunya
* 1944
* 1st MaillotVolta.png Overall Volta a Catalunya
* 1st Stage 4a (ITT)
* 3rd Overall Vuelta a Cantabria
* 1945
* 10th Trofeo Jaumendreu | WIKI |
bölüşmək
Etymology
From.
Verb
* 1) to share
* 2) to give part of what one has to somebody else to use or consume.
* 3) to divide and distribute.
* 4) to tell
* 1) to tell | WIKI |
User:Ay Goes
Im Kolawole David Professionally Known as Ay Jeehz, is A Music artist, Songwriter and A Musician
Born On February 9 2007(17yrs)
In Kogi Kabba
He started pursuing his music carear at the age of 13 | WIKI |
Talk:Rapid DNA
Article looks like an advertisement
The most critical information, namely "how does it work?" is missing from this article, hence it sounds like an advertisment of a company: great technology but we won't tell you why it's great. Can anybody add this? Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC) | WIKI |
Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/418
392 392 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. decided choice between the two forms ; for, as we have seen, the later mediaeval and early modern law set itself to nullify this eva- sion of the pledgee's duty by requiring him to come to court for forceclosure of the pledge, and to sell and to hand over the surplus, in spite of such a forfeiture-clause; and by calling the transaction a sale he might escape this supervision. This choice, however, was essentially a result of the later law, and will be noticed again; it throws no light on the original reasons for choice. (5) Evasion of the interest-prohibition. As this prohibition did not obtain much strength until, say, the 1200's,^ it is obvious that it could not have affected the original choice. Moreover, as it was only slightly in vogue in Germanic regions,^ and practically not at all in Scandinavia, ^ while thoroughly accepted in France, and as the sale for repurchase attained its highest development in Iceland and was least common in France, the choice of the sale for repurchase had clearly in its essence nothing to do with the canonical interest-prohibition. Finally, that prohibition in terms brought also, where it was actually enforced, the evasive sale for repurchase under its ban; so that there was little reason to prefer it as a method of evasion. There were, then, apparently, no legal effects of the one or the other form, in the beginning, which could motivate any choice for either, by debtor or by creditor. Were there, then, any other circumstances to explain that choice? 2. The descriptive phrase in a passage above quoted, '* sub spe redemtionis vendita," will perhaps best introduce us to the theory that will be here suggested. We are dealing primitively, it must be remembered, with a community in which the sale, and much more the pledge, of the family estate is all against the grain.* It is a community in which the land is often held and cul- i 1877, Darif, Le Pret ^ Interet, 129, 140 {placing the date at 1200+) ; 1891, Gold- schmidt, Handelsrechts, I, 140: "Unfounded in many respects is the oft-repeated assertion that modern commercial law only very gradually threw off the fetters of the canonical principle ; . . . not once was the Church able to enforce practically its pro- hibition of interest ; ... in the secular courts the prohibition did not come to be applied until the middle of the 14th century." Thus the opinion of Endemann (II, 339) and Neumann (186 ff.), that the interest-prohibition was the source of the resort to the sale for repurchase, seems inapplicable to earlier times. 2 Neumann, 72, 183-194; Stobbe, Priv. 270; Endemann, II, 341. ^ Amira, I, 2or, 661 ; II, 8oo. primitively prevailing against the transfer of land-property : 1891, Nouvelles Re- cherches, 78.
* See the exposition by Fustel de Coulanges of the religious and moral repugnance | WIKI |
Skip to main content Skip to search
Protocol for the MATCH study (Mindfulness and Tai Chi for cancer health): A preference-based multi-site randomized comparative effectiveness trial (CET) of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) vs. Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) for cancer survivors
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Format: Journal Article
Publication Year: 2017
Pages: 64 - 76
Source ID: shanti-sources-83821
Abstract: PURPOSE: A growing number of cancer survivors suffer high levels of distress, depression and stress, as well as sleep disturbance, pain and fatigue. Two different mind-body interventions helpful for treating these problems are Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) and Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ). However, while both interventions show efficacy compared to usual care, they have never been evaluated in the same study or directly compared. This study will be the first to incorporate innovative design features including patient choice while evaluating two interventions to treat distressed cancer survivors. It will also allow for secondary analyses of which program best targets specific symptoms in particular groups of survivors, based on preferences and baseline characteristics.METHODS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The design is a preference-based multi-site randomized comparative effectiveness trial. Participants (N=600) with a preference for either MBCR or TCQ will receive their preferred intervention; while those without a preference will be randomized into either intervention. Further, within the preference and non-preference groups, participants will be randomized into immediate intervention or wait-list control. Total mood disturbance on the Profile of mood states (POMS) post-intervention is the primary outcome. Other measures taken pre- and post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up include quality of life, psychological functioning, cancer-related symptoms and physical functioning. Exploratory analyses investigate biomarkers (cortisol, cytokines, blood pressure/Heart Rate Variability, telomere length, gene expression), which may uncover potentially important effects on key biological regulatory and antineoplastic functions. Health economic measures will determine potential savings to the health system. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
check_freenas_api
Monitoring/Nagios plugin for FreeNAS systems
check_freenas_api
Monitoring/Nagios plugin for FreeNAS systems
Overview
The check_freenas_api monitoring plugin utilizes the FreeNAS REST API for status monitoring.
It's designed to be easily extendable with new "check modes" for monitoring different parts of the system.
Use the plugin at your own risk and keep in mind that all contributions are appreciated!
Available check modes
"volume-usage":
Checks the usage percentage of all or specified volumes.
API version support: 1.0 (full)
"system-alerts":
Checks if any unhandled system alerts have been triggered.
API version support: 1.0 (full)
Installation and configuration
The plugin is written in Python and requires the following modules besides version 2.6 standard library:
• argparse
• requests
• nagiosplugin
You will also have to enable HTTPS access to your FreeNAS system if it's not already configured. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Talk:James Otis Jr.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdang2019. Peer reviewers: Macallebs.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Copyright infringement
Contrary to the edit summary used to insert the copied text, http://www.juntosociety.com grants only "permission to reprint", which is not sufficient for use on Wikipedia. Even if permission were obtained, the copied text is not appropriate for Wikipedia and would need to be entirely rewritten. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an annotated bibliography
I've removed this:
==Further reading== According to Bernard Bailyn, the dean of revolutionary war historians, the best description of Otis is found in
* Wroth and Zobel, eds, Legal Papers of Adams II, (1965) Vol. II, No. 41, Petition of Lechmere, pp. 106 – 147. It may seem surprising that the best analysis of Otis is in the Legal Papers of John Adams (no reference to Otis in the title). Wroth and Zobel’s forty page editorial commentary is more accurate and detailed than most of the Otis literature.
Perhaps the two most valuable essays on Otis after Wroth and Zobel are:
* 1) Bernard Bailyn himself: Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750-1776 (1965) Vol. I. pp 409 – 415; Vol. II. pp 546 – 552,
* 2) William Cuddihy, The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, 602-1791, (2009). William Cuddihy is the leading fourth amendment history scholar in the country.
His monumental work on the Fourth Amendment first appeared in his 1990 unpublished Ph.D. dissertation which was cited, not only by fourth amendment scholars in the last two decades, but also by Sandra Day O’Connor in Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 669, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2398, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).
There are two biographies of Otis which, although hagiographic and filled with inaccuracies, are a must read for any Otis scholar.
* William Tudor, Life of James Otis (1823).
* John Clark Ridpath, James Otis, the Pre-Revolutionist (1903) (available at Project Gutenberg)
See also:
* Jeffrey W. Purcell, “James Otis, ‘Flame of Fire’ Revolutionary Opposing the Writs of Assistance and Loyal British Subject?” in Massachusetts Legal History (1999).
* Dickerson, Oliver M. "Writs of Assistance as a Cause of the American Revolution". In Richard B. Morris, ed., The Era of the American Revolution (1939), 40–75. Argues that the writs did not play a major role in the coming of the American Revolution.
* Frese, Joseph. "James Otis and the Writs of Assistance". New England Quarterly 30 (1957): 496–508. Somewhat revises Dickerson's view by showing some public awareness of the 1761 cases, but greater influence on events after 1766.
* The Boston merchant Mungo Mackay observed the altercation in 1769 and testified about it as reported in the New-York Journal, published as The New-York Journal or, the General Advertiser, Dated 10-12-1769, Issue 1397, Page Supplement 1, New York, New York.
Unfortunately much of the Otis literature is rife with inaccuracies.
because it's unsourced opinions from random editors over the years. For information about the purpose of this optional section, you may want to read WP:FURTHERREADING. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
* I read WP:FURTHERREADING and it seems to me that it says the further reading section can contain an anotated bibliography. The sources cited look entirely scholarly to me. Which ones do you find to contain unsourced opinions? Bootboy41 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Removal of these opinions cuts the heart out of the article. As pointed out many times, James Otis was a somewhat mysterious person. Addition of further reading materials adds to our knowledge of the person, and that is what Wiki is all about. And, I don't see any "unsourced" opinions either. Block1945 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Understatements
Damn, I need to write a book. I'm one of Otis's decendents and I know a lot of family stories. The wiki page is very good, but to call him an unlikeable character and to say that he and his wife had a strained marriage are understatements.
Does anyone know how I should go about doing that, or inserting those stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
* Damn, I look forward to your book! Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Review
Great additions so far to the article. You mention that Otis was banished from Cambridge in 1743. Is there a known reason for this? At the end of the section on Patriot and Pamphleteer you mention his views on racial equality which is helpful for understandings the discourse on rights and race in the colonial period. In your citations you post the full citation multiple times, you can shorten them after this first to include only the authors last name and page as long as it relates to the same source. You write " four tracts that Otis wrote during 1764–65 reveal contradictions and even intellectual confusion" without further explanation, perhaps add an explanation to this section on how they contradicted each other.
-macallebs
RTV Feedback
The article in its current public form needs to incorporate more of the secondary resources listed under "for further reading." Given Wikipedia's explicit goal as a tertiary source, the article should draw from that wealth of existing peer-reviewed materials. Thus, this feedback incorporates changes that were made but deleted, that would substantially improve the current article—with some revisions.
The material on Otis’s family are valuable, but would better fit in the prior section on his early life. Do the secondary sources that characterize James Otis, Sr. (“a domineering and envious patriarch”) give details of either how we know this or its impact on Otis, Jr.? Ending the sentence there, but giving a second sentence of either of those details might integrate it better into the article’s focus on Otis, Jr.
The section on the Writs of Assistance should specifically focus on that controversy. I would suggest moving up the materials on his early career *either* to the Early Life section or to a new Early Career section. Reading about that early career and politics is absolutely germane, but once I get to “Writs of Assistance,” I want to read specifically about that controversy and Otis, Jr.’s role in it. Thus, if you move these to Early Life, make it chronological – Harvard comes before marriage and the like. If you do an Early Career, it works to keep his Harvard education with the early details of his career. I would also suggest a brief explanation of the Otis-Hutchinson rivalry.
For the Writs of Assistance section, start with the sentence: “Otis then represented the merchants who were challenging the legality of the "writs of assistance" before the Superior Court” revised to “In 1761, Otis, Jr. represented the merchants who challenged the legality of the “writs of assistance” before the Massachusetts Superior Court ….” Continue to refer to Bernard as “Governor Bernard” for clarity.
But I would expand the Writs section given its centrality in Otis’s biography. First, bolster the definition of the writs themselves—the existing sentence is only a start (their transferability, for example). Draw a bit of Otis’s own language in the account of his oratory. Right now, we don’t know what he argued or why his speech drew such attention. Link to his actual speech (and Adams’s notes); they’re not hard to find online. Finally, to get at Otis’s impact, see James Farrell’s New England Quarterly article on his speech and *memory*.
In the “Patriot and Pamphleteer” section, nice incorporation of T.H. Breen’s work! It’s good to see more on slavery in this article. I would suggest bringing in Bernard Bailyn here as well—still the canonical scholar on this subject. If you wanted, you could expand the “Death” section to be “Death and Legacy,” including in there a bit on historiographical debate on Otis. See Samuelson 493-495, see Breen, fn 4.
Citations: - Go ahead and consolidate citations where multiple details, cited in a single paragraph, come from the same part of a single source. - It would be great to update the partial footnotes – Samuelson, Ferguson, etc. - The New England Historical and Genealogical Register source is correct, but lists the publisher as the author. It’s published by that organization so the author can be omitted; Samuel G. Drake was the publisher.
<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Burning his papers
I'll not revert your latest insertion of text which you keep reinserting verbatim. (This leads me to suspect a copy/paste editing, which immediately makes me suspicious of the sentence's source. But we can discuss that later.) The main problems that I have are as follows: These issues need to be repaired soon, or I will be deleting that sentence again. And make sure that you are not doing a copy/paste from another source. —Dilidor (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
* Why is this fact significant? Who cares if he burned his "papers"; what does that act signify? If it has meaning, then you need to expound on it; one sentence simply is insufficient.
* What "papers"? His library? The books he wrote? His journals? Old love letters?? What?
* Your writing is bad. The tense "he would burn" is wrong; "he burned" is correct. And of course he did it before he died!
* "Why is this fact significant?" Because he is a significant historical figure and writer from the early American revolutionary period. The destruction of his papers means they are not available to historians and students as they would be for others such as John Dickinson.
* "what does that act signify?" The fact as documented by the Smithsonian is that he burned his papers. He did not leave a reason or it has been lost. Any comment on his reason would be speculation or opinion.
* "one sentence simply is insufficient" A fact can often be stated one sentence.
* "What "papers"?" His papers are his writings. It would not include his library.
* "This leads me to suspect a copy/paste editing, which immediately makes me suspicious of the sentence's source." - your baseless accusations are not appropriate and they violate WP:CIV
* "Your writing is bad." - your insults are not helpful and they violate WP:CIV. If you would like to propose alternative wording for the sentence, please do. Any changes you wish to make can be discussed here per WP:BRD
* "These issues need to be repaired soon, or I will be deleting that sentence again." You are not the final authority about what is written here. WP:CON We can discuss it and if we cannot agree, we can get a mediator through dispute resolution to find a mutually acceptable wording. I will not engage in an edit war with you. If you attempt to start one over a simple statement of fact that has a citation from a reliable source I will go to dispute resolution.
* "And make sure that you are not doing a copy/paste from another source." Your tone and accusation are hostile and violate WP:CIV
* I've asked several other people to join this discussion and help mediate it. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to adopt a hostile tone, make insulting accusations, demand changes and threaten deletions, but its not helpful. It gives the impression you want to have an argument and not a discussion, that you are more concerned with being in control than improving the article. Perhaps if more people are involved it will help alleviate this problem. This article has room for improvement and I hope to have time to work on it. // Timothy:: talk 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
* Wow! You're amazingly thorough and verbose here; what a shame you can't do the same in the article. "Before he died, he burned his papers." Why are you telling me this? What papers?? What result did this have? Why does it matter to us today? But it is a relief to know that he did so before he died instead of after! Why not take your verbosity and passion to the article and expand on this otherwise useless piece of insignificant information? —Dilidor (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
* Most impressive—you made it two sentences long, doubling your previous output! You certainly wax eloquent when challenged; pity your editing cannot compare. Nonetheless, I've fixed the remaining problems. —Dilidor (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
* User:Dilidor - Please re-read the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Saying that someone's writing is bad (even if their writing is bad) is uncivil and can be construed as a personal attack. So be polite, even if it means saying that their writing needs improvement (if it does). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
* Quite right. My apologies. Thank you for pointing it out. —Dilidor (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Possible Content Dispute
I was asked to look into a dispute about the content of this article. It isn't clear to me whether there is a content dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate it at DRN, but only after some discussion here. I don't think that it is important or useful to wonder why he burned any of his papers. The article establishes that Otis had episodes of madness. If there is a content dispute, then I would suggest that each editor make a statement about what they think should be changed in the article, or what they think should be left unchanged in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
* Hi Robert, thanks for mediating. I left off for a bit to disengage.
* I looked and Dildor's final edit of the "Burning the papers" passage is acceptable to me.
* He reverted some changes I made to the Further Reading section . I think he reverted without looking, I think I can change them back. It simply combines a duplicated reference and adds an issue number and adds a source.
* Hope you are well // Timothy:: talk 07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
* I believe that this content dispute can be considered resolved. —Dilidor (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Founding Father? Most likely, not
I was impressed by Otis's early support of patriotic causes and initially felt he deserved the title Founding Father. After further research, however, I came to accept the view that Otis's struggles with mental illness and alcoholism had negated his effectiveness and that his "tenure" in the movement was too short to warrant the recognition. While Otis's early speeches and writings were unquestionably influential, by the start of the 1770s he was no longer a contributor and in fact, he had come to be regarded as something of an embarrassment.
Based on this, I removed the title from the lead sentence in Otis's article, and I addressed the issue by adding a short second paragraph, since the tragedy of his demise id most notable aspect of his life, sadly of greater significance than what he accomplished.
I am alerting @Randy Kryn, the editor who added the title a few months ago, to let him know and to seek his feedback. Allreet (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
* I'm not an expert on Otis and his influence on the Founders and Founding, and there are some sources on the page which call him a Founder. I think you've got the presentation right for now until other editors come in to look at the sources. and could have a look (and maybe this discussion could be linked on the Founders article). Whatever is decided he would still deserve the patriot listing, which is where he's at now. Thanks for the ping . Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
* Alcoholism? "Embarrassment? This sounds a bit typical, per modern day cynicism and trendy academic opinion. Any evaluation should be based on established facts, contributions, and the extent of founding involvements. Are these allegations speculation, or backed up by primary sources? i.e.Letters and diaries from prominent and significant individuals, contemporaries, that referred to him as such, and explain why. Any secondary sources to this effect would have to be highly scrutinized, and if they so proclaim, would have to be noted as opinion if not soundly substantiated. Esp peer pressured modern day sources from afar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
* The alcoholism was just a symptom. Otis became a raving lunatic who wandered the streets and had to be forcibly removed from the city - by his contemporaries. That's not speculation. It's what happened. Sadly, some of Otis's instability can probably be traced to a beating he took from a custom-house agent he had criticized. But that's speculative. What's not is what John Adams wrote in his diary (January 1770): "“He rambles like a ship without a helm...I fear, I tremble, I mourn for the man." Allreet (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
* Okay, that's more than fair. Sources seem reliable also, esp Adams' statements. The Mental health decline section is lacking citations. Haven't dug into the sources, been busy elsewhere, but wouldn't the two sources in the lede suffice here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC) | WIKI |
Talk:Zelleromyces
Relation to Lactarius
This page will eventually have to be merged into Lactarius once taxonomists have settled the matter. Phylogenetically, Zelleromyces species are clearly Lactarius (see references in this & in Russulaceae article). Tylototriton (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
* I agree ... just waiting for formal confirmation ... Sasata (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | WIKI |
User:AlejandroK1998/sandbox
Last two paragraphs of the history section.
Shaw is a residential neighborhood dominated by 19th century Victorian row houses. The architecture of these houses, Shaw's central location, and the stability of D.C.'s housing market have transformed the neighborhood through gentrification. Gentrification beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s generated new discussions between the inhabitants of the Shaw neighborhood and the Dupont Circle Conservancy organization. Preservation advocates in the Dupont Circle neighborhood began to propose the expansion of the neighborhood. The advocates were members of the Dupont Circle Conservancy, an organization predominantly led by white people. As a response to this proposal, the 14th and U Street Coalition, which called itself the representative of African-American interests and historical identity in neighboring Shaw, began protesting that the Dupont Circle preservationists were trying to occupy their neighborhood and its history. Shaw's notable place in African American history has made the recent influx of affluent professionals controversial.[citation needed]
Discussions as such still have present day implications. Gentrification in the 2010s is transforming the neighborhood into an upscale retail hub. But the mix of upscale newcomers and very poor, long-time residents have been linked to social implications that vary from cultural to political within the community. In Shaw, wealthy newcomers and lower class, long-term residents have shown differences in tastes, preferences, and values. Gentrification has also brought about a greater spectrum of political views in Shaw. Because the population has become more diversified, an influx of differing views, ideas, and outlooks has become more prominent. The newcomers seek to renew and refresh the neighborhood. They want Shaw to prosper and surpass its racial difficulties. On the other hand, older residents cannot forget their past, since they consider their history essential for their neighborhood’s character and identity. An example can be the great amount of security installed in the neighborhood after the 1968 riots in certain establishments and public areas. These are the same areas newcomers walk around in, unaware of what happened there in the past. | WIKI |
Black Market Activities discography
This is a comprehensive discography of all releases put out by American hardcore and metal record label Black Market Activities. Since October 2004, the label has had a distribution deal with Metal Blade Records. | WIKI |
Paid Notice: Deaths KORN, AMY S.
KORN-Amy S. Passed away in a tragic accident on Saturday, March 11, 2000 at age 46. Beloved wife and best friend of Richard; adoring mother of Daniel and Melissa; cherished daughter of Miriam and Shelly Newman; loving sister of Barry and Jane Newman and Andrew and Karen Newman; dear daughter in-law of Sam and Gladys Korn. Amy was a warm and selfless individual. She had a keen sense of humor and a remarkable ability to keep things in perspective. She continues to be a source of light and inspiration to all whose lives she touched. Amy will be sorely missed but never forgotten. Services will be held at 10 AM, March 14th at Gutterman's Chapel, 8000 Jericho Tpke, Woodbury, NY. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to The National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD), 60 Cutter Mill Rd, Ste 404, Great Neck, NY 11021 or to WNYC Radio, 1 Centre St, NY, NY 10007. KORN-Amy. The Board of Trustees, Administration and Medical Staff of the Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Institute are deeply saddened by the untimely passing of Amy Korn, dear daughter of our good friends, Miriam and Sheldon Newman. Mr. Newman served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees from 1990 to 1994 and continues his longstanding relationship with our institution, serving as a Trustee. Amy Korn will be remembered for her kind and gentle ways and we extend our heartfelt sympathy to her husband, Richard, their children, her parents and the entire family. William A. Perlmuth Chairman of the Board John N. Kastanis, FACHE President and Chief Executive Officer Victor H. Frankel, M.D. President Emeritus Joseph D. Zuckerman, M.D. Surgeon-in-Chief | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Herbal Medicine
Using medicines derived from plants is a practice probably as old as humankind itself. Prehistoric peoples likely noted when consuming a particular plant part provided relief, such as willow bark "tea" lowering a fever. Sumatran clay tablets engraved forty centuries ago list plant-based remedies for common ills, as do ancient writings from Egypt and China. In nineteenth-century United States, St. John's wort and Echinacea were just two of many commonly used herbal remedies.
Many modern medicines are synthetic versions of plant-derived "natural products." A compound from a periwinkle plant, for example, served as the basis for a powerful drug that fights leukemia. Poppies provide alkaloids such as morphine that are potent painkillers.
In the U.S. today, one-third of all adults have tried herbal treatments, creating a multibillion-dollar market. The resurgence of interest in herbal medicine is largely due to the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, which expanded the definition of "dietary supplement" beyond essential nutrients to include "herbs and botanicals," thus removing them from regulation as drugs. This designation means that labels can only mention ways that the herbal product can promote health, not cure disease. For example, valerian root "promotes restful sleep," St. John's wort "may help enhance mood," and Echinacea and goldenseal "may help support the immune system." Table 1 lists some herbal products marketed as food supplements that are currently being tested for efficacy in treating specific illnesses. Many physicians and biochemists argue that active ingredients in many herbal remedies are indeed drugs, and should be regulated as such.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require food supplements to be tested for safety and efficacy in treating illness, or even that a product be consistent in concentration of the active ingredient, or the plant part from which it is derived. Two-thirds of individuals who take herbal supplements do so without consulting a physician, which can be dangerous. St. John's wort, for example, interacts with enzymes that control blood levels of many drugs, including anesthetics and drugs that transplant recipients must take. Some herbal supplements may be dangerous if taken in large
Herbal Medicine
Herbal Supplements and Conditions They Treat
Product Condition
Cannabis migraine
Echinacea respiratory infection
Garlic cardiovascular disease
Ginger root nausea and vomiting
Ginkgo biloba memory impairment
intermittent claudication
glaucoma
tinnitus
altitude sickness
Horse chestnut chronic venous insufficiency
Kava anxiety
Oregon grape psoriasis
Red clover elasticity of large arteries
Red grape juice coronary artery disease
Saw palmetto frequent urination due to enlarged prostate
Valerian root insomnia
Willow bark lower back pain
doses or by individuals with particular illnesses. For example, Ginkgo biloba has been linked to intracranial bleeds, and Ephedra to seizures, hypertension, stroke, and death.
Studies to test effects of herbal substances may be flawed or yield inconsistent results. Some reports are actually studies of studies, selected in a way that prejudices the results. Many trials are too small or not well enough controlled to yield meaningful conclusions. Consider an investigation on whether fruits of the chastetree can prevent symptoms of premenstrual syndrome. For three months, 1,634 women took two capsules a day of the extract, and reported their symptoms before and after the trial period—with no control group not receiving the drug. For St. John's wort, one large investigation found it to be just as effective as a standard antidepressant drug, yet another large study published a few months later found it to be useless.
Not all herbal remedies lack scientific backing due to the peculiarities of regulatory law or variations in experimental design. For example, people have drunk cranberry juice to ease symptoms of urinary tract infections for many years. The effect was thought to be due to increasing acidity of urine, but a 1998 study found that compounds called proanthocyanidins prevent bacterial outgrowths from adhering to the wall of the uterine tract.
It is wise to consult a physician when considering use of an herbal product. Even for a well-understood remedy such as cranberry extract, additional therapy may be required, or drug interactions a possibility. The law may not currently consider herbal ingredients to be drugs, but science indicates otherwise.
SEE ALSO Clinical Trials ; Ethnobotany ; Psychoactive Drugs ; Secondary Metabolites in Plants
Ricki Lewis
Bibliography
Attenborough, David. The Private Life of Plants. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Fleming, G. Alexander. "The FDA, Regulation, and the Risk of Stroke." The New England Journal of Medicine 343, no. 25 (21 December 2000): 1886–1887.
Shelton, Richard C., et al. "Effectiveness of St. John's Wort in Major Depression." The Journal of the American Medical Association 285, no. 15 (18 April 2001): 1978–1986.
Simpson, Beryl Brintnall, and Molly Conner Ogorzaly. Economic Botany: Plants in Our World, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2000.
Other articles you might like:
User Contributions:
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Page:A Brief History of South Dakota.djvu/22
16 to be proof that the region had been occupied by a prehistoric people. It is now known, however, that this embankment was produced by the action of wind and water.
The South Dakota mounds that were erected by Indians are of less importance than similar mounds found in some other parts of the great Mississippi valley; but they are of great interest as the oldest works of man in our state. | WIKI |
Vicki Psarias
Vicki Psarias is a filmmaker and blogger based in Leeds, Yorkshire, England. She is known as the author of the book Mumboss (2 editions in the UK) and The Working Mom in the US and Canada (published in 2020). She is also the founder and editor of Honest Mum, a parenting blog. Vicki is a filmmaker, writing and directing short films, Broken and Rifts as well as directing and producing TV documentaries and drama.
Psarias has been sourced as a subject matter expert in women's health, parenting, business, food, and fashion by The Scotsman, Huffington Post, and more.
Her MA graduation film, Rifts won awards at film festivals worldwide including the European Commissioned Euromedcafe International Short Film Competition, while her subsequent short film Broken was also very well received. Post working at Redbus (now Lionsgate UK), she wrote and directed Broken.
Since 2004, Psarias directed drama, TV documentaries, music videos, adverts, and short films. Vicki has won the Channel 4 Talent Award for Best Filmmaker in 2007 and The Square Mile Magazine Worldspreads 30 Under 30 London Talent Awards.
Publication and reception
Mumboss: The Honest Mum's Guide To Surviving and Thriving at Work and at Home (ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>) was published by Piatkus Publishing. Natasha Courtenay-Smith (author of The Million Dollar Blog) described Mumboss as ‘If ever there is a person who has shown just how successful you can be online whilst also being an amazing parent it is Vicki. Read, learn, and follow. A brilliant book from an inspirational mother.' As per Marie Claire, the book is a ‘a no-nonsense guide to navigating the transition.’
Personal life
Vicki lives with her husband, Peter Broadbent, and three children, Oliver, Alexander, and Florence who often appear on TV and online with her. | WIKI |
Page:Indian Medicinal Plants (Text Part 2).djvu/202
952
Syn. : — S. orientale, Linn. Roxb. 491.
Sans :— Tila.
Vern. :— Míthá til, krishna-til (Hind.) ; Tíl (Beng.) ; Simsim (Arab.) ; Kunjad (Pers.) ; Wal lenney, yelloocheddi, (Tam.) ; Manchinúne nuvulu (Tel.); Bárik til (Dec) Kasi, Khasa (Uriya.)
Eng : — Gingelly ; Sesame.
Habitat :— Cultivated throughout the warmer parts of India.
Erect annual herbs, l-2ft. high, pubescent or puberulous. Leaves 3-5in., variable on the same plant, upper often narrowly oblong, sub-entire, middle ovate, ovate-toothed, lower lobed or pedatisect. Petiole ½-2in. Pedicels 1/5in., solitary, rarely 2-3-nate. Flowers with a strong, unpleasant odour. Sepals ¼in., lanceolate. Corolla 1¼in., pubescent, whitish or with red, purplish or yellow marks. Capsule tetragonous, oblong, 1 by ¼in., erect, scabrid pilose, the same width, from top to bottom, usually shortly acuminate ; 2-valved half-way down, or sometimes to the base or ultimately 4-valved. Seeds brown, smooth. There is a black-seeded variety.
Uses : —In Hindu medical works, three varieties of til seeds have been described, — black, white and red. The black kind is the best suited for medicinal use. " Sesamum seeds are considered emollient, nourishing, tonic, diuretic and lactagogue. They are said to be especially serviceable in piles, by regulating the bowels and removing constipation. Sesamum seeds ground to a paste with water are given with butter in bleeding piles. Sweetmeats made of the seeds are also beneficial in this disease. A poultice made of the seeds is applied to ulcers. Both the seeds and the oil are used as demulcents in dysentery and urinary diseases in combination with other medicines of their class " (Hindu Mat. Med.) " In decoction the seed is said to be emmenagogue ; the same preparation, sweetened with sugar, is prescribed in cough ; a compound decoction with linseed is used as an aphrodisiac ; a plaster made of the ground seeds is applied to burns, scalds, &c; a lotion made from the leaves is used as a hair-wash, and is supposed to promote the growth of | WIKI |
Margherita Chabran
Margherita Chabran (born 1780?) was an Italian operatic soprano. Her last name is sometimes given as Chabrand or Chambrend, and later as Chabrand-Albani.
Chabran was a pupil of Felice Pellegrini. She passed her career largely in Naples between 1802 and 1820; a principal soprano at the Teatro dei Fiorentini until 1816, in that year she became a principal soprano at the Teatro di San Carlo, where she remained until 1818. On 24 April 1816 she sang Teti in the world premiere of Gioacchino Rossini's cantata Teti e Peleo; on 26 September that year she was the first Lisetta in his La gazzetta. | WIKI |
Machinery of government
The machinery of government (sometimes abbreviated as MoG) is the interconnected structures and processes of government, such as the functions and accountability of departments in the executive branch of government. The term is used particularly in the context of changes to established systems of public administration where different elements of machinery are created.
The phrase 'machinery of government' was thought to have been first used by author John Stuart Mill in Considerations on Representative Government (1861). It was notably used to a public audience by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a radio broadcast in 1934, commenting on the role of the National Recovery Administration (NRA) in delivering the New Deal. A number of national governments, including those of Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, have adopted the term in official usage.
Australia
In Australia, the terms 'machinery of government changes' and 'administrative re-arrangements' are interchangeable and are used to refer to the changes to the structure of government and the allocation of government functions between departments and ministers.
Machinery of government changes may occur at any time, however the most significant changes generally occur immediately following an election. There is usually very little consultation or discussion prior to machinery of government changes in Australia, especially those following elections.
The Commonwealth Government and some state and territory governments use Administrative Arrangements Orders (also called AAOs) as legal instruments as a primary method to make machinery of government changes.
Australian Government Administrative Arrangements Orders
At the Commonwealth Government level, Administrative Arrangements Orders (AAOs) are made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister formally allocating executive responsibility among ministers. AAOs establish Departments of State under the Constitution, including the principal matters and legislation dealt with by each department and its minister(s). The AAO is generally only updated when functions move between departments, ordering machinery of government changes. Since 1901, there have been over 170 AAOs ordered by the Governor-General. Only one AAO remains active at any one time; when a new AAO is made, all previous AAOs are revoked. Administrative Arrangement Orders are generally published in the Commonwealth Gazette.
Administrative Arrangements Orders are seen by some academics as a central platform of good government management as the orders set the basic structure of cabinet, ministerial responsibilities, portfolios, and departments.
Implementation costs
When an Administrative Arrangements Order orders departments to be split, cut, or combined, the costs involved in public service machinery of government may include:
* renaming departments, redesigning websites, and changing signs;
* transferring staff, furniture, equipment, leases, and files between departments;
* transferring or merging IT services; and
* cutting staff, particularly in senior ranks. Total costs associated with issuing new Administrative Arrangements Orders are unknown, as the costs involved with machinery of government changes are not collated or reported, but in November 2013, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection told a Senate estimates hearing that the cost of the department's name change was cheap at 'only' an estimated $195,000.
Australian Capital Territory
According to KPMG, in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the Chief Minister of the ACT is given full power to allocate executive power to ministers and to establish government 'administrative units'.
New South Wales
According to KPMG, in New South Wales (NSW) government structure is established under section 104 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002. The Act gives the Governor of New South Wales the power to create, rename or abolish any NSW Government department through the issue of an executive order, acting on the advice of the elected government.
Northern Territory
In the Northern Territory (NT), according to KPMG, the Administrator of the Northern Territory determines government structural arrangements, acting on the advice of the government of the day.
Queensland
In Queensland (Qld), the Premier has sole responsibility for determining ministerial portfolios. On the Premier's advice, the Governor of Queensland sets out the responsibilities of ministers and their portfolios in AAOs. AAOs are re-issued or amended when government structural changes take place.
The biggest machinery of government changes in Queensland's history were in December 1989, under the Labor Government headed by Wayne Goss. Machinery of government changes made in March 2009 were also significant, collapsing 23 stand-alone government departments into 13.
South Australia
According to KPMG, in South Australia the Governor may establish, alter and abolish government departments under powers provided in section 26 of the Public Service Act 2009.
Tasmania
In Tasmania, administrative arrangements are set out in Administrative Arrangements Orders The orders cover which Minister is responsible for the administration of legislation.
Victoria
In Victoria (Vic), government structure is set by an Order in Council made under section 10 of the Public Administration Act 2004. The Act gives the Governor of Victoria the power to create departments and allocate functions. Staff and work units can also be transferred between departments by declaration of the relevant Minister.
Western Australia
According to KPMG, under section 35(1) of the Western Australian Public Sector Management Act 1994, the Governor of Western Australia may establish, amalgamate or abolish government departments on the recommendation of the Public Service Commissioner. Section 35(4) of the same Act provides that the Minister responsible for public service matters may direct the Public Service Commissioner to make recommendations the Governor and the Commissioner must comply with that recommendation. | WIKI |
Talk:The Swing (Renoir)
The Swing (Pierre-Auguste Renoir)http://www.musee-orsay.fr Divya M Padmanabhan (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)17:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"Pink Dress and Hat"
Why is the model described as wearing a pink dress and a hat? She is clearly bare-headed, and her dress is white with blue bows down the front. What's more, the citation listed for this statement is referring to one of Renoir's other works, La Promenade. Yet Another Dragon (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
* I have re-written the description, but without sight of the existing source "Pierre-Auguste Renoir: La Promenade by John House, Auguste Renoir, ISBN 0-8923-6365-7". Does he really say the dress is pink? If it is pink, we'd need a much better image. I am undecided about the hat, it may be a small hat or just flowers/ bows? Is this a wrong source? A page number and/or a quote, would be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) | WIKI |
Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities. See how.
MessageBuilder
public final class MessageBuilder extends IndexableBuilder<MessageBuilder>
Builder to construct an Indexable for a message.
For reference, see: //schema.org/Message.
Public Method Summary
MessageBuilder
setDateRead(Date dateRead)
Sets the date on which the message was read.
MessageBuilder
setDateReceived(Date dateReceived)
Sets the date on which the message was received.
MessageBuilder
setDateSent(Date dateSent)
Sets the date on which the message was sent.
MessageBuilder
setMessageAttachment(IndexableBuilder...<?> attachments)
Sets the attachments of the message.
MessageBuilder
setRecipient(PersonBuilder... recipients)
Sets the recipients of the message.
MessageBuilder
setSender(PersonBuilder sender)
Sets the sender of the message.
MessageBuilder
setText(String text)
Sets the textual content of the message.
Inherited Method Summary
Public Methods
public MessageBuilder setDateRead (Date dateRead)
Sets the date on which the message was read.
Parameters
dateRead The date on which the message was read.
public MessageBuilder setDateReceived (Date dateReceived)
Sets the date on which the message was received.
Parameters
dateReceived The date on which the message was received.
public MessageBuilder setDateSent (Date dateSent)
Sets the date on which the message was sent.
Parameters
dateSent The date on which the message was sent.
public MessageBuilder setMessageAttachment (IndexableBuilder...<?> attachments)
Sets the attachments of the message.
Parameters
attachments The attachments of the message.
public MessageBuilder setRecipient (PersonBuilder... recipients)
Sets the recipients of the message.
Parameters
recipients The recipients of the message.
public MessageBuilder setSender (PersonBuilder sender)
Sets the sender of the message.
Parameters
sender The sender of the message.
public MessageBuilder setText (String text)
Sets the textual content of the message.
Parameters
text The textual content of the message. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
User:P.Kumar1988
Praveen Kumar (born on 11 Feb 1988) is an Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) Manager. He was born in Etah, Uttar Pradesh, India, where he completed schooling in GBIC Etah. He went on to complete an advanced Diploma in computer application (DCA) and further Bachelor's degrees in computer application (BCA) in 2007-10. He earned his Master of business administration (MBA) in 2010-12 from Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University. He has more than 6 years work experience in Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Field.
Early life and Family
Praveen Kumar was born in Etah, Uttar Pradesh, India to Mr. Satyavir Singh and Mrs. Nirmala. He is the youngest boy among all the members.
Career
Praveen joined Careers360, a leading educational portal in India, as a Sr. SEO Executive in 2013 where he worked on keyword reasearch, SMO, technical SEO, analytics and webmaster. He was promoted to a Manager- SEO in 2016. Previously he had worked with Extendcode Software Systems (Gurgoan) in 2011 and Truknox Technology (Delhi) in 2010.
Cricket
Praveen Kumar is a member of the Haryana Handicapped Cricket Team, which recently won the National Handicapped Cricket Tournament held in Jodhpur on February 25, 2017.
Social Work
He is President of Haribaba Divyank Vikas Sansthan, Sambhal Dist (Reg No 1204) which is an NGO that runs a residential school for physically handicapped students.
Contribution in Wikipedia
Praveen Kumar has various contribution in Wikipedia. | WIKI |
What is BAN2401?
BAN2401 is an experimental drug that may offer hope for people living with dementia. Early research shows that the antibody may improve cognition, decrease symptoms and slow down the progress of early Alzheimer's disease.
Alzheimer's disease is still incurable, so any medication that can slow the progression of the condition offers hope for those affected by this debilitating disease. A new experimental drug has shown promise in early research. People using the medication showed better thought and understanding and exhibited fewer signs of Alzheimer's.
BAN2401 dementia medication
What is BAN2401?
BAN2401 is an antibody that targets the abnormal proteins that are found in the brains of people affected by Alzheimer's. After 18 months, the drug slowed down the mental decline by as much as 30 percent, when given at the highest trial dosage. Dr David Reynolds, the Chief Scientific Officer of Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: 'These are encouraging findings and suggest that the anti-amyloid drug BAN2401 may be able to effectively tackle Alzheimer’s disease-processes and, crucially, make a meaningful difference to the symptoms of people with the disease.'
Amyloid and dementia
Amyloid is an abnormal protein that builds up in the brains of people with dementia. These deposits interrupt healthy cell connections and, with time, the brain cells die. Some experts believe that getting rid of amyloid should reduce memory loss and the other cognitive problems of dementia. A number of experimental drugs have been tried in the past, but research has been abandoned because of poor results or unacceptable side-effects.
So far, the research into BAN2401 looks much more hopeful. The studies have shown that the antibody reduces the formation of new amyloid patches and also significantly reduces existing deposits.
Maria Carrillo, chief science officer for the Alzheimer's Association has said that: 'The amyloid hypothesis remains an important therapeutic target to pursue in Alzheimer's disease.'
How's your brain health?
We're fighting the progress of dementia with our new brain health programme. Our goal is to reverse the symptoms of cognitive decline through lifestyle-based changes.
Learn how to improve your brain health today.
The effectiveness of BAN2401
The medication does not reverse brain cell death but could prevent further damage in people diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Dr Lynn Kramer, the chief clinical and medical officer for Eisai, one of the pharmaceutical companies presenting the research, said that the medication was used in people in the early stages of the disease:
'These were people with very mild impairments, some confusion, forgetting someone's name on occasion. That's the goal: to stop Alzheimer's disease when it's in the mildest presentation.'
With cognitive improvements assessed as between 26% and 30% the initial indications are that BAN2401 may make a positive difference.
Find a carer
We're here to help. Call us if you have any questions.
020 3797 0086
Is BAN2401 safe?
The research is at an early stage and David Reynolds from Alzheimer's Research UK said: 'As with any experimental drug, the researchers are working to evaluate its safety as well as how effective it is.'
The drug was given intravenously twice a month. In general, during the study it was shown to be safe and well tolerated. People experienced only minimal side effects which tended to resolve once the drug was stopped.
When will BAN2401 be available?
Research into BAN2401 is at an early stage, so although it’s a potentially exciting step on the long road to beating Alzheimer's, there's a long way to go. Keith Fargo, director of scientific programs at the Alzheimer's Association, cautioned that it could be many years before the drug is available for general prescription, saying: 'You are not going to be able to go to the doctor and get this anytime soon.'
BAN2401 will now go through an extensive clinical trial. Thousands of people at different centres will be given the drug, so that we can be sure that it is safe and effective. In the meantime, Dr David Reynolds is cautiously positive, saying:
'We are optimistic about these new findings and, along with the countless families who have felt the effects of Alzheimer’s, await to hear what the next steps will be following this promising announcement.'
hometouch care guide | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
S. Kulsri and M. Jaroensutasinee and K. Jaroensutasinee Simulation of Water Droplet on Horizontally Smooth and Rough Surfaces Using QuasiMolecular Modelling 593 - 597 2008 2 8 International Journal of Physical and Mathematical Sciences https://publications.waset.org/pdf/1393 https://publications.waset.org/vol/20 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology We developed a method based on quasimolecular modelling to simulate the fall of water drops on horizontally smooth and rough surfaces. Each quasimolecule was a group of particles that interacted in a fashion entirely analogous to classical Newtonian molecular interactions. When a falling water droplet was simulated at low impact velocity on both smooth and rough surfaces, the droplets moved periodically (i.e. the droplets moved up and down for a certain period, finally they stopped moving and reached a steady state), spreading and recoiling without splash or breakup. Spreading rates of falling water droplets increased rapidly as time increased until the spreading rate reached its steady state at time t 0.25 s for rough surface and t 0.40 s for smooth surface. The droplet height above both surfaces decreased as time increased, remained constant after the droplet diameter attained a maximum value and reached its steady state at time t 0.4 s. However, rough surface had higher spreading rates of falling water droplets and lower height on the surface than smooth one. Open Science Index 20, 2008 | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Fixing a Laptop Adapter
3,917
31
5
The modern laptop power supply is a marvel of modern engineering. Switching power supplies have been around since decent power transistors began to appear in the late 1950's but comparing those with what we have today is like comparing a Model T to a modern car. This power supply is actually a DC to DC converter, where the 120-volt AC line voltage is rectified to 170 volts DC, it is then chopped at hundreds of kilohertz and passed through a high-frequency transformer, where it is again transformed to a lower voltage AC and then again rectified to DC. This is done at over 90 percent efficiency. The major breakthrough that allowed such high efficiencies to be achieved was the development of solid state devices with incredibly high switching speed. The waste heat and hence inefficiency of a switching circuit is mostly produced during the time that the solid-state device is switching from on to off and vice-versa. As the transition time of the device is lowered, the waste heat goes down also. This is a long way from a linear power supply where 30 percent efficiency is considered to be good efficiency.
You will need the following to do this instructable:
1) Soldering gun, solder and solder sucker
2) Long-nose pliers and flat blade screwdriver
3) Multimeter and oscilloscope
4) Glue that will glue plastic parts together.
5) Two 680 microfarad, 25 volt electrolytic capacitors. Preferably the type that has the leads coming out of one end.
( Values of capacitance down to 470 microfarad would work OK, but keep the voltage rating.)
Step 1: Check the Output Waveform and Schematic Diagram
Looking at the output waveform as shown here, it can be seen that there are only approximately 10 volts of DC with spikes every 22 milliseconds riding on top. The output is supposed to be at least 19 volts with millivolts of AC component riding on the DC. Experience tells me that the solid state components are very robust in these circuits, the weakest link is the electrolytic capacitors which can go at any time.
Step 2: Dismantle the Adapter
Wait a few minutes for the input capacitor to discharge and take the adapter apart and gently pry up the circuit board from the inside of the bottom case. Make note of where all the main parts are as shown in the above diagram.
Step 3: Remove the Two Output Capacitors and Solder in the New Ones
The two output electrolytic capacitors are on the far right of the board as shown in the picture, unsolder them from the board and use the solder sucker to remove the old solder. Make note of the polarity of the old ones before you take them out and put the new ones in the same way. The negative side goes toward the heat sink as viewed from the top. Take the new capacitors and solder them in with the soldering gun taking care not to hold the soldering gun tip on the board for any more time than is necessary (about 10 seconds).
Step 4: Reassembly and Testing
Before you put everything together, check and recheck your work. Double check the input wires from the line cord where they connect to the board. Check the output wires where they connect to the board. Once you are satisfied that everything is OK, plug in the charger and look at the output. It should look like the above picture, with a smooth DC level at about 19 volts with no noticeable AC component. Note: I have taken both the before and after oscilloscope readings in "AC mode". After you are satisfied with your work, reassemble the board in the box and re-glue everything together.
Step 5: Conclusion
Once I had taken the output electrolytic capacitors out of the circuit, I could see that one of the capacitors had physically burst at the bottom. This is caused by the buildup of gasses within the electrolytic eventually causing it to burst rather than exploding. Kind of like a safety valve.
I tested the value of both capacitors and the values were down to around 10 percent of their rated value. This would keep them from properly filtering out the switching transients (spikes) produced by the chopping action of the switching transistor and the subsequent collapsing of the magnetic field of the high-frequency transformer. There are other factors that come into play when an electrolytic capacitor ages, such as ESR (equivalent series resistance) but I will not get into that here.
Share
Recommendations
• Arduino Contest 2019
Arduino Contest 2019
• Classroom Science Contest
Classroom Science Contest
• Gardening Contest
Gardening Contest
5 Discussions
0
None
MerabiS
Question 8 months ago on Step 5
During the charging AC adapter strongly heated! what is the reason... and how to fix it? At the beginning I checked all capacitors...so, input capacitor
100uf 420v turned out to be unusable... I soldered on the board new one. But replacement of the input capacitor didn't solve this problem, the adapter also heats up again.
1 answer
0
None
Franks InstructablesMerabiS
Answer 8 months ago
You don't give me much information to work on, but first make sure the adapter has a high enough capacity for the load. These adapters can run fairly warm without any problems but if it is running extremely hot I would check all the components in the output of the circuit starting with the capacitors and working back. check the output voltage and waveform. If the output waveform is just DC with no spikes and is the proper voltage range under load, your output components are probably OK. If the transformer is getting really hot very quickly, it could have some shorted turns. Unless you have exactly the same high-frequency transformer, the adapter is not worth repairing.
0
None
Saltidae
1 year ago
Thanks for the hints. I've replaced blown caps in power supplies before, but not for a 'brick' laptop adapter. I have a couple taken apart, and was about to give up on them. I'll give the repairs another shot. Tracing and repairing broken leads has worked in the past, but knowing which component is shot stumps me. With hard to access caps, I've sometimes destroyed the blown capacitor, left the leads in the board then soldered to the stumps.
0
None
EToft
1 year ago
Excellent instructables. Not only shows the fix, but explains how the device is working wrong, how it should work, and your diagnosis rationale. NICE!
0
None
frarugi87
1 year ago
I'd point out that teh capacitors are "bulky", which means they are gone (the top side must be flat for the capacitor to be ok).
Moreover when dealing with this kind of equipment I have the habit to pass a screwdriver on the contacts (particularly the ones of the input capacitors) before approaching with my hand, in order to completely discharge them. And a lot of times you can see sparks.... | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
User:AnarchistPossum/sandbox
= Testing sandbox mode on Wikipedia. = Testing the testing testpage by testing the testfeature in wikipedia. If this text is readable, i got it right so far.E
Piss kink
So far so good, i have a heading under the page title. Nice.
Subheading
It looks like the markup features are quite advanced on wikipedia. This will surely come in use some day, i hope. as for now, im trying this typewriter-like feature. not sure what i should use it for but it sure looks neat.
What now?
Well, to be fairly honest, i wish i knew. I am messing around at the moment since this is a sandbox anyway, but who knows i might put some serious effort into this site some time. I will be trying out some new features, like quoting what i told to myself 6 hours ago:
"I will go to bed at 12, i need to get up tomorrow."
...And i wish i did, but it's now 2:10am, and i already regret it in advance.
Endnote
You will never find out how the night went for me unless i edit this article after 24/06/2021 2:12am GMT+2.
Find yourself a cute cat gif here. Or don't, your loss. I'm of to bed, see you later internet stranger. | WIKI |
School budget surplus can damage trust - Editorial | Newsday
Opinion Updated April 1, 2014 7:09 PM By THE EDITORIAL BOARD advertisement | advertise on newsday Spending appropriately is an essential part of keeping the public's trust for any governmental organization. Judged by that standard, the Central Islip school board has failed its residents over the past five years. The board committed a double whammy of sins -- it underestimated revenue, and it overestimated how much it would spend. That resulted in combined surpluses of $25 million. Usually, a surplus is good news, except that Central Islip exceeded the legal limit on school district surpluses over the past three years. Worse, it increased its tax levy by $6.6 million, or 9 percent, during that time. In other words, it asked taxpayers for more money while it was not spending surplus funds it could have used to keep taxes down. That's never a good practice, but it's especially bad during difficult economic times. Central Islip even laid off teachers, increased class sizes and, for three years, switched from full-day kindergarten to half-day. advertisement | advertise on newsday The finding last week by the state comptroller's office is distressingly familiar. Since July, Thomas DiNapoli's staff has found similar budgeting practices resulting in excessive surpluses in at least five other school districts -- Floral Park-Bellerose, Quogue, Mount Sinai, Mattituck-Cutchogue and Wainscott -- as well as the Middle Island Fire District. Having no clear plans to spend surpluses can lead to suspicion the money is being stashed for some other purpose. Central Islip's explanation -- it was preparing to cover a potential liability involving building aid rescinded by the state Education Department -- was rejected for legal reasons by the comptroller and in any event would be required for only slightly more than half of the $25 million. School districts complain they are criticized if their reserves are too low and if they are too high. But state law setting these limits is meant to protect taxpayers. Simply put: If a district socks away too much money, in one way or another it should give it back. Go inside New York politics. Newsday.com now uses Facebook for our comment boards. Please read our guidelines and connect your Facebook account to comment. Copyright var year = new Date(); document.write(year.getFullYear()); Newsday. All rights reserved. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/578
558 almost exclusively occupied by such a number of students of every rank and almost every age, arranged in such beautiful order, their countenances bespeaking a deep sense of the act they were about to perform in receiving into their bosoms their Divine Lord and Saviour, and to hear, at the same time, the solemn strains of music which filled the place with pious harmony, was certainly enough to fill a far less sensitive breast with holy enthusiasm. The moment of Communion arrived. It was a moment in which I felt the holiness and sublimity of my religion with a peculiar force. Fifteen hundred young men and boys approached the table of their Divine Master with a modesty and a fervor most marked and sincere, and, it is to be supposed, with a corresponding purity of mind and heart, all of them in the heyday of life, and most of that age, and in those exterior circumstances, which lead the youth, particularly of Protestant colleges, to the most dangerous vices. This, assuredly, I thought was a triumphant evidence of the superior moral influence of the Catholic religion. Call it Jesuitism, call it priestcraft, call it what you please, no candid mind contemplating such a spectacle can deny that as edifying a one has never been, and never will be, presented by the same number, nor one tenth of the number, of Protestant youth in any part of the world."
Besides these two principal means employed for the religious and moral training of youth, there are others which are used with the most salutary results. Among them are certain devotions recommended to, and en- | WIKI |
United Natural Foods
United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) is a Providence, Rhode Island–based natural and organic food company. The largest publicly traded wholesale distributor of health and specialty food in the United States and Canada, it is Whole Foods Market's main supplier, with their traffic making up over a third of its revenue in 2018.
History
UNFI was founded in 1996 by the merger of two regional distributors, Mountain People's Warehouse (founded in 1976, serving the Western U.S.) and Cornucopia Natural Foods (founded in 1977, serving the Eastern U.S.), forming the first natural products distributorship with national scope. Since 1996, other regional distributors have merged with UNFI, filling in the distribution footprint and making UNFI the largest distributor of natural products.
In 2007, UNFI acquired Millbrook Distribution Services. In 2011, UNFI signed a distribution agreement with Safeway Inc. for the distribution of non-proprietary natural, organic and specialty products. This agreement was terminated by Safeway in July, 2015, leading to a drop in share price and two rounds of layoffs, the first in the company's history.
In 2012, UNFI partnered with Buyer's Best Friend to create a unified reordering system. In 2016, the company announced the acquisition of Nor-Cal produce, Inc. It also completed the acquisition of Haddon House Food Products, Inc. in 2016. That same year, it announced the acquisition of Gourmet Guru, Inc. On October 22, 2018, UNFI completed the acquisition of SuperValu, Inc.
Divisions
* UNFI Canada
* Alberts Fresh Produce
* Tony's Fine Foods
* Nor-Cal Produce
* UNFI Wellness
* Woodstock Farms
* UNFI Brands+
* Honest Green eSolutions
* UNFI Easy Options
Brands
* Essential Everyday
* Cub
* Woodstock
* Wild Harvest
* Equaline
* Tumaro's Carb Wise Wraps
* Field Day
* Shoppers Value
* Asian Gourmet
* Culinary Circle
* Stone Ridge Creamery
* Mt Vikos
* Super Chill
* Arctic Shores
* Springfield
* Koyo | WIKI |
User:NeshanSarkisian
I am a 21 year old male residing in Los Angeles, CA.
At the age of 19 I graduated with my Bachelors of Science in Biology.
I plan to pursue a graduate level degree in Theraphosid (tarantula) predatory behavior within the year, located either in the states, or in Brazil.
I currently have a collection of 50+ tarantulas (over 30 species), and several other Mygalomorphs.
I also collect scorpions, both native to California, and from around the world. | WIKI |
Talk:Broadband mapping in the United States
Floated article Sep 28 2010
Think this is an important topic since what happens with broadband will affect lots of people including us Wikipedians, like how fast our pages load and whether Wikipedia can keep doing those animation files. There are cool diagrams of Broadband maps but not always public domain images and such. Perhaps may need more categories at bottom. And wondering what external links to pick.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Added some background July 30, 2011
Added some legislative background. This article could use some major revisions. The section about "Lack of mapping standards", is no longer accurate as there is a National Broadband Map and there are standards. BroadbandGuru
* Yes, thanks, it does need much more work. In particular, the National Broadband Plan (United States) seems to overlap quite a bit, but there are now no links at all between the two. One of my pet peaves, is the link to broadband which is the technical concept, not the marketing concept that this article talks about. I think it really means "Internet access from a phone company or cable TV company" which is the unfortunate pop meaning for the word "broadband". Note that one can always string your own fiber optic cable, hire a backhoe, or buy your own microwave dishes etc. to get whatever rate you want to the Internet. It is just a matter of money. Nobody seems to mention those because it would not necessarily go through the local monopoly provider. The dated language is also an issue here. It seems to put undue weight on about a two year period. After the 2010 elections and the 2011 debt crisis, for example, this issue has been dropped quickly from politician's agendas. Wikipedia just had a ten year anniversary; think about what readers in 2021 will care about and put things in perspective. For example, the map adds color, but is not sourced. When was the data taken? And does one business having a single 100 Mbit/s link cause the whole county to turn red? Just one of the issues mentioned in the article, which could use some editing. I will take a pass at it. W Nowicki (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
* OK I worked on it a bit. As for "standards", yes, the case could be made that there are too many, in fact. That is why I added a bit of verbage about how "broadband" is just a marketing or policy buzzword, not technical. It is still not clear how much of the millions was actually spent on the lobbyists for the map, as opposed to the other aspects of the plans (telco subsidies for rural access etc.) before the 2010 election changed the political winds. Do not want to overlap too much with other related articles that also need help. Another major change of course is the iPad and its ilk. If someone "cuts the cord" and uses their iPad instead of a wireline connection, where do they get counted? W Nowicki (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
* Good work upgrading this; and it's particularly helpful for people who know more about computers and the Internet than I do. I floated this a while back but you're right it's getting outdated. I had to redo the map (in keeping with copyvio rules) using a pre-loaded Wikimedia map of California counties (and I added the colors) but I don't remember what source I used exactly, and I think it's pretty accurate, but probably out of date now. If there are national Internet access maps by the US government, then those are fair game for inclusion. Let me know if I can help here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
* Thanks for noticing. I do try to filter both technical jargon and political propaganda, but it can be tough. Here is a question: there is a line saying the FCC has another mapping effort, but it does not give a source. By that do you mean the National Broadband Plan (United States)? It seems that might have been independent of this effort, just both funded by the same "stimulus" package. Have not found another mapping project, but maybe there was. Also the reference to Africa used an article about general money for "broadband", nothing about mapping.
* The diagram says "Derived from a US Census publication" but not clear if that refers to the map or the bit rate data? Given the same exact words are in File:California counties outline map.svg, I would guess just the outlines. Since those kinds of rates generally go to big businesses and educational institutions, not clear it is that relevant to the article. Many of these often confuse personal home access with access in general, which is frustrating. Need to dig out some sources mentioning this. The fed map should be public domain, so maybe we can do a screen shot of that, altough it might be not big enough to be interesting. Article content probably still needs some work too. I also noticed User:BroadbandGuru/Broadband Technology Opportunity Program about yet more government programs that we might want to mention.This is going to take some time. Luckily (?) the government is running out of cash which might slow down these efforts, so that we can catch up! W Nowicki (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
* Lol. You're doing a great job revitalizing this. If you need me to research a specific topic let me know, but generally I am not well versed in computer-related topics as you are so I'll defer to your judgment on this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 one external links on Broadband mapping in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901160437/http://www.cpuc.ca.gov:80/PUC/Telco/Information+for+providing+service/CASF/ to http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Telco/Information+for+providing+service/CASF/
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214052655/http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090402/testimony_chong.pdf to http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090402/testimony_chong.pdf
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC) | WIKI |
Bayer designation
From PhysicsWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
A Bayer designation is a stellar designation in which a specific star is identified by a Greek letter, followed by the genitive form of its parent constellation's Latin name. The original list of Bayer designations contained 1,564 stars.
Most of the brighter stars were assigned their first systematic names by the German astronomer Johann Bayer in 1603, in his star atlas Uranometria (named after Urania, the Greek Muse of Astronomy, along with Uranus, the Greek god of the sky and heavens). Bayer assigned a lower-case Greek letter, such as alpha (α), beta (β), gamma (γ), etc., to each star he catalogued, combined with the Latin name of the star’s parent constellation in genitive (possessive) form. (See List of constellations for the genitive forms.) For example, Aldebaran is designated α Tauri (pronounced Alpha Tauri), which means "Alpha of the Bull". (The letters of the Greek alphabet were used in antiquity as numerals, so Bayer's scheme might be regarded as a numbering system.)
A single constellation may contain fifty or more stars, but the Greek alphabet has only twenty-four letters; when these ran out, Bayer began using lower-case Latin letters: hence s Carinae (s of the Keel) and d Centauri (d of the Centaur). Within constellations having an extremely large number of stars, Bayer eventually advanced to upper-case Latin letters, as in G Scorpii (G of the Scorpion) and N Velorum (N of the Sails). The last upper-case letter used by Bayer was Q.
Is Alpha always the brightest star?
For the most part, Bayer assigned Greek and Latin letters to stars in rough order of apparent brightness, from brightest to dimmest, within a particular constellation. Since in a majority of constellations the brightest star is designated Alpha (α), many people wrongly assume that Bayer meant to put the stars exclusively in order of their brightness, but in his day there was no way to measure stellar brightness precisely. Traditionally, the stars were assigned to one of six magnitude classes, and Bayer's catalog lists all the first-magnitude stars, followed by all the second-magnitude stars, and so on. Within each magnitude class, Bayer made no attempt to arrange stars by relative brightness.[1]
Bayer did not always follow this rule; he sometimes assigned letters to stars according to their location within a constellation (for example: the northern, southern, eastern, or western part of a constellation), according to the order in they rise in the east, according to historical or mythological information on specific stars within a constellation, or according to his own random choosing. Usually the stars were roughly ordered from the head to the feet (or tail) of the figure (as in the Big Dipper).[citation needed]
Of the 88 modern constellations, there are at least 30 in which "Alpha" is not the brightest star, and four of those lack an alpha star altogether. (Constellations with no alpha include Vela and Puppis, both formerly part of Argo Navis whose alpha is Canopus in Carina.)
Bayer designations in Orion
Orion constellation map
Bayer
Designation
Apparent
Magnitude
Proper
Name
α Ori 0.45 Betelgeuse
β Ori 0.18 Rigel
γ Ori 1.64 Bellatrix
δ Ori 2.23 Mintaka
ε Ori 1.69 Alnilam
ζ Ori 1.70 Alnitak
Orion provides a good example of Bayer's method. (The lower the magnitude, the brighter the star; additionally, there is a precise definition: a "2nd-magnitude" star ranks between 1.51 and 2.50, inclusive.) Bayer first designated the two 1st-magnitude stars, Betelgeuse and Rigel, as Alpha and Beta, with Betelgeuse (the shoulder) coming ahead of Rigel (the foot), even though the latter is usually the brighter. (Betelgeuse, a variable star, can at its maximum very occasionally be brighter than Rigel.[2]) He then repeated the procedure for the stars of the 2nd magnitude. As is evident from the map and chart, he again followed a "top-down" ("north-south") route.
Various Bayer designation arrangements
This "First to Rise in the East" method is done in a number of other instances, even for Castor and Pollux of Gemini. Although Pollux is brighter than Castor, the latter was assigned alpha because it rises in the east ahead of the former. Bayer may also have assigned the stars Castor and Pollux in terms of historical or mythological knowledge. Both historically and mythologically, Castor's name is almost always mentioned first (Castor and Pollux) whenever the twins are mentioned, and that may have compelled him to assign alpha (α) to Castor and beta (β) to Pollux.
Although the brightest star in Draco is Eltanin (Gamma Draconis), Thuban was assigned alpha (α) by Bayer because Thuban, in history, was once the north pole star, 4,000 years ago. Almost every star with a history of being the North Star, including Vega, Alderamin and Polaris, were designated as the alpha (α) of their parent constellations by Bayer.
Sometimes, indeed, there's no apparent order, as exemplified by the stars in Libra and Sagittarius, where Bayer assigned designations to stars at random.
Revised Bayer designations
Some stars were "border stars", falling on the boundaries between two constellations, and Bayer would assign them a Greek letter from each constellation. The two most prominent examples are β TauAur, and α AndPeg. When the International Astronomical Union (IAU) outlined the official 88 constellations with definite boundaries in 1930, it declared that stars and other celestial objects can be assigned to only one constellation. Consequently, the redundant Bayer designations for those two stars were scrapped, and now only Beta Tauri and Alpha Andromedae are used. Another star, σ Lib, was formerly known as γ Sco, though it is well inside Libra. A few stars still do not lie (according to the modern constellation boundaries) within the constellation for which they are named. Nonetheless, these designations have proved useful and are widely used today.
Bayer designation styles
There are two common ways in which Bayer designations can be written. The designation can be written out in full, as in Alpha Canis Majoris or Beta Persei, or a lowercase Greek letter can be used together with the standard 3-letter abbreviation of the constellation, as in α CMa or β Per. Or the two can be combined (α Canis Majoris). Earlier 4-letter abbreviations (such as α CMaj) are rarely used today.
Other Bayer designations
The Latin-letter extended designations are rarely used, but there are some exceptions such as h Persei (which is actually a star cluster) and P Cygni. Uppercase Latin Bayer designations never went beyond Q; names such as R Leporis and W Ursae Majoris are variable star designations, not Bayer designations.
A further complication is the use of numeric superscripts to distinguish between stars with the same Bayer letter. Usually these are double stars (mostly optical doubles rather than true binary stars), but there are some exceptions such as the chain of stars π1, π2, π3, π4, π5 and π6 Orionis.
See also
References
1. Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 746: Argument map not defined for this variable. See p. 192.
2. Patrick Moore, Brilliant Stars, 1996.
External links | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Iterating Through Keys: An Informational Guide for Dictionary>keys
Iterating through keys is a crucial operation when working with dictionaries in programming. By accessing the keys of a dictionary, developers can retrieve and manipulate the corresponding values associated with those keys. This informational guide aims to provide an overview of the various methods available for iterating through keys in Python dictionaries.
Consider a hypothetical scenario where a software engineer is tasked with developing an application that tracks inventory for an online retail store. The engineer decides to use a dictionary data structure to store information about each product, with the product name as the key and details such as price, quantity, and description as values. To efficiently manage and update this inventory, it becomes necessary for the developer to iterate through all the product names or keys stored within the dictionary. Understanding how to effectively access these keys is essential in order to implement desired functionalities and ensure smooth operations within such systems.
What is the purpose of iterating through dictionary keys?
Imagine you are a librarian with an extensive collection of books. Each book is labeled with a unique identification number, allowing you to locate and organize them efficiently. Similarly, when working with dictionaries in programming, each key serves as an identifier for its corresponding value. Iterating through dictionary keys provides us with a means to access and manipulate these values effectively.
One compelling reason to iterate through dictionary keys is to retrieve or modify specific values associated with those keys. For instance, consider a scenario where we have a dictionary containing information about students’ grades. By iterating through the keys (i.e., student names), we can easily extract their respective grades without needing to know the exact structure or order of the dictionary beforehand.
Additionally, iterating through dictionary keys allows us to perform batch operations on multiple values simultaneously. This capability becomes especially useful when applying transformations or calculations across all elements in the dictionary. With this approach, we can avoid repetitive code and streamline our logic by leveraging loops or other iteration techniques.
Furthermore, iterating through dictionary keys enables us to analyze trends or patterns within the data stored in dictionaries. We can use this opportunity to gather statistical insights, generate reports, or visualize relationships between different elements in the dictionary using graphs or charts.
To emphasize the significance of iterating through dictionary keys, let’s consider some emotional aspects:
• Efficiency: Saving time and effort by accessing relevant information quickly.
• Convenience: Simplifying complex tasks by automating processes.
• Insightfulness: Gaining valuable knowledge from data analysis that could lead to informed decision-making.
• Empowerment: Enabling users to interact more intuitively with programmatic structures.
In conclusion, understanding how to iterate through dictionary keys grants us immense power over our data structures. It enhances efficiency, convenience, insightfulness, and empowers us while working with dictionaries. Now that we recognize its importance, let’s explore how we can access all the keys in a dictionary.
How can we access all the keys in a dictionary?
Iterating through the keys of a dictionary allows us to access and manipulate the values associated with those keys. Let’s consider an example scenario where we have a dictionary representing student grades in various subjects:
grades = {"Math": 85, "Science": 92, "English": 78, "History": 88}
To better understand why iterating through the dictionary keys is useful, let’s imagine that we want to find all the subjects in which students scored above a certain threshold. By iterating through the keys of the grades dictionary, we can easily retrieve this information and perform further actions based on our requirements.
One reason for iterating through dictionary keys is to extract specific information or perform operations on selected elements. Here are some advantages of using key iteration:
• Efficiently extracting data: Iterating through keys provides an effective way to extract specific pieces of information from a large dataset without having to search through every item.
• Conditional filtering: By checking conditions against each key-value pair during iteration, you can selectively process only those items that meet your criteria. This enables targeted modifications or analysis.
• Accessing related data structures: When working with complex dictionaries containing nested dictionaries or other data structures as values, iterating through keys helps navigate these structures and extract relevant information efficiently.
• Enhancing code readability: Iteration over keys allows for clearer and more concise code implementation compared to alternatives like indexing or manual searching.
Key Value
Math 85
Science 92
English 78
History 88
In conclusion, by iteratively accessing dictionary keys, we gain flexibility and control over how we handle and process the associated values. Whether it be retrieving specific data points or performing conditional operations, iterating through keys offers significant advantages such as efficient extraction of desired information, selective processing based on conditions, easier navigation within complex nested data structures, and improved code readability. Now let’s explore the benefits of iterating through dictionary keys in more detail.
What are the benefits of iterating through keys?
Iterating through the keys of a dictionary is an essential task when working with Python dictionaries. By accessing and processing each individual key, we gain valuable insights into the data stored within the dictionary. In this section, we will explore various methods for iterating through keys and discuss their practical applications.
Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario where we have a dictionary named student_grades, which stores the grades of different students in a class. To calculate the average grade of all students, we need to access each student’s grade individually. By iterating through the keys of student_grades, we can easily retrieve and process each grade value.
There are several benefits to be gained from iterating through keys in a dictionary:
• Efficient data retrieval: Iterating through keys allows us to access specific values associated with those keys efficiently. This is particularly useful when dealing with large datasets or when searching for particular information within a dictionary.
• Flexibility in data manipulation: By iterating over the keys, we can perform various operations on the corresponding values. For example, we can update or modify specific values based on certain conditions, apply mathematical computations, or extract relevant subsets of data.
• Maintaining order and consistency: Dictionary keys often represent unique identifiers or categories that require proper organization. Iterating through these keys ensures that our code operates consistently across different sections of the dictionary, maintaining order and preventing any inadvertent errors.
• Enhancing readability and maintainability: When working collaboratively or reviewing code later on, iterating through keys enhances code clarity by explicitly indicating what parts of the dictionary are being processed. It makes it easier for others to understand our intentions and promotes better collaboration within development teams.
Key Value 1 Value 2
‘John’ 85 92
‘Emily’ 78 89
‘Michael’ 92 95
‘Sophia’ 88 91
In conclusion, iterating through the keys of a dictionary empowers us to access and manipulate data effectively. By taking advantage of this powerful technique, we can extract valuable insights from our dictionaries while maintaining code readability and consistency.
Are there any limitations to iterating through keys? Let’s find out.
Are there any limitations to iterating through keys?
Now that we have discussed the benefits of iterating through keys in dictionaries, let us delve deeper into the various techniques used for this process. To illustrate these techniques, consider a scenario where you are developing an e-commerce platform and need to iterate through a dictionary containing information about customer orders. Each key represents a unique order ID, while each value contains details such as items purchased and their corresponding quantities.
One commonly used technique is the for loop. This allows you to iterate over each key in the dictionary effortlessly. For example:
order_details = {
"ORD123": {"item": "T-shirt", "quantity": 2},
"ORD124": {"item": "Jeans", "quantity": 1},
"ORD125": {"item": "Sneakers", "quantity": 3}
}
# Iterating through keys using 'for' loop
for order_id in order_details.keys():
print(f"Order ID: {order_id}")
This will output:
Order ID: ORD123
Order ID: ORD124
Order ID: ORD125
Here are some notable points to remember when iterating through keys:
• Efficiency: By directly accessing only the keys of a dictionary, iteration becomes faster compared to traversing both keys and values.
• Flexibility: Iterating through keys enables easy manipulation or extraction of specific data associated with those keys.
• Maintaining Order: Python version 3.7 onwards guarantees insertion order preservation in dictionaries, enhancing predictability during iteration.
• Comparative Operations: Keys can be used for comparison purposes between different elements within a dictionary.
Key Operation Description
in operator Checks if a given key exists in the dictionary
not in operator Checks if a given key does not exist in the dictionary
len() function Returns the total number of keys in the dictionary
sorted() function Sorts the keys in ascending order
In summary, iterating through keys provides several advantages, including improved efficiency, flexibility, and maintaining order. By utilizing techniques such as the for loop and key operations like in, developers can easily access relevant information within dictionaries by focusing solely on their keys. In the next section, we will explore some common use cases for iterating through keys.
What are some common use cases for iterating through keys?
Iterating through keys in a dictionary offers numerous advantages and flexibility to the programmers. Let’s consider an example where we have a dictionary called “student_grades,” which contains the names of students as keys and their respective grades as values. By iterating through the keys, we can perform various operations such as calculating average grades or identifying high-performing students.
One benefit of iterating through keys is that it allows us to access and manipulate specific data within the dictionary. For instance, using our previous example, if we want to calculate the average grade for all students, we can iterate through each key (student name) and retrieve their corresponding value (grade). With this information at hand, performing calculations becomes more straightforward.
Furthermore, by iterating through keys, developers gain better control over managing data stored in dictionaries. This approach empowers them to implement complex logic based on specific conditions associated with each key-value pair. They can selectively modify or update values depending on certain criteria defined in their code.
When considering the potential applications of iterating through keys in dictionaries, several use cases come to mind:
• Generating reports: Iterating through keys enables generating comprehensive reports that summarize various aspects of the data contained within dictionaries.
• Data validation: Developers often need to validate input against predefined rules or constraints. Iterating through keys facilitates this process by allowing easy access to individual elements for comparison purposes.
• Sorting and searching: By iterating through keys, programmers can sort or search for specific entries efficiently based on different criteria.
• Statistical analysis: When dealing with large datasets stored in dictionaries, iterating through keys provides an efficient means of extracting valuable statistical insights from the collected information.
To visualize these benefits further, let’s refer to a table showcasing some practical scenarios where iterating through dictionary keys proves useful:
Use Cases Description Emotional Response
Generating Reports Gather necessary data points for creating insightful reports Satisfaction
Data Validation Ensure the integrity and accuracy of input data Confidence
Sorting and Searching Easily locate specific entries or arrange them in a desired order Convenience
Statistical Analysis Extract meaningful statistical insights from large datasets Empowerment
In summary, iterating through keys in a dictionary offers immense flexibility to developers by providing access to individual elements for manipulation, allowing better control over data management. This approach finds various applications across different programming scenarios, such as generating reports, validating data, performing sorting and searching operations, and conducting statistical analysis.
Transitioning into the subsequent section about “Which programming languages support iterating through dictionary keys?”, let’s explore further possibilities beyond these use cases.
Which programming languages support iterating through dictionary keys?
In the previous section, we explored some common use cases for iterating through keys in a dictionary. Now, let’s delve deeper into various techniques that can be employed to achieve this task efficiently and effectively.
Consider a hypothetical scenario where you are working on a project that requires analyzing data from an online survey. The survey responses are stored in a dictionary, with each respondent as a key and their corresponding answers as values. To gain insights from this data, iterating through the keys becomes essential. Here are some techniques commonly used:
1. For Loop: One straightforward approach is using a for loop to iterate over the keys of the dictionary. This allows you to access and process each key individually.
2. Keys Method: Many programming languages provide built-in methods specific to dictionaries that facilitate iteration over keys directly. For example, in Python, you can use the .keys() method to obtain all the keys in the dictionary without explicitly looping through them.
3. Enumerate Function: If you need both the index and value while iterating through keys, employing the enumerate() function could be beneficial. It returns an enumerated object containing pairs of indexes and corresponding keys.
4. List Comprehension: In certain situations, when you want to perform additional operations on each key or filter out specific ones based on conditions, list comprehension offers a concise solution.
To illustrate these techniques further, consider Table 1 below which showcases their differences in terms of syntax and applicability:
Table 1: Comparison of Techniques for Iterating Through Dictionary Keys
Technique Syntax Applicability
For Loop for key in my_dict: General purpose; provides flexibility
Keys Method for key in my_dict.keys(): Accessing only the keys; simple iteration
Enumerate Function for index, key in enumerate(my_dict): When both the index and key are required
List Comprehension [key for key in my_dict] Additional filtering or operations on keys; concise expression
In conclusion, iterating through dictionary keys is a common task that can be approached using various techniques. Whether you prefer simplicity, flexibility, or additional functionality, choosing the technique most suitable for your specific needs will enhance code readability and efficiency. By employing one of these methods effectively, you can navigate through the keys of a dictionary effortlessly and extract valuable information as needed.
Comments are closed. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
File:Motherdvdfinal.jpg
Summary
I am the photographer of the still with Patsy Ruth Miller and Coleen Gray. I wrote, produced and directed the last film of both their careers. Thus far, for Coleen. The film was MOTHER (1978). I own the copyrights for both the film and the image uploaded.Damienrecords 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)damienrecords | WIKI |
Gentleman ranker
In the British Army, a gentleman ranker is an enlisted soldier suited through education and social background to be a commissioned officer or indeed a former commissioned officer. Rudyard Kipling titled one of his poems, which was published in 1892, "Gentlemen-Rankers".
British Army
The term "gentleman ranker" suggests that the soldier was born to wealth and privilege but disgraced himself and so has enlisted as a common soldier (or one of the other ranks) serving apart from the society that now scorns him. That fate was similar to that of a remittance man, often the black sheep of a "good" family, who was paid a regular allowance to stay abroad, far from home, where he cannot embarrass the family.
The gentleman rankers also included the soldiers who signed on specifically as "gentleman volunteers" in the British Army to serve as private soldiers with the understanding being that they would be given a commission (without purchase) at a later date. The men trained and fought as private soldiers but "messed" (dined and perhaps socialized) with the officers and were thus afforded a social standing of somewhere in between them.
Perhaps the most famous gentleman ranker of the 20th century was T. E. Lawrence. He retired from the British army after World War I with the rank of colonel but rejoined the military as an enlisted man by using an assumed name.
With growing social mobility and the rising standard of education for army entrants, the term is becoming archaic. Soldiers from a titled, landed or privately-educated background may still be considered gentleman rankers.
Kipling's poem
The term appears in several of Rudyard Kipling's stories and as the title of a poem that he wrote; it appeared in Barrack-Room Ballads, and Other Verses, first series, published in 1892, and T. S. Eliot included it in his 1941 collection, A Choice of Kipling's Verse.
In Kipling's poem "Gentlemen-Rankers", the speaker "sings":
In the poem, "machinely crammed" may indicate the use of a Latin "crammer" and the general method of learning by rote; a somewhat mechanical process. The Empress is Queen Victoria, specifically in her role as Empress of India. Ready tin means easy access to money. Branded with the blasted worsted spur refers to the emblem of a spur, embroidered with worsted wool, that was sewn onto the uniforms of highly skilled riding masters of the British Army. The Curse of Reuben refers to the Biblical story of Reuben, who, for sexual misconduct, was told by his dying father, "Reuben, thou art my first-born .... Unstable as water, thou shall never excel...." (Genesis 49:3-4).
Adaptations of and references to the poem
Kipling's poem, in translation, was set to music by Edvard Grieg in 1900 (EG 156, Gentlemen-Menige.) However, after he had completed it, he received a copy of the English original and was so dismayed by the omission of important passages that he did not publish it; it was published posthumously in 1991.
The poem was set to music and sung at Harvard and Yale Universities in the early 1900s. It became associated with one collegiate a cappella group in particular, The Whiffenpoofs of Yale. Their historian states that the song was known "as far back as 1902" and was popular by 1907–1909. The words were famously adapted by Meade Minnigerode and George Pomeroy to become "The Whiffenpoof Song". In turn, it has been covered by many singers, including Bing Crosby and Rudy Vallee.
James Jones's award-winning 1951 bestseller From Here to Eternity, which is about American soldiers in Hawaii before the US entered World War II, takes its title from Kipling's poem. In Robert Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers (1959), the poem is sung at marching cadence by Mobile Infantry officer cadets.
Billy Bragg borrows part of the poem in his song "Island Of No Return" on his 1984 album Brewing Up with Billy Bragg: "Me and the corporal out on the spree, Damned from here to Eternity". Peter Bellamy set it to music and recorded it in 1990 for his privately-issued cassette Soldiers Three. That recording was also included in 2012 on the CD reissue of Peter Bellamy Sings the Barrack-Room Ballads of Rudyard Kipling.
The song is spoken of in The Road to Kalamata, a memoir by soldier of fortune Mike Hoare, who led several mercenary companies during the bush wars in the Katanga and the former Belgian Congo during the 1960s.
Eliza Carthy recorded Peter Bellamy's setting of the poem on her 2019 album "Restitute" Her version is sung a capella and repeats the "chorus" of Kipling's poem several times, which do not appear in the original text. | WIKI |
Milliken Building
The Milliken Building, located at 1039 College St. in Bowling Green, Kentucky, was completed in 1963. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2010.
It is an International Style building designed by Edwin A. Keeble. It is designated WA-B-127.
It is a four-story building.
It was listed for its design not its age.
Its style might better be termed Contemporary rather than International, in part due to its use of brick, according to one source focused upon the Modern Automotive District.
It was built by Clarence Shaub, a construction contractor. | WIKI |
Nicole OLIBAS, Reginald Williams, Donny Hodkinson, Tina McDonald, and Carol Johnson, Plaintiffs, v. NATIVE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC and John Barclay, Defendants. Reginald Williams, Donny Hodkinson, Tina McDonald, and Carol Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Native Oilfield Services, LLC and John Barclay, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-2388-B.
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.
Signed May 8, 2015.
Allen Ryan Vaught, Baron & Budd PC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Jared T. S. Pace, Anderson Tobin PLLC, Lauren Nicole Beverly, Settlepou, Dallas, TX, Christine M.. White, Christopher E. Moore, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JANE J. BOYLE, District Judge.
Following a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on their Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”) claims for unpaid overtime, the parties filed two post-verdict motions now before the Court: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment (doc. 281) (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”) and Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (doc. 283) (“Defendants’ Motion”).' For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (doc. 281) and DENIES Defendants’ Motion (doc. 283).
I.
BACKGROUND
As detailed in the Court’s prior orders, this is a consolidated action under the FLSA involving a group of dispatchers in one suit, and a group of truck drivers in another, both suing Defendants John Barclay (“Barclay”) and Native Oilfield Services, LLC (“Native”) (together, “Defendants”) for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA.. The parties recently settled the FLSA claims brought by the dispatchers, leaving only the drivers’ claims unresolved.
Plaintiffs’ remaining FLSA claims are asserted on behalf of Reginald Williams (“Williams”), Donny Hodkinson (“Hodkin-son”), Tina McDonald (“McDonald”), and Carol Johnson (“Johnson”) (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs”) and 104 similarly situated similarly situated opt-in plaintiffs (as ¿ collective unit, “Plaintiffs” or “Driver Plaintiffs”). See Doc. 281, Pl.’s Mot. 1. As a collective unit, Plaintiffs include “current and former employees of Defendants who delivered sand to Defendants’ oilfield customers for use in . fracking operations.” Doc. 226, Joint Pre-Trial Or. 5.
At trial, Plaintiffs claimed that, between August 22, 2009 to August 5, 2014, they “were not paid overtime compensation for each every overtime hour worked” in viola-; tion of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207. Id-Move specifically, they argued that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation for their off-the-clock overtime hours waiting to be assigned a truck or for their trucks to be loaded/unlo.aded. Id. ■ Defendants countered that Plaintiffs were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay provisions, and that even if Plaintiffs were not exempt, they “cannot carry their burden of showing that they were not paid overtime.” Id. at 9. Plaintiffs could not carry this burden, Defendants argued, because “the hours for which [Plaintiffs sought] additional [overtime] compensation were not hours actually worked, but rather non-compensable ‘wait time.’ ” Id.
On August 5, 2014, the jury, after hearing all the evidence presented at trial, returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs. See Doc. 266, Jury Instructions. In doing so, the jury made a number of findings. First, the jury found that Defendants failed to establish “each essential element of the [Motor Carrier Act] Exemption as applied to the [Plaintiffs] as a group[.]” Id. at 17. Second, the jury also concluded that Plaintiffs proved “that Defendants failed to pay” each Named Plaintiff “one and one-half time his or her regular rate of pay for ‘hours worked’ over forty during any 7-day workweek at Native Oilfíeldf.]” Id. át 12. Third, the jury similarly found that Plaintiffs had also established “that the Defendants failed to pay [Plaintiffs], as a collective unit, overtime pay in accordance with the FLSA[.]” Id. at 14. Fourth, the jury next determined that Plaintiffs proved that they worked the following “number of unpaid overtime hours ... on average during the workweeks in which [they were] employed as [truck drivers]”: Johnson, 11 hours; Hodkinson, 13 hours; Williams, 10 hours; McDonald, 6 hours; and “Plaintiffs as a collective unit,” 18 hours. Id. at 19. Lastly, the jury concluded that Plaintiffs additionally proved “that Defendants’ FLSA violation(s) were ‘wilful.’ ” Id. at 21.
Following the trial, the Court ordered the parties to mediate their unresolved disputes regarding the amount of damages owed by Defendants, but no settlement could be reached.' See Doc. 269, Mediation Or.; Docs. 274 & 280, ADR Resolution Summs. Thus, in - accordance with the Court’s instructions, the parties timely filed post-trial motions. See PL’s Mot.; Doc. 283, Def.’s Post-Verdict Br. (“Def.’s Mot.”). Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Judgment pursuant to Federal, Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b), asking the. Court to enter final judgment in their favor upon resolving certain issues related to their damages. See PL’s Mot. 1-3. Defendants’ Motion, on the Other hand, is filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), and asserts that the Court should grant judgment in their favor, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict. See Def.’s Mot. 8-9. In other words, Defendants’ Motion is a renewed request for judgment as a matter of law, which the Court previously denied when Defendants moved pursuant to Rule 50(a) at the conclusion of Plaintiffs’ casein-chief. See Doc. 299, Trial Tr. Volume IV at 36.
After these post-trial motions were filed, the parties filed timely responses' and replies thereto. See Doc. 286, PÍ.’s Resp.; Doc. 288, Def.’s Resp.; Doc. 290, Def.’s Reply; Doc. 293, PL’s Reply. By March 30, 2015, both .post-trial motions became ripe for consideration. Before addressing these motions, the Court begins below with a brief review of the law governing claims under the FLSA.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The FLSA was. passed in 1938 in an effort “to ‘protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.’ ” Meza v. Intelligent Mexican Mktg., Inc., 720 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir.2013) (quoting Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981)). Given its remedial purposes, courts generally “construe the FLSA liberally in favor of employees.” McGavock v. City of Water Valley, Miss., 452 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392, 80 S.Ct. 453, 4 L.Ed.2d 393 (1960)).
Among its protections, the FLSA requires that employers pay employees “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate” of pay for any hours the employees work in excess of forty during the workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). ' To enforce this rule, the FLSA “gives employees the right to bring a private cause of action on their own behalf and on behalf of ‘other employees similarly situated.’ ” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1527, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)). Employees who' successfully assert a private cause of action for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA are entitled to collect damages from their employers “in the amount of ... their unpaid overtime compensation ... and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Prevailing plaintiffs may also collect reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with the prosecution of their FLSA claims. See id. Saizan v. Delta Concrete Products Co., 448 F.3d 795, 799 & n. 7 (5th Cir.2006).
III.
ANALYSIS
The parties have each filed post-trial motions in connection with the jury verdict returned in favor of Plaintiffs and their FLSA overtime claims. Defendants’ Motion, which is filed pursuant to Rule 50(b), can be quickly disposed first. As mentioned, Defendants’ Motion merely renews assertions that the Court already rejected in denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law at trial. Moreover, Defendants’ Motion explicitly reserves the “right to seek relief [again] under Rule 50(b) following entry of final judgment,” Def.’s Mot. 8 n. 2, obviating the need to fully readdress matters that Defendants will surely resubmit after this Order. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion without any further discussion at this time.
That leaves only Plaintiffs’ Motion to consider. As is common in these type of cases, final judgment was not entered immediately after the jury’s verdict because certain damages issues remain unresolved. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now move for the Court to resolve these outstanding damages issues, incorporate its rulings in a final judgment, and enter that final judgment pursuant to Rule 58. See Pl.’s Mot. 1-3. In doing so, Plaintiffs set forth four categories of unresolved matters for the Court to decide. First, Plaintiffs request that the Court award them unpaid overtime compensation in accordance with the jury’s findings and the Court’s determination of the appropriate regular rate of pay and overtime premium multiplier. See id. 3-18. Second, Plaintiffs asks that the Court award them liquidated damages in an amount equal to their back-pay award. See id. at 18-20. Third, Plaintiffs also seek recovery of the attorneys’ fees and costs that they incurred in prevailing on their FLSA claims. See id. at 20-23. Finally, Plaintiffs ask that the Court additionally include post-judgment interest in the final judgment. See id. at 23-24. The Court addresses these requests in turn below.
A. Unpaid Overtime Back-Pay Award
As mentioned, the jury in this case found Defendants liable for failing to pay Plaintiffs in accordance with the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements, see Jury Instructions 14, but they did not determine “the amount of ... unpaid overtime compensation” Plaintiffs are now entitled to collect. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The parties now dispute what role, if any, the Court may undertake in calculating Plaintiffs’ back-pay award, and what amount, if any, that award should.be.
As noted by Plaintiffs, the jury did make certain findings relevant to the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed to Driver Plaintiffs. See Pl.’s Mot. 4. Specifically, the jury determined the average number of unpaid overtime hours worked by the Named Plaintiffs, individually, and the Driver Plaintiffs,. collectively, during their respective workweeks. See Jury Instructions 19. In addition, the parties stipulated to the relevant ranges of workweeks for all 108 Driver Plaintiffs. According to Plaintiffs, what remains for the Court to determine in terms of their unpaid overtime compensation are the Driver Plaintiffs’ regular rates of pay and overtime premium multiplier. See Pl.’s Mot. 4-5. Based on these determinations, the jury’s findings, and the parties’ stipulations, Plaintiffs argue that the Court can then calculate their back-pay award. See id.
Defendants counter that the Court cannot award Plaintiffs back-pay as requested, since the jury failed to decide certain factual matters that the Court itself cannot determine. Def.’s Resp. 3-5. Even, if the Court can make these determinations, Defendants continue, it should find that Plaintiffs are not entitled to back-pay, because Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of their regular rates and overtime premiums. See id. at 5-9. The Court takes up these assertions below, starting first with the parties’ threshold dispute concerning its authority and role in calculating Plaintiffs’ unpaid overtime compensation.
1. The Court’s Authority to Determine Plaintiffs’ Overtime Pay With No Additional Jury Findings
The parties, as mentioned, initially dispute the Court’s ability to award Plaintiffs back-pay in the absence of certain factual findings made by a jury. Plaintiffs maintain that the Court may award unpaid overtime compensation without any additional jury findings, because it is the Court’s duty “to determine, as a matter of law, the regular rate of pay, the method of calculating damages, and the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed.” PL’s Mot. 4-5. Defendants, on the other hand, contest the Court’s ability to determine Plaintiffs’ regular rate of pay. See Deñ’s Resp. 3-5. In particular, they argue that “the Court’s calculation of [Plaintiffs’ regular rate] must be .based on factual findings made by the jury,” including “thie actual hours worked and the total wages received for each workweek.” Id. at 3. And since the jury in this case never determined Plaintiffs’ actual hours worked or total wages received, Defendants contend that “the Court is unable to calculate the Plaintiffs’ regular hourly rate of pay, and thus, unable [to] calculate the total overtime pay owed to the remaining Plaintiffs,” Id. at 5. The Court, as follows, disagrees with Defendants, and finds Plaintiffs’ position more consistent with existing law.
The Fifth Circuit holds that “once the fact finder has established that the employee is due unpaid overtime, the proper determination of the regular rate of pay and overtime premium to which an employee is entitled is a question of law.” Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir.2013) (citing Ransom v. M. Patel Enterprises, Inc., 734 F.3d 377, 381-82 (5th Cir.2013); Singer, 324 F.3d at 823) (emphasis added). To be clear, the Fifth Circuit has specifically stated that “the court must determine [these matters] as a matter of law,” upon a finding of liability. Id. (citing Ransom, 734 F.3d at 381; Urnikis-Negro v. Am. Family Prop. Servs., 616 F.3d 665, 679 (7th Cir.2010)) (emphasis added). Despite acknowledging this binding precedent, Defendants maintain that the Court cannot legally determine Plaintiffs’ regular rate in these circumstances. See Def.’s Resp. 3. In Defendants’ view, this legal determination cannot be reached by the Court, because it would require the Court to resolve factual issues that underlie the regular rate determination. See id. at 3-4.
But contrary to Defendants’ assertions, courts routinely decide factual matters in the process of calculating the unpaid overtime compensation owed to employees as a matter of law. See, e.g., Singer, 324 F.3d at 825 (upholding the district court’s factual decision to “credi[t] the account summaries prepared by the [defendant’s] accountant over those of the'[plaintiffs] accountant” in calculating an FLSA overtime pay award); Black, 732 F.3d at 496, 498 (stating that “the court must determine as a matter of law whether to apply the standard method of calculating” overtime pay versus another, and later indicating that this legal issue turns on a separate “question of fact” determined by the lower court itself); Ransom, 734 F.3d at 381 (same as Black). Indeed, courts have observed that “the employee’s regular rate of pay is a factual matter.” Urnikis-Negro, 616 F.3d at 680 (citing Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419, 424-25, 65 S.Ct. 1242, 89 L.Ed. 1705 (1945) (emphasis added)). It seems that the reason for this — why courts, rather than juries, at times resolve .ostensibly factual issues connected to the regular rate — is that the regular rate is the “keystone” of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a); it drives “the amount of overtime payments which' are necessary to effectuate the statutory purposes.” Walling, 325 U.S. at 424, 65 S.Ct. 1242. “The proper determination of that rate is therefore of prime importance,” according to the Supreme Court. Id. Based on this precedent, the Court believes that it has discretion to make the “proper determination” of Plaintiffs’ regular rate in these circumstances, despite the seemingly factual nature of this inquiry.
None of the authorities cited by Defendants undermine or contradict the weight of precedent supporting the Court’s decision to proceed in this manner. Defendants, for example, lean heavily on a Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulation setting forth factual matters — including, “total remuneration for employment” and “total number of hours actually worked”— that generally factor into an employee’s regular rate determination. 29 C.F.R. § 778.109. This regulation, however, says nothing about who — courts or juries— should determine these factual predicates to the regulation’s regular rate calculation. And as the caselaw discussed above demonstrates, the mere existence of these factual issues in the regular rate determination does not mean that courts must present such issues to the jury as a matter of law. In the end, DOL regulations of this type are mere “interpretive rule[s], ... not [ ] remedial measure[s].” Urnikis-Negro, 616 F.3d at 677-78. In other words, they “sa[y] nothing about' how a court is to calculate' damages where, as here, the employer hhs breached its obligation to pay the employee an overtime premium. [Their] focus instead is on how an employer may comply with- its statutory obligations in the first instance and avoid liability for breach of those obligations.” Id. at 678. Therefore, the Court rejects Defendants’ suggestion that 29 C.F.R. § 778.109 forecloses the Court’s determination of the regular rate in these circumstances. ■
The few cases cited by Defendants are similarly unavailing. The first, Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), is cited by Defendants for the unremarkable proposition that Plaintiffs bear the initial burden of proving damages — a point that is neither disputed nor helpful here. Similarly, Defendants highlight an isolated passage from the dissent in Atlantic Co. v. Broughton, in which Judge Waller makes the straightforward observation that “the number of hours in which, any employee may have worked during a period in question is wholly a question of fact.” 146 F.2d 480, 485 (5th Cir.1944) (Waller, J., dissenting). However, Judge Waller’s dissent— while addressing a completely unrelated issue to the one presented here — says nothing about whether such questions are “for the jury to decide,” as Defendants misleadingly suggest. Def.’s Resp. 4. Defendants also cite the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Mitchell v. Denton, upholding a district court’s decision to submit the issue of “the exact number of weekly overtime hours worked” to the jury. 224 F.2d 596, 597-98 (5th Cir.1955). Note, however, that the decision at issue in Mitchell was the district court’s refusal “to direct a verdict for the unpaid overtime compensation [sought].” 224 F.2d at 597. The Fifth Circuit, therefore, was merely concerned with the sufficiency of the evidence of unpaid overtime hours, not whether the court or jury was the proper judge of this disputed fact.
Ultimately, Defendants’ underlying complaint here appears to be that the Court erred in rejecting their proposed jury instructions, which would have required the jury to precisely determine the total weekly pay and total hours worked* each week for all 108 Driver Plaintiffs. ■ But whether the Court should have submitted more exacting questions to the jury is an issue Defendants may properly raise in a Rule 50 motion; for present purposes, these issues are not the Court’s concern. Instead, the question at hand is whether the Court is permitted to determine Plaintiffs’ back-pay award without any further jury findings. Since the weight of authority suggests that it can, the Court rejects Defendants’ contentions, and finds that it may appropriately proceed to the issues of Plaintiffs’ regular rate of pay and overtime premium, as follows.
2. Determining Plaintiffs’ Regular Rate of Pay
Having found that it has the requisite authority here, the Court turns now to the issue of Plaintiffs’ regular rate. “The FLSA broadly defines ‘regular rate’ as the hourly rate actually paid the employee for ‘all remuneration for employment.’ ” Gagnon v. United Technisource, Inc., 607 F.3d 1036, 1041 (5th Cir.2010) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207(e); Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U.S. 37, 42, 65 S.Ct. 11, 89 L.Ed. 29 (1944)). Ordinarily, determining the regular rate entails a straightforward “mathematical computation” based on “the amount of wages and the mode of payment” agreed to by the parties. Id. (citing Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446, 461, 68 S.Ct. 1186, 92 L.Ed. 1502 (1948)). In this case, however, Plaintiffs have been unable to produce evidence from which the Court may precisely compute their regular rates of pay. Instead, they could only offer approximations drawn primarily from the testimony offered at trial. See Pl.’s Mot. 12-13; Pl.’s Reply 5-6. On this basis, Plaintiffs ask the Court to set a regular rate of pay at $15 per hour for their entire 108-member collective unit. PL’s Mot. 12.
In opposing Plaintiffs’ request, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their “burden of providing competent, affirmative evidence of [their] damages.” Def.’s Resp. 5. According to Defendants, the testimony presented at trial is simply “not sufficient to support Plaintiffs’ damages calculations.” Id. As such, Defendants ask the Court to altogether deny Plaintiffs damages for failure to satisfy them burden of proof. See id. at 5-9.
As Defendants concede, however, the evidence presented at trial undisputedly shows that they failed to maintain adequate payroll records. Had Defendants lived up to their record keeping obligations — mandated by federal law, see 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) — Plaintiffs could have “easily discharged [their] burden by securing the production of those records.” Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187. Under such circumstances, the proper course of action “is not to penalize the employee by denying him any recovery on the ground that he is unable to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work,” as Defendants suggest. Id. Rather, the Supreme Court in Mt. Clemens Pottery instructed lower courts faced with such circumstances to apply the following burden-shifting analysis:
[A]n employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence *688 to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.
Id. at 688, 66 S.Ct. 1187. The Court, as follows, applies this analysis to the parties assertions in this case.
i. Plaintiffs’ evidence of their $15 per hour regular rate
As mentioned, Plaintiffs bear the initial burden in these circumstances to prove their regular rate “as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” Id. at 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187. In an effort to satisfy this burden, Plaintiffs presented a variety of testimony and evidence at trial aimed at approximating an appropriate regular rate to apply to the damages calculation for all 108 Driver Plaintiffs.
First, all four of the Named Plaintiffs testified as to their regular rates, along with those of their fellow drivers, working out of Defendants’ truck yard in Alvarado, Texas. Carol Johnson testified that she was paid at an hourly rate of $14 per hour during the time she worked as a driver out of the Alvarado yard. Doc. 296, Trial Tr. Volume I at 140-42. While she did not personally know what other drivers were paid, Johnson’s $14 per hour rate matched the rate advertised in a job listing that she responded to. Id. at 142. She also heard other drivers mention being paid at an hourly rate. Id. at 159. Donny Hodkin-son similarly testified that he was paid around $17 per hour as a driver. Doc. 297, Trial Tr. Volume II at 108, 120. He also stated that he was aware of drivers only being paid on an hourly basis in his time of employment, and that three drivers in particular — each of whom is an opt-in Plaintiff-told him they were paid between $17 and $18 per hour. Id. at 121. Reginald Williams next testified that he was paid $16.30 per hour as a driver. Id. at 145. Williams further indicated that in his subsequent role as a driver trainer, he learned that Defendants were hiring new drivers at $14 per hour, and that he was aware of drivers being paid up to $18 per hour. Id. at 155-56. Additionally, Tina McDonald testified, similar to Johnson, that she was paid $14 per hour during her time as a driver for Defendants, which matched the regular rate at which her job was advertised. Id. at 189, 196. Other new drivers told McDonald that they were also paid at a rate of $14 per hour. Id.
Second, Plaintiffs also presented testimony from two of the opt-in Plaintiffs, both of whom worked out of Defendants’ truck yard in Hondo, Texas. Chris Gonzales testified that he was initially paid $16 per hour as a driver, id. at 233, but that Defendants later switched his method of pay starting in January 2012. See id. at 228-29, 233-34. Even though Gonzales’s paychecks varied under these different methods of pay, one can infer from his testimony that his regular rate did not significantly differ from his initial $16 per hour rate. Similarly, David Zamarripa testified that when he started working as a driver out of the Hondo truck yard, he was paid hourly, but that his pay rate later changed to “load pay,” whereby he received “a percentage of the charge that Native was making to- its customers.” Doc. 298, Trial -Tr. Volume III at 89. Regardless of the method of pay, however, Zamarripa indicated that his earnings averaged out to somewhere “between $15 and $16 per hour,” which he estimated on a weekly basis upon receiving his paychecks. Id. at 11, 26. He also stated -that his girlfriend, who was also paid on a per load basis, had weekly earnings that averaged out to about “the same” hourly- rate as him. Id. at 13. .
Third, Plaintiffs also submitted damages declarations at trial - from most Driver Plaintiffs in the collective unit, which include the “overtime rate” at which Driver Plaintiffs claim they should have been paid. See Doc. 282-4, PL’s App. 60-239, Ex. D (PL’s Trial Exhibit 12). From the Court’s count, over two-thirds of these declarations assert overtime rates falling somewhere between $21.00 and $24.00 per hour. Thus, Plaintiffs’ damages declarations further suggest that a solid majority of Driver Plaintiffs claim to have been paid at regular rates ranging from $14.00 to $16.00 per hour.
Lastly, Plaintiffs also called Defendant Barclay in their case-in-chief, and elicited testimony from him about the regular rates, paid to drivers. During questioning, Barclay admitted that a $14 per hour regular rate would be a “reasonable [rate of] pay for a driver.” Trial Tr. Vol. Ill at 169. Barclay further conceded that Chris Gonzales’s $16 per hour regular rate “estimate would be reasonable for other drivers in the Hondo area.” Id. at 171. And in regards- to drivers working out of the Alvarado yard, Barclay testified that, from his “recollection[,] the majority of [those] drivers were paid between $14 and $16.50 an hour because they were all hourly.” Id. at 171-72.
On the basis of the above evidence, the Court finds the $15 per hour rate proposed by Plaintiffs to be an appropriate approximation of their regular rate “as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” From Plaintiffs’ testimony and declarations, one can reasonably infer that the vast majority of Plaintiffs were paid between $14 and $16 per hour, averaging out to a regular rate of $15 per hour. Defendant Barclay further confirmed that these estimates were “reasonable” and consistent with his “recollection” of what drivers-were generally paid. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the $15 per hour rate requested by Plaintiffs, if anything, under-compensates Driver Plaintiffs as a group. For instance, multiple witnesses indicated that drivers were hired at a rate no lower than $14 per hour, whereas others, including Williams and Hodkinson, testified to drivers consistently being paid aboye $16 per hour. ■ Similarly, in describing how the pay-per-load method ideally worked, Barclay suggested in his testimony that Plaintiffs paid on a per-load basis collected earnings at a regular rate generally around $20 per hour. Nevertheless, given the uncertainty as to Driver Plaintiffs’ precise regular rates, a conservative estimate, such as Plaintiffs’ $15 per hour approximation, seems justified. On balance, this $15 per hour average strikes a “just and reasonable” accord between holding Defendants accountable for their non-payment of overtime and ensuring that Driver Plaintiffs receive no more than the FLSA promises. As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence of their $15 per hour regular rate “as a matter of just and reasonable inference.”
ii. Defendants’ efforts to rebut Plaintiffs’ regular rate evidence
In light of the Court’s above findings, the burden now shifts to Defendants “to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence.” Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 687-88, 66 S.Ct. 1187. But Defendants counter with no evidence of their own. Instead, they point to purported deficiencies in the evidence offered by Plaintiffs in an effort to show that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof. See Def.’s Resp. 6-9. Defendants assert, for example, that certain testifying witnesses have not been shown , to have “actual knowledge of Plaintiffs’ or individual groups of Plaintiffs’ actual hours worked or wages paid.” Id. at 6. They also argue that some of the testimony “applies only to those [Plaintiffs] who were actually paid on ah hourly basis, not those [Plaintiffs] who were- paid by the load and for whom the Court is now tasked with calculating a regular-rate of pay.” Id. at 8-9. The Court, as follows, finds these contentions unavailing for at least two reasons.
First, Defendants fail to account for the fact that this is a collective action that was tried, at the parties’ joint stipulation, see Joint Pretrial Order 16, through representational testimony. In such cases, the Fifth Circuit “and other circuit courts of appeals have recognized that the Mi. Clemens Pottery standard allows plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case for non-testifying employees based on the ‘fairly representational’ testimony of other employees.” Albanil v. Coast 2 Coast, Inc., 444 Fed.Appx. 788, 806 (5th Cir.2011) (collecting cases); see also Brennan v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 482 F.2d 825, 829 (5th Cir.1973); Beliz v. W.H. McLeod & Sons Packing Co., 765 F.2d 1317, 1331 (5th Cir.1985). And in this case, the jury already found .Plaintiffs’ testimony “ ‘fairly representative’ of the Driver Plaintiffs as a collective unit.” Jury Instruction 13, 14, 19. The sensibility of this finding is not an issue currently before the Court. While Defendants are. welcome to assert this challenge in a post-judgment motion, their presently veiled attack on Plaintiffs’ representative evidence need not be considered at this time.
Second, by focusing entirely on Plaintiffs’ supposed failure to satisfy their burden of proving damages, without attacking the reasonableness of the $15 per hour estimate in any way, Defendants reveal that their only real complaint here is the lack of precision in. Plaintiffs’ approximation. But as the Supreme Court has made clear, “[t]he employer cannot be heard to complain that the damages lack the exactness and precision of measurement that would be possible had he kept records in accordance with” his legal obligations. Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 688, 66 S.Ct. 1187. Like in Mt Clemens Pottery, it is assumed here that Plaintiffs have “proved that [they have] performed work and ha[ve] not been paid in accordance with the statute. The damage is therefore certain. The uncertainty lies only in the amount of damages arising from the statutory violation by the employer.” Id. In such cases, just because “ 'damages cannot be ascertained by a fixed rule and must be based upon estimates and opinion, it does not follow that no damages should be allowed.’ ” Mitchell v. Mitchell Truck Line, Inc., 286 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir.1961) (quoting Robey v. Sun Record Co., 242 F.2d 684, 689-90 (5th Cir.1957)). Instead, “[i]t is enough under these circumstances if there is a basis for a reasonable inference as to the extent of the damages.” Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 688, 66 S.Ct. 1187. Put differently, federal courts “have ‘in effect ordered the fact finder to do the best he could in assessing damages’ ” in these types of cases. Reeves v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 616 F.2d 1342, 1351 (5th Cir.1980) (quoting Mitchell v. Riley, 296 F.2d 614, 616 (5th Cir.1961)).
Given the undisputed inadequacy of Defendants’ payroll records, Plaintiffs had no choice but to approximate their damages through the presentation of estimates and opinions. Ultimately, Plaintiffs proposed a $15 per hour average that reasonably accounts for the uncertainty in their precise regular rates of pay, while awarding Driver Plaintiffs, as a collective unit, just compensation for Defendants’ FLSA violations. Defendants, moreover, have offered no evidence of their own to refute the reasonableness of this estimation. According to the Supreme Court, “the court may[, in these circumstances,] award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.” Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 688, 66 S.Ct. 1187. As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation calculated at a regular rate of $15 per hour.
3. Determining Plaintiffs’ Overtime Premium
To recap, the Court has the following facts before it for purposes of calculating Plaintiffs’ overtime back-pay award: the relevant workweeks of employment for all 108 Driver Plaintiffs (as stipulated by the parties); the average regular rate at which Driver Plaintiffs were collectively paid during them respective workweeks (as determined by the Court above); and the average number of overtime hours worked by Driver Plaintiffs, per workweek, without being paid an overtime premium (as determined by the jury). For illustrative purposes, these numbers equate to the following for Named Plaintiff Hodkinson: 28 workweeks x 13 hours/workweek x 15 dollars/hour = 5,460 dollars. Notice, this back-pay amount for Hodkinson is calculated at the regular rate. But since he arid the other Driver Plaintiffs are entitled to “unpaid overtime compensation” computed at a premium rate — namely, “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate,” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)— the Court must lastly determine the appropriate overtime premium multiplier to apply-
Typically, courts “apply the standard ... one and one-half times the regular rate of pay multiplier found in the FLSA” in awarding unpaid overtime compensation. Black, 732 F.3d at 496 (emphasis added); see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.107. This standard overtime premium is appropriate, for example, when employees are paid on an hourly basis. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.110(a). But there are times when the overtime premium “multiplier of only one-half [times] the regular rate of pay” should be applied instead. Black, 732 F.3d at 496 (emphasis added). For example, when “the employee is paid a flat sum ... for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked ... at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services,” the DOL regulations indicate that the employee “is then entitled to extra half-time pay at [his regular rate] for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.112. This so-called “job-rate” method of calculating overtime pay is premised on the idea that, since the employment agreement intends to compensate the employee at a flat rate for all hours worked — both overtime hours and hours below forty — employees claiming unpaid overtime under this model need only be compensated the “extra halftime pay’ that their flat rate failed to cover. Id.
. In this case, the evidence suggests that the Driver Plaintiffs were paid under two different payment structures, yielding two potential overtime premium multipliers. Most Driver Plaintiffs were paid an hourly rate, without any compensation for their off-the-clock overtime hours. Others were, alternatively,- paid, for all or portions of their dates of employment, at a rate analogous to the job-rate method — on a per-load basis — without any overtime compensation. As the parties agree, the standard 1.5 multiplier is the appropriate overtime premium to apply in calculating back-pay for Driver Plaintiffs paid under the first method (hourly), while the. 5 multiplier is seemingly applicable to those, paid under the second payment model (per load). See Pl.’s Mot. 14; Def.’s Resp. 9-10.
Because of this variation in applicable overtime premiums, Plaintiffs propose three options for computing their back-pay. See PL’s.Mot. 16-18. The first option is to apply the 1.5 overtime premium multiplier for all Driver Plaintiffs, resulting in a back-pay award totaling $2,172,016. See id. at 16. Plaintiffs’ second suggested approach similarly applies a single overtime premium to all members of the collective unit, but it does so using the .5 multiplier, producing a back-pay award of $740,460. See id. at 17. Plaintiffs’ third option, in. contrast to their first two, actually accounts for the varying-methods of payment among the 108 Driver Plaintiffs. See id. at 17-18. Relying on a set of newly-submitted declarations from each Driver Plaintiff in the collective unit, Plaintiffs’ third proposal applies the 1.5 multiplier to those who were paid hourly, and the .5 multiplier to those who were paid on a per-load basis, culminating in a back-pay award of $1,673,145. Id. at 17. For obvious reasons, this third option appears to be the most reasonable approach to calculating-.the Driver Plaintiffs’ back-pay award under these circumstances.
In response to the three options proposed by Plaintiffs, Defendants offer scant insight or comment on the appropriate overtime premium multiplier to apply. See Def.’s Resp. 9-15. Instead, Defendants argue that the Court should altogether deny Plaintiffs relief for failing to produce “sufficient evidence from which the Court can determine the appropriate method of calculating Plaintiffs’ overtime premium.” Id. at 9. In particular, Defendants point to Plaintiffs’ purported failure “at trial” to produce evidence “from which the Court could determine the number of employee entitled to overtime compensation” using the 1.5 overtime premium multiplier, “versus the number of employees who were paid by the load and thus are entitled to overtime compensation” using the .5 overtime premium multiplier. Id. at 10-11. Additionally, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs cannot salvage their deficient showing at trial by submitting their newly-presented Driver Plaintiff declarations. See id. at 12-15. The Court cannot consider these new declarations, Defendants contend, because Plaintiffs failed to submit them at trial, failed to “move for bifurcation [of liability and damages] prior to trial,” and failed to demonstrate “that they are entitled to supplement the record with evidence not introduced at trial.” Id. at 13-15. For similar reasons as before, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ ineffectual assertions as to the Driver Plaintiffs’ overtime premium.
First, Defendants fail to cite any authority suggesting, that overtime damages may be denied merely because the record is unclear as to which, overtime premium to apply in calculating a plaintiffs otherwise-established damages. Nor -is the Court aware of any. Instead, • as discussed in detail above, the relevant caselaw indicates that employers in these circumstances “cannot be heard to complain that the damages lack the exactness and- precision of measurement that would be possible had he kept records in accordance with” his federal record-keeping obligations. Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 688, 66 S.Ct. 1187. This point rings especially true here, as the only uncertainty left with respect to Plaintiffs’damages is the proper multiplier to apply — not “the amount and extent of [the] work” Plaintiffs performed, which they have already shown “as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” Id. at 677-88, 66 S.Ct. 1187. The idea that Defendants should avoid paying any datfiages simply because they failed to keep adequate records of the different payment structures they decided to implement runs completely contrary to the long-standing principles set forth in Mt. Clemens Pottery. Drawing ón these principles, the Fifth Circuit has instructed lower courts faced with the sort of uncertainty presented here “‘to do the[ir] best ... in assessing damages,’ ” not “ ‘penalize the employee by denying him any recovery,’ ” as Defendants request. Reeves, 616 F.2d at 1351-62 (quoting Riley, 296 F.2d at 616; Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 687, 66 S.Ct. 1187). In accordance with these instructions, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that they entitled to damages “as a matter of just and reasonable inference, ... even though the result [may] be only approximate” due to uncertainty in the applicable overtime premium multiplier. Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 687-88, 66 S.Ct. 1187.
Second, the Court also rejects Defendants’ contention that it' may not consider Plaintiffs’ supplemental declarations in selecting an appropriate overtime premium multiplier. As an initial matter, the point raised by Plaintiffs that “FLSA cases are essentially bifurcated between liability and damages” is well taken, if not supported by law. Pl.’s Mot. 17. Givén the unique role courts are often thrust into in calculating damages under the FLSA, “non-jury ... post-trial damage calculation proceeding[s]” are sometimes necessary, Ransom, 734 F.3d at 381, even if no motion to bifurcate has been filed. As such, the Court arguably has discretion to consider Plaintiffs’ supplemental declarations pursuant to its duty to “determine as a matter of law whether to apply the standard method of calculating the amount of overtime pay” or some other method. Black, 732 F.3d at 496. But since the law is not entirely clear on this point, for good measure, the Court finds it has discretion to consider the supplemental declarations pursuant to Plaintiffs’ alternative request to reopen the record. See Pl.’s Mot.' 18.
Lower courts are afforded discretion. “to reopen the record” upon a party’s request to present supplemental evidence. Chieftain Int’l (U.S.), Inc. v. Se. Offshore, Inc., 553 F.3d 817, 820 (5th Cir.2008) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971)). The Fifth Circuit has. instructed lower courts presented with such a request “to weigh ‘the importance and probative value of the evidence, the reason for the moving party’s failure to introduce the evidence earlier, and the possibility of prejudice to the non-moving party.’ ” Id. (quoting Garcia v. Woman’s Hosp. of Tex., 97 F.3d 810, 814 (5th Cir.1996)). In regards to the importance/probative-value factor, the Fifth Circuit warns that courts must not “ac[t] as a trier of fact, weighing and then excluding the evidence,” but rather “as a gatekeeper, ... making a threshold probative-value determination.” Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641, 655-56 (5th Cir.2014). Ultimately, the decision a trial court reaches in balancing these factors “will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that it has worked an injustice in the cause.’ ” Chieftain Int’l, 553 F.3d at 820 (quoting Garcia, 97 F.3d at 814).
Weighing the relevant factors in this case, the Court finds that reopening the record to consider Plaintiffs’ supplemental declarations is warranted. First, it is undisputed that the declarations are relevant and important.,. In their absence, the Court is forced to make a judgment call as to what overtime premium to apply to the entire 108-member collective unit, based on Plaintiffs’ representative testimony and other evidence of their damages at trial, along with other factors such as Defendants’ lack of payroll records. By contrast, with the affidavits, the Court can make a more “just and reasonable” determination of Plaintiffs’ award based on their actual methods of pay. Second, while Plaintiffs arguably should have presented this evidence at trial, it is understandable why they did not. In the Joint Pretrial Order, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs would be permitted to “offe[r] representative testimony in the Driver case as to liability and damages,” Joint Pretrial Order 16, from which Plaintiffs could reasonably conclude that the issue of their variable methods of pay would not be raised at trial or in these post-trial proceedings. Indeed, Defendants make no mention of the issue in them damages contentions in the Joint Pretrial Order. See id. at 9. Moreover, based on the Court’s above discussion of the inherently bifurcated nature of FLSA proceedings, it was not unreasonable for Plaintiffs to believe that they could freely supplement the record after trial with any evidence that may be helpful to the Court’s overtime pay calculation.
Lastly, even assuming that introduction of the supplemental affidavits is prejudicial to Defendants, any such prejudice does not tip the scales in favor of refusing to reopen the record. Defendants argue that they would be prejudiced by the introduction of these supplemental declarations, because they “have had no opportunity to assess the veracity of or otherwise challenge the [new] evidence.” Def.’s Resp. 15. Notably, Plaintiffs submit these declarations for the sole purpose of showing whether particular Driver Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly or per-loád basis. Defendants could have easily challenged these simple assertions by presenting their own evidence suggesting particular Driver Plaintiffs were paid under one or another method of compensation. But Defendants have shown no interest in actually mounting such a challenge. Instead, their claims of prejudice here seems to be a straw man argument; in reality, Defendants only ask the Court to exclude Plaintiffs’ supplemental declarations, because doing so furthers them, underlying request that the Court deny Plaintiffs all relief for failure to present sufficient evidence of their damages. The Court, of course, rejected this contention above, finding that Plaintiffs are entitled to damages notwithstanding the uncertainty as to their overtime premium. Given these circumstances, Defendants arguably stand to suffer more prejudice if the Court were to exclude the supplemental declarations, because in their absence, Defendants would probably be liable for an even higher back-pay award consistent with Plaintiffs’ first overtime premium proposal. Accordingly, the Court finds that reopening the record to consider Plaintiffs’ supplemental declarations is not prejudicial to Defendants, and to the extent it is, such prejudice does not warrant excluding the declarations from the Court’s calculation of Plaintiffs’ unpaid overtime compensation.
In conclusion, the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ third overtime premium proposal in the calculation of the Driver Plaintiffs’ unpaid overtime compensation award. As discussed, this proposal offers the most “just and reasonable” approximation of Plaintiffs’ .back-pay — accounting for the actual method of pay for each Driver Plaintiff — and Defendants have offered no evidence of their own to “negat[e] the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from [Plaintiffs’] evidence.” Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 687-88, 66 S.Ct. 1187. Based on this determination, along with the previously-noted findings and stipulations, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation in accordance with the calculation set forth in Exhibit I attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion, see Pl.’s App. 1664-66, resulting in a back-pay award totaling $1,673,145.00.
B. Liquidated Damages
Plaintiffs next ask “that the Court enter judgment awarding them liquidated damages in an amount equal to” their back-pay award. Pl.’s Mot. 18. The FLSA allows employees to recover liquidated damages in an “equal amount” as their “unpaid overtime compensation” award. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Though at one time they were “mandatory,” liquidated damages “can now” be refused “if the court concludes that the employer acted in ‘good faith’ and had ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that its actions complied with the FLSA.” Singer, 324 F.3d at 823-24 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 260). This “good faith” defense, however, is not applicable in this case for two reasons. First, the “employer faces a substantial burden of demonstrating good faith and a reasonable belief that its actions did not violate the FLSA,” id. at 823 (citation and quotation marks omitted), and in this case, Defendants made no effort to contest liquidated damages in their post-trial briefing. Second, where a jury finds that the employer “acted willfully in violating the FLSA” — as the jury in this case did with respect to Defendants, see Jury Instructions 21 — the employer “cannot show that it acted in good faith,” and as such, “a liquidated damages award is warranted.” Black, 732 F.3d at 501 (citing Singer, 324 F.3d at 823; Heidtman v. Cnty. of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1042 (5th Cir.1999)). Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for liquidated damages in an amount equal to their back-pay award, resulting in a liquidated damages award of $1,673,145.00.
C. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Court next consider Plaintiffs’ request to recover attorneys and costs as prevailing claimants in this matter. PL’s Mot. 20. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek $371,759.59 in attorneys’ fees and $10,564.32 in costs. Id. at 22-23. While Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs’ right to recover such fees and costs, they argue that Plaintiffs’ “billing records ... are impermissibly vague and constitute insufficient documentation of’ the fees requested. Defi’s Resp. 15. Because of this, Defendants ask the Court “to reduce the amount of attorney hours by the amount sufficient to account for Plaintiffs’ facially inadequate billing records.” Id. at 19. Thus, the Court need only resolve below the “reasonable” amount of attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs are entitled to collect.
In the Fifth Circuit, determining reasonable attorneys’ fees generally begins with a calculation of “the ‘lodestar.’ ” Jimenez v. Wood Cnty., Tex., 621 F.3d 372, 380 (5th Cir.2010). “The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours an attorney reasonably spent on the case by an appropriate hourly rate, which is the market rate in the community for this work.” Black, 732 F.3d at 502 (citing Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 685 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir.2012)). “There is a strong presumption of the reasonableness of the lodestar amount.” Id. (citing Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542, 552, 130 S.Ct. 1662, 176 L.Ed.2d 494 (2010); Saizan v. Delta Concrete Prod. Co., 448 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir.2006)). Nevertheless, after calculating the lodestar, courts often evaluate the resulting value in relation to “the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974) Jimenez, 621 F.3d at 380. Under certain circumstances, “a district court may enhance or decrease the amount of attorney’s fees based on ‘the relative weights of the twelve factors set forth in Johnson.’” Black, 732 F.3d at 502 (citing Saizan, 448 F.3d at 800). Lodestar enhancements, however, are permitted only in “rare and exceptional circumstances.” Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552, 130 S.Ct. 1662. Moreover, ,“[t]he lodestar may not be adjusted due' to a Johnson factor that was already taken into account during the ■ initial calculation of the lodestar.” Black, 732 F.3d at 502 (citing Saizan, 448 F.3d at 800).
In this case, Plaintiffs provided the following lodestar values for the work performed in the driver lawsuit by their four attorneys, two paralegals, and one administrative assistant/data clerk:
See. Pl.’s Mot. 22; Doc. 282, PL’s App. 1675, 1703, 1729, 1737, 1744, 1939, 1946, 1952. While maintaining ¡ that these figures are reasonable, Plaintiffs’ counsel factors into the requested fee: a 10% reduction of each attorney’s lodestar,' a 25% reduction of each paralegal’s lodestar, and a 60% reduction of the administrative assistant’s lodestar, in order “to account for billing judgment and clerical work.” PL’s Mot. 23. With these reductions, the total fee requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel comes out to $371,759.59. Id. at 22-23. Upon considering this award in relation to the twelve Johnson factors, Plaintiffs argue that no additional “downward adjustment” is warranted, and that the Court should, therefore, find the requested fee reasonable. PL’s App. 1677-1682; ' see also PL’s Mot. 23.
In response, Defendants do not dispute the reasonableness of the fees requested for Plaintiffs’ paralegals and administrative assistant, which the Court finds no reason to further question itself. Nor do Defendants challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rates claimed by each of Plaintiffs’- attorneys, which the Court finds to be reasonable based on the declarations submitted in support. Instead, Defendants attack Plaintiffs’fee request solely based on the amount of hours expended by Plaintiffs’ attorneys.
In challenging the reasonableness of the billed hours, Defendants assert that “Plaintiffs’ billing entries are entirely repetitive and vague,” leaving the Court “unable to determine the reasonableness of the time allegedly expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel.” Def.’s Resp. 16. In particular, Defendants take issue with some of the billing descriptors used by Plaintiffs’ counsel, such as “prep motion for summary judgment,” “Research for Motion on pleadings,” “prep damages,” “Work on Reply Brief to MSJ,” and “Work on Exhibits.” Id. at 16-17. They also contend that certain repetitive entries suggest that some of the hours expended were “unnecessarily duplicative,” and therefore unreasonable. Id. at 17. Moreover, Defendants argue that the “ten-percent reduction” Plaintiffs incorporated into their attorneys’ lodestar calculations “is not sufficient to overcome the sheer inadequacy of [Plaintiffs’] records.” Id. at 18. Accordingly, Defendants ask the Court “to reduce the amount of attorney hours [submitted] .by-an- amount sufficient to account for Plaintiffs’ facially inadequate billing records.” Id. at 19. For the reasons that follow, the Court declines Defendants’ invitation to further reduce Plaintiffs’ requested fee.
As the Fifth Circuit has stated, in one of the cases relied on by Defendants, courts must be cognizant of the burden imposed on requiring overly detailed billing descriptions in fee'applications:
[W]e are mindful that practical considerations of the daily practice of law in this day and age preclude “writing a book” to describe in excruciating detail the professional services rendered for each hour or fraction of an hour. We also recognize that, this era of computerized timekeeping, many data processing programs limit the amount of input for any given hourly or daily entry. ,
League of United Latin American Citizens No. 4552 (LULAC) v. Roscoe Ind. Sch. Dist., 119 F.3d 1228, 1233 (5th Cir.1997) (quoting Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 327 (5th Cir.1995)). With this reasoning in mind, the Fifth Circuit went on to hold that the billing records at issue in LULAC “were not so vague or unilluminating that they precluded meaningful review of whether particular hours were reasonably expended on this litigation.” Id. Instead, the court found the records sufficient, because they contained “the date, the number of hours spent (calculated to a tenth of an hour), and a short but thorough description of the services rendered.” Id. And although the Fifth Circuit noted that the lower court had discretion to strike particular entries for vagueness, including one for “ ‘research and review of eases,’ ” it warned that the lower court should make-this determination in the broader context of “whether particular hours were reasonably expended rather than making an across-the-board reduction based on inadequate documentation.” Id.
Here, Defendants point the Court to no entries from Plaintiffs’ billing records that are as vague as “research and review of cases.” Id. Instead, each of the entries they highlight contain “the date, the number of hours spent (calculated to a tenth of an hour), and a short but thorough description of* the services rendered.” Id. In fact, even the least descriptive entries that Defendants focus on, such as “prep for MSJ” and “Pretrial Matters,” can be examined for their reasonableness based on the number of hours spent on such tasks, the more detailed entries surrounding them, and their dates of entry, which indicates the point in the proceedings in which the particular services were rendered. Requiring counsel to provide more detail than they already included would be unnecessarily burdensome under these circumstances. Moreover, even assuming some of the billing entries highlighted by Defendants are overly vague, that does not warrant the. sort of “across-the-board reduction” that Defendants request. Id. Plaintiffs already proposed a reasonable 10% reduction to account for their billing judgment. The Court sees no need to arbitrarily reduce this fee further simply because other court-sanctioned reductions have “surpassed] ten percent” under different circumstances. Def.’s Resp. 18.
Similarly, Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ billing entries are not unreasonably repetitive as Defendants claim. The supposedly dupli-cative entries cited by Defendants relate to matters that counsel would understandably spend multiple days on. For example, it is perfectly reasonable that lead attorney Allen Vaught would have ten different entries, over ten separate days and nearly thirty hours, in which he was doing “[p]rep MSJ,” i.e., preparing a potentially-deeisive motion for summary judgment. See Pl.’s App. 1692-93. Likewise, Defendants point out that “Mr. Kuruppillai’s record include eight separate entries entitled ‘Work on Pretrial Disclosures’ for a total time of thirty-seven hours.” Def.’s Resp. 17 (citing Pl.’s App. 1735). However, note that Mr. Kuruppillai appears to be the only attorney for the Plaintiffs with timesheet entries related to “Work on Pretrial Disclosures.” Therefore, it is unremarkable, and in fact reasonable, that Mr. Kuruppil-lai, as the sole attorney preparing pretrial disclosures for all 108 Plaintiffs in a complex wage and hour dispute, would expend thirty-seven hours working on this task.
Having turned aside Defendants’ contentions, the Court further examines this seemingly reasonable fee request under the relevant Johnson factors, which each appear to support Plaintiffs’ proposal. Starting with the first factor — time and labor — counsel reasonably expended significant hours serving all 108 Plaintiffs over the course of this three-year-old lawsuit. Regarding the second Johnson factor, counsel took on a number of novel and difficult legal issues in this case, only some of which were discussed in this lengthy Order. And, relevant to the third factor, navigating these difficult issues required a good deal of skill from Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Skipping next to the eighth factor — the results attained — despite these challenges, counsel achieved a highly favorable outcome for Plaintiffs, including a jury verdict and over $3 million in damages. Moving, last, to the tenth factor — the undesirability of the case — counsel agreed to litigate Plaintiffs’ claims in spite of the risks of little to no compensation for their services. These risks included: filing suit on behalf of just a few employees, with relatively small unpaid wages claims, and no guarantee more employees would opt in; the threat that Defendants would prevail on their FLSA exemption and non-compensa-ble “wait time” defenses, in which case Plaintiffs could not recover attorneys’ fees and costs; and the risk of non-payment from a group of underpaid employees in the event Plaintiffs’ claims were unsuccessful. In sum, the Johnson factors, while they may not warrant any reduction or enhancement of the proposed fee, help solidify its reasonableness. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to collect $371,759.59 from Defendants in attorneys’ fees and $10,564.32 in costs as prevailing claimants under the FLSA.
Two final matters require brief discussion. First, Plaintiffs note that “the legal fees and costs [requested] here cover only the time' period up to January 30, 2015,” and therefore, they ask for “the opportunity to supplement” their fee/cost request at a later time. Pl.’s Mot. 23. While the Court will allow such supplementation, to avoid duplicative efforts, Plaintiffs should hold off on filing their supplemental request until all post-verdict matters, including any fees and costs incurred on appeal, have been resolved. Second, Plaintiffs also request a conditional award of $150,000 to cover fees they expect to incur “in the event of an appeal by Defendants.” Id. The Court, however, declines to award this speculative request. Plaintiffs can move for an award of these damages, as part of a single supplemental request, after such fees and costs are actually incurred.
D. Post-Judgment Interest
Lastly, Plaintiffs requests that post-judgment interest be included in the Court’s final judgment. See Pl.’s Mot. 23-24. This request is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, which provides that “[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Such post-judgment interest is permitted for damages awarded under the FLSA, the Fifth Circuit has found. See Reeves v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Carp., 705 F.2d 750, 751-52 (5th Cir.1983). And since Defendants raise no objections on this point, the Court finds no reason to question this matter further. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ final request that post-judgment interest be included in the judgment entered pursuant to this Order.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (doc. 281) and DENIES Defendants’ Motion (doc. 283). As detailed above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to final judgment on their FLSA claims awarding them $1,673,145.00 in unpaid overtime compensation, $1,673,145.00 in liquidated damages, $371,759.59 in attorneys’ fees, and $10,564.32 in costs. The judgment, which will follow this Order, shall also include post-judgment interest.
SO ORDERED.
. See, e.g., Doc. 216, Or. Denying Mot. Summ. J.
. See Dog. 278, Or. Granting Unopposed Mot. Dismiss.
. Rule 50(b) allows parties to “file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law” following a jury verdict. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b).
. See, e.g., Dobson v. Timeless Restaurants, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-2481-L, 2013 WL 6079395, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Nov. 19, 2013) ("This case has been tried to a jury and administratively closed; however, a final judgment has not been issued because two [damages] issues remain unresolved....”).
.Rule 58 gives the Court authority to "approve” and “enter” judgment after "the jury returns a special verdict or a general verdict with answers to written questions,” Fed. R.Civ.P. 58(b)(2).
. See Doc. 282-3, PL’s App. 57-59, Ex. C. Also note that since the jury found Defendants' FLSA violations to be “willful,” see Jury Instructions 21, the FLSA’s three year limitation period applies in this case, allowing Plaintiffs to collect damages dating three years back from the date on which this action was filed. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a); Singer v. City of Waco, Tex., 324 F.3d 813, 821 (5th Cir.2003).
. The DOL regulation discussed by the Seventh Circuit in Umikis-Negro, 29 C.F.R. § 778.114, is actually different than the regulation cited here by Defendants, 29 C.F.R. § 778.109. Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning applies with equal force to § 778.109 in these circumstances.
. Though Plaintiffs cited only Barclay’s testimony in their opening brief, they reserved the right to supplement their Motion "upon receiving all trial testimony transcripts,” which they later did in their reply brief. PL's Mot. 8 n. 6; see Pl.’s Reply 5-6. Thus, the Court finds that it may consider the testimony cited in Plaintiffs’ reply, even though it was not cited in their opening brief. To the extent Defendants take issue with this newly-cited testimony, they could have, but failed to, file an objection or sur-reply.
. See Def.'s Resp. 5 (conceding that Plaintiffs "need only prove [their] damages as a matter of 'just and reasonable inference,’ ” given that "the employer has kept inadequate records.”). Plaintiffs also show that Defendants' payroll records “fail to list any on-the-clock hours for some Plaintiffs,” provide "incomplete or inaccurate on-the-clock hours” for others, at times omit "total remuneration received,” and fail to "identify the particular Plaintiff for which they apply” in other cases, among other deficiencies. Pl.'s Mot. 7-9.
. To illustrate, Gonzales claims he is owed, on average, 35 hours of unpaid overtime hours, see Trial Tr. Vol. II at 236, bringing his average number of hours worked per week to 75 hours. He also testified that his weekly pay, on average, was around $1,097 to $1,600 per week, with his highest paycheck being $1,900 and his lowest being about $600. See id. at 234, 277-78. This averages to around $1,250 per week. Calculating Gonzales’s hourly rate from these two averages ($1,250 4- 75) results in a rate of about $16.67 per hour.
. To illustrate, Barclay gave an example of "a 100-mile load that paid $700." Trial Tr. Volume III at 150. Of this $700 load, the evidence indicates that drivers were generally paid "somewhere between 23 and 27 percent,” id. at 40, or in this example, between $161 and $189 for this 100-mile load. Next, ■ Barclay testified to the projected hours worked in hauling such a load, stating that "[t]he way we ... explained it to the driver would be, at 40 miles an hour it would take two and a half hours to drive to the location, two and a half hours back, and an hour for loading, and two hours for unloading,” for a total of eight hours worked. Id. at 150. Putting these numbers together (total pay x total hours worked) would result in a regular rate for drivers paid under the pay-per-load method of somewhere around $20.12 to $23.62 per hour.
. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs rely too heavily on Barclay’s testimony, which "does not constitute affirmative testimony as to Plaintiffs’ actual hourly rates of pay.” Def.'s Resp. 7. But this argument is easily dismissed, because Plaintiffs presented plenty of additional testimony in their Reply, which they had reserved the right to do. Even so, it is not clear how Barclay’s testimony is not "affirmative” evidence, when it was delivered during Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief.
. It is also worth noting that Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs’ testifying witnesses lack sufficient knowledge of the drivers’ regular rates is based entirely on the testimony of Barclay, which is not the only representative testimony Plaintiffs relied on to formulate the proposed $ 15 per hour regular rate.
. This can be seen, most directly, through a review of Plaintiffs’ supplemental affidavits, in which Plaintiffs indicate their respective' methods of pay. See Doc. 282-15, Pl.’s App. 1745-1928, Ex. O (Pl.’s Post-Trial Decís.). A summary of these declarations shows that Plaintiffs collectively worked a total of 3533 weeks at an hourly rate, versus 1963 weeks at a per-load rate. See Doc. 282-9, Pl.’s App. 1664-66, Ex. I.
. As Barclay explained at trial, "load pay” is where the driver is paid a percentage of what Native was paid by the customer for hauling a load. Trial Tr. Volume III at 144.. This was intended to compensate drivers for hours spent “loading, driving to the location, unloading, and returning from the location.” Id. Also, drivers were eligible to receive a percentage of the “detention or demurrage” fee that Native charged customers for “time ... held beyond [Native’s] control” at well-sites and staging areas. Id.
.See Pl.’s App. 1745-1928. Note that since Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to obtain declarations from two of the opt-in plaintiffs, the one-half overtime premium was used by default in the calculation of their damages. See PL's Mot. 17 n. 10.
. The sole case Defendants cite here is Rosano v. Twp. of Teaneck, 754 F.3d 177 (3d Cir.2014), which is easily distinguishable. First, the defendant in that casé did indeed “maintain ■ overtime records” in accordance with their legal obligations. Id. at 189. Second, while the plaintiffs’ overtime pay estimate in Rosano failed "to set forth the proper method of calculation,” this was just one of the many deficiencies in their proposed calculation that led the Third Circuit to uphold the trial court’s summary judgment ruling. See id. at 188-89. . ,
. While the Court need not decide this issue, Plaintiffs make a .strong argument for adopting their first overtime premium proposal, which applies the 1.5 multiplier to the entire Driver Plaintiffs’ unit. In particular, they rationalize this proposal on the basis of the jury’s conclusion that "the evidence in this case was representative of the Drivers as a 'collective unit,’ ” and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Mt. Clemens Pottery indicating "that an employee should not be penalized for an employer’s failure to satisfy federal record keeping obligations.” Pi.'s Mot. 16.
. The twelve Johnson factors include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary'fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and. length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717-19.
. The Johnson factors that are not particularly relevant here include: (4) preclusion of other employment, (5) the customary fee— which was factored into the lodestar — (6) fixed versus contingent fee, (7) time limitations imposed on attorney, and (11) nature and length of the attorney-client relationship. The Court also declines to discuss the ninth (the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys) and twelfth (awards in similar cases) Johnson factors, despite the showing made by Plaintiffs. See Pl.’s App. 1681-82.
. As discussed, the Court denies Plaintiffs' request for $150,000 to cover anticipated fees and costs on appeal. If necessary, Plaintiffs can move for such fees at a later time.
| CASELAW |
Berit Viktorsson, Visiting Daughter in Brussels, Was Killed in Attacks
Berit Viktorsson frequently traveled between her home in central Sweden and Brussels to visit her daughter. Though she did not speak French, and barely spoke English, Ms. Viktorsson had become so adept at navigating the city that on the morning of March 22 she boarded a bus on her own from her daughter’s home, the daughter, Katarina Viktorsson, told a Swedish newspaper. Soon after arriving at the airport, suicide bombers detonated two devices and killed Ms. Viktorsson, who Swedish officials said was in her 60s. Before Ms. Viktorsson’s death was confirmed, Katarina Viktorsson, an administrative assistant at a law firm in Brussels, turned to social media, asking for help locating her mother in three different languages. “Please HELP: Help me find my mother who is missing since this morning when she was at the airport in Brussels,” she wrote on Facebook hours after the attack at the airport. A week later Katarina Viktorsson posted again on Facebook. “Thank you everybody for all your help, support, visits, calls, sms, messages and prayers and thoughts for my mother, my family and our close ones,” she wrote. “It has been much appreciated, even if I haven’t always have had the strength/mind/thought of replying you all individually, it has deeply touched me, as well as my close ones, and, again, thank you all for your support.” Along with the message, Katarina Viktorsson posted a photo of herself and her mother posing together in front of a blooming tulip tree. In the photo, Ms. Viktorsson wore the same black coat that she wore to the airport on March 22. With her arm wrapped around her daughter’s waist, she smiled. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Talk:Malik Riaz/Archives/2013
'Controversies' section
Apparently new user Donking21 deleted it, marking the edit as minor. I have put it back because there were sources in it. It is not especially high quality but I think the sourced statements should remain unless they are not supported by the sources. Any thoughts? Feel free to revert me if the section is really no good. Cathfolant (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | WIKI |
-- Portugal Home Appraisals Drop to Lowest in More Than Four Years
Home valuations by Portuguese banks
may continue to drop as lenders require more collateral and make
getting a mortgage more difficult, according to Ricardo Reis,
Cushman & Wakefield Inc.’s head of valuations in Portugal . Appraisals of houses and apartments fell 6.9 percent in
March from a year earlier to an average of 981 euros ($1,283) a
square meter, the lowest since September 2008, according to data
compiled by Portugal’s National Statistics Institute. “Lenders are now asking for more collateral from clients,
making it more difficult for the borrowers to obtain
mortgages,” Reis said by e-mail. “A lower bank valuation
reflects the overall drop in property prices and may require
potential home buyers to come up with more money to purchase the
property due to a lower loan-to-value required by the banks in
order to reduce their risk.” The value of a property typically determines the amount a
bank would have to lend for a purchase. Lower appraisals protect
lenders from getting stuck with an asset that’s worth less than
the mortgage. Home appraisals are usually carried out by
independent companies hired by banks, according to Reis. The drop in home values in Portugal and most of Europe
looks set to continue amid declining household earnings and
diminished bank lending, Standard & Poor’s said in a report
yesterday. In the Netherlands, Italy and Portugal “we expect
that falling household incomes in addition to mortgage lending
constraints will continue to depress home prices ,” S&P said.
The ratings company looked at nine countries and found housing
markets are only strengthening in in Germany and the U.K. Strict Lending Portuguese banks remained strict in their requirements for
providing loans to individuals and companies in the first
quarter, the Bank of Portugal said in an April 24 report. Lenders are also selling large portfolios of real estate
and sometimes offer “considerable discounts that may also weigh
on home prices” in the future, Reis said. Portuguese home prices fell 6 percent in the fourth quarter
of 2012 from a year earlier, Eurostat data show. The decline was
the fourth-biggest in the euro area after Spain , Slovenia and
the Netherlands, according to Eurostat. The amount of money invested in Portuguese real estate
declined 38 percent in 2012 from the previous year to 125
million euros, the lowest in the last decade, according to
broker Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. (JLL) To contact the reporter on this story:
Henrique Almeida in Lisbon at
halmeida5@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Jerrold Colten at
jcolten@bloomberg.net | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
0
I am in the process of compiling vsftpd, but keep getting this error:
[alex@lab vsftpd-3.0.3]$ make
gcc -o vsftpd main.o utility.o prelogin.o ftpcmdio.o postlogin.o \
privsock.o tunables.o ftpdataio.o secbuf.o ls.o postprivparent.o logging.o \
str.o netstr.o sysstr.o strlist.o banner.o filestr.o parseconf.o secutil.o \
ascii.o oneprocess.o twoprocess.o privops.o standalone.o hash.o tcpwrap.o \
ipaddrparse.o access.o features.o readwrite.o opts.o ssl.o sslslave.o \
ptracesandbox.o ftppolicy.o sysutil.o sysdeputil.o seccompsandbox.o \
-Wl,-s -fPIE -pie -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now
./vsf_findlibs.sh
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lcap
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [vsftpd] Error 1
I installed libpcap 1.9.0, yet the error persists.
2
Since you're building code from source, you need the libcap.so unversioned shared library. These are typically provided as part of the corresponding -devel package. If you're not sure of the package name, you can run something like:
sudo yum install /usr/lib64/libcap.so
Although in this case, the answer is that you simply need to install the libcap-devel package:
sudo yum install libcap-devel
• That makes sense! However - I should have mentioned this in my first post - I am working on a system that is not connected to the Internet. Hence me downloading the necessary library tar files and transferring them onto the target system manually. On the target system, I then run make, which leads me to the error. – Alex Teichmann Feb 11 at 19:50
• I don't think that changes the nature of the error or the solution. Download the libcap-devel package, transfer it to the target system, and install it. However, you should also be able to create a symlink to the existing versioned library, like ln -s libcap.so.2 /usr/lib64/libcap.so. – larsks Feb 11 at 21:34
Your Answer
By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
User:Youmutap
YouMuTap
YOUMUTAP(TM)You Compose Music with a Tap of the Finger"-If You can Tap your Finger, Hold a Pen and even count to 10, You are old enough to experiment with the YouMuTapTM)-Melody-Capcha(TM)-Program, under research and development for all People to be able to create works for resale with payments to themselves or Charity of their choice.
YouMuTap(TM)-MELODY-CAPCHA(TM)- will allow any one to aurally train themselves with all Keys of Music,with Scales and Chords via use of an INTERACTIVE device, such as but not limited to a Mobile Phone. Various GAMES FORMATTING to follow the first build. --Youmutap (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Youmutap (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
YouMuTap(TM)-MELODY-CAPCHA(TM)- will have two settings, 80 Dba as a Minimum/Maximum with 85 Dba as a Maximum/Maximum setting for Adults and young Children. YouMeTap(TM)-MELODY-CAPCHA(TM)-the other application for both MOTHER and BABY, or Young CHILD performing application for BABY, are as follows. Minimum/Maximum of 75 Dba which can be preset by the Mother if she requires a lower setting Minimum/Maximum-for a CHILD using with a younger CHILD. With a Maximum/Maximum setting of 80 Dba for the MOTHER in CONTROL.Youmutap (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | WIKI |
Synergy Health Partners
What is an Occipital Nerve Block?
An Occipital Nerve Block is a minimally invasive procedure used to diagnose and treat chronic headaches and neck pain originating from the occipital nerves. This procedure involves injecting a local anesthetic and, sometimes, a corticosteroid around the occipital nerves located at the back of the head. By blocking pain signals from these nerves, the procedure can provide significant relief from pain.
Occipital Nerve Branch Block
Why Might You Need an Occipital Nerve Block?
An Occipital Nerve Block may be recommended if you experience:
• Chronic Migraines: Persistent headaches that do not respond well to other treatments.
• Occipital Neuralgia: Sharp, shooting pain in the back of the head, often radiating to the forehead.
• Cervicogenic Headaches: Headaches that originate from the cervical spine or neck.
• Cluster Headaches: Severe headaches occurring in cyclical patterns or clusters.
• Post-Traumatic Headaches: Headaches resulting from head or neck injury.
What Are the Steps in a Occipital Nerve Block Procedure?
Preoperative Preparation
• Medical Evaluation: Comprehensive review of your medical history, symptoms, and previous treatments.
• Diagnostic Assessment: Physical examination and possibly imaging studies to identify the source of pain.
• Informed Consent: Detailed discussion of the procedure, potential benefits, and risks.
During the Procedure
1. Patient Positioning: You will be comfortably positioned, usually lying face down, to allow easy access to the back of your head and neck.
2. Local Anesthesia: The skin around the injection site will be numbed to minimize discomfort.
3. Guided Injection: Using anatomical landmarks or ultrasound guidance, the needle is precisely positioned near the occipital nerves.
4. Injection Process: The local anesthetic and corticosteroid mixture is injected to block the pain signals from the occipital nerves.
Postoperative Care
• Observation: Brief period of monitoring after the injection to ensure there are no immediate side effects.
• Activity Guidelines: Recommendations on limiting activity for a short period to allow the medication to take effect.
• Pain Relief: Pain relief can be immediate, but full benefits may be observed over a few days as the inflammation subsides.
Recovery and Rehabilitation
Postoperative Care
• Immediate Effects: Many patients experience significant pain relief shortly after the injection.
• Pain Monitoring: Keeping a diary of pain levels to track the effectiveness of the treatment.
• Follow-Up Appointments: Scheduled to assess your response to the injection and plan any further treatments if necessary.
Potential Complications
While an Occipital Nerve Block is generally safe, potential complications can include:
• Infection: Risk of infection at the injection site.
• Bleeding: Minor bleeding or bruising may occur.
• Nerve Damage: Rare but possible risk of temporary or permanent nerve damage.
• Allergic Reaction: Rare but possible allergic reaction to the injected medication.
Benefits of Occipital Nerve Block in Pain Management
• Significant Pain Relief: Rapid reduction in headache and neck pain levels.
• Improved Functionality: Enhanced ability to perform daily activities without the burden of chronic pain.
• Reduced Dependence on Medication: Decreased need for pain medications, leading to fewer side effects.
• Enhanced Quality of Life: Improved overall well-being and ability to engage in physical and social activities.
Find a Pain Management Surgeon
Find a Location
MENDELSON KORNBLUM PAIN MANAGEMENT - LIVONIA
For appointments contact
Scheduling: 855.750.5757
For billing questions
Billing: 586.439.6242
Fax: 734.542.0220
MENDELSON KORNBLUM PAIN MANAGEMENT - WARREN
For appointments contact
Scheduling: 855.750.5757
For billing questions
Billing: 586.439.6242
Fax: 586.261.1961
Fax (Pain Management): 586.838.1603
MENDELSON KORNBLUM PAIN MANAGEMENT- STERLING HEIGHTS
COMING SOON | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Storing Files and Images in Access with ASP.NET
Should you store files and images in the database or the filesystem in an ASP.NET application? With SQL Server this is a dilemma, with both approaches having their pros and cons. When it comes to Access, the decision is much easier to make. Because an Access database is restricted to 2Gb, it makes more sense to store files in the file system. However, sometimes, you may not have the choice. If you have to use the database, here's how.
I'll start by discussing the data type that Access offers to support storing files: the Ole Object data type. OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) is the technology that the Office suite of products use to assist with sharing files across applications. For example, when you insert a picture in a Word document, OLE comes into play. When you see Excel spreadsheets embedded in a Word doc, again, it's the result of OLE. Finally, if you download the sample Northwind database, you will see the worst possible quality images of the sales people appear on the Employees form:
This is also OLE at work. OLE servers are applications which are responsible for converting original files into something that OLE can work with. Taking something like a jpeg or gif, the OLE Server responsible will reformat the file and possibly increase its overall size by up to 100 times to make it work with OLE. It will often reduce quality markedly. The application that displays the result must understand the format, and the correct OLE servers must be in place to decode the database field content. To cap it all, there is a performance overhead required in encoding and decoding OLE's proprietory format. All of this goes to make OLE totally unsuitable for files to be used in web applications. It is also OLE that has helped give Access a poor reputation when it comes to storing images or files within it.
The OLE Object field is also happy to accept Long Binary Data, which is basically a BLOB (Binary Large OBject). Being a byte-for-byte copy of the original file, the BLOB is easy to extract and present in its original form over HTTP, but not so easy within the Access application itself.
For this demonstration, I have taken the Northwind sample database and added a few fields to the Employees table. There is already an OLE Object field for Photo, and to this I add the following:
PhotoFileName TEXT
PhotoMime TEXT
Resume OLE Object
ResumeFileName TEXT
ResumeMime TEXT
The fields with "Mime" in their name will be used to store the content-type of the file. Browsers look at this property to decide how to treat an HTTP response. If the MIME type is one that they know, they will either display the content inline (where they are set up to do so, such as with text/html or image/gif) or they will invoke the default application for the known MIME type (e.g MS Word for application/msword). Finally, if they do not know what do to, they present the Save/Open dialogue box.
The next step is to create an Employee Entry page, so that users can create a new employee, and upload an image and a Resume (or CV as we call them in Rome):
<%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeFile="AccessUpload.aspx.cs" Inherits="AccessUpload" %>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head runat="server">
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">
body{font-family: tahoma;font-size: 80%;}
.row{clear: both;}
.label{float: left;text-align: right;width: 150px;padding-right: 5px;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<form id="form1" runat="server">
<div>
<div class="row">
<span class="label"><label for="FirstName">First Name: </label></span>
<asp:TextBox ID="FirstName" runat="server"></asp:TextBox>
</div>
<div class="row">
<span class="label"><label for="Surname">Surname: </label></span>
<asp:TextBox ID="Surname" runat="server"></asp:TextBox>
</div>
<div class="row">
<span class="label"><label for="Photo">Photo: </label></span>
<asp:FileUpload ID="PhotoUpload" runat="server" />
</div>
<div class="row">
<span class="label"><label for="Resume">Resume: </label></span>
<asp:FileUpload ID="ResumeUpload" runat="server" />
</div>
<div class="row">
<span class="label"> </span>
<asp:Button ID="Button1" runat="server" Text="Submit" onclick="Button1_Click" />
</div>
</div>
</form>
</body>
</html>
I've used a bit of CSS to style this and the result looks like this:
All of the action takes place in the Button1_Click event in the code-behind:
protected void Button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (PhotoUpload.HasFile && ResumeUpload.HasFile)
{
Stream photoStream = PhotoUpload.PostedFile.InputStream;
int photoLength = PhotoUpload.PostedFile.ContentLength;
string photoMime = PhotoUpload.PostedFile.ContentType;
string photoName = Path.GetFileName(PhotoUpload.PostedFile.FileName);
byte[] photoData = new byte[photoLength - 1];
photoStream.Read(photoData, 0, photoLength);
Stream resumeStream = ResumeUpload.PostedFile.InputStream;
int resumeLength = ResumeUpload.PostedFile.ContentLength;
string resumeMime = ResumeUpload.PostedFile.ContentType;
string resumeName = Path.GetFileName(ResumeUpload.PostedFile.FileName);
byte[] resumeData = new byte[resumeLength - 1];
resumeStream.Read(resumeData, 0, resumeLength);
string qry = "INSERT INTO Employees (FirstName, LastName, Photo, PhotoFileName, PhotoMime, Resume,
ResumeFileName, ResumeMime) VALUES (?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?)";
string connect = "Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OleDb.4.0;Data Source=|DataDirectory|Northwind.mdb";
using (OleDbConnection conn = new OleDbConnection(connect))
{
OleDbCommand cmd = new OleDbCommand(qry, conn);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", FirstName.Text);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", Surname.Text);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", photoData);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", photoName);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", photoMime);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", resumeData);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", resumeName);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", resumeMime);
conn.Open();
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
}
The two upload controls are checked for the presence of a file each, and then the contents of the files are read into byte arrays, and their content types and names are obtained. These along with the first name and last name are passed into the parmeters before the whole lot is inserted into the database.
Having got the files there, some way is needed to retrieve them and deliver them to the browser. A Generic Handler is a good option for this. I decided to create two: one for the Resume and one for the Photo. You might be tempted to combine both tasks into one handler. I'm only going to show the Resume handler, because apart from the SQL and the data fields, all the code is the same as the PhotoHandler:
<%@ WebHandler Language="C#" Class="ResumeFileHandler" %>
using System;
using System.Data.OleDb;
using System.Web;
public class ResumeFileHandler : IHttpHandler
{
public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)
{
string qry = "SELECT Resume, ResumeFileName, ResumeMime FROM Employees WHERE EmployeeID = ?";
string connect = "Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OleDb.4.0;Data Source=|DataDirectory|Northwind.mdb";
using (OleDbConnection conn = new OleDbConnection(connect))
{
if (context.Request.QueryString["id"] != null)
{
OleDbCommand cmd = new OleDbCommand(qry, conn);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("", context.Request.QueryString["id"]);
conn.Open();
using (OleDbDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
if (rdr.HasRows)
{
rdr.Read();
context.Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment; filename=" + rdr["ResumeFileName"]);
context.Response.ContentType = rdr["ResumeMime"].ToString();
context.Response.BinaryWrite((byte[])rdr["Resume"]);
}
}
}
}
}
public bool IsReusable
{
get { return false; }
}
}
A generic handler (.ashx file) implements IHttpHandler, which enforces 2 methods - ProcessRequest() and IsReusable. All the action takes place in ProcessRequest. I'm passing in the EmployeeID via the querystring, which should tell you that ASP.NET will serve requests to files ending in .ashx. The code obtains the values for the file name, and content type, and then sets the response headers accordingly, before finally streaming the file as an array of bytes.
An example page which lets the user get the files is as follows:
<form id="form1" runat="server">
<div>
<a href="ResumeFileHandler.ashx?ID=12">Get Resume</a>
<br />
<img src="ImageFileHandler.ashx?ID=12" alt="" />
</div>
</form>
To provide access to the Resume, a simple hyperlink is all that's needed. The file is delivered when the user clicks the link. The image, on the the hand, has it's src pointing to the filehandler. When the html for the page is first sent to the browser, it then looks at other "resources" that the page needs, and requests them one by one. The src attribute of the img tag points to the location of one of these resources.
Storing files as byte arrays in Access is a lot more efficient than embedding OLE objects. If you site is one that needs to serve a relatively small amount of users in an Intranet, this approach may serve you well. However, as I said at the beginning of the article, the preferred option is to store a filename in the database and the files on disc. I debated whether I should provide guidance on what I believe to be the wrong way to manage files with Access, but I see requests for help on this quite often. However, if you have no choice about how you work, for example because you have to deal with a legacy database with files already in it, hopefully this article will have provided you with some help.
You might also like... | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
MRT File – What is .mrt file and how to open it?
lightbulb
MRT File Extension
Stimulsoft Report File – file format by Stimulsoft
MRT (Stimulsoft Report File) is a file extension developed by Stimulsoft. It stores report designs created using the Stimulsoft Reports software. These reports can include various data visualizations, charts, and text elements, and can be exported to various formats.
Purpose of MRT Files
MRT files are specifically designed for storing report templates and data within the Stimulsoft Reports platform. These files play a crucial role in the process of creating and managing reports using the Stimulsoft solution.
Structure and Functionality
MRT files encapsulate the essential elements of a report, including data sources, layout, formatting, and formulas. The structure of an MRT file is highly organized, providing a comprehensive representation of the report’s design and content. This detailed file format enables users to define complex reports with precision and control, streamlining the reporting process. By storing all report-related information within a single MRT file, users can easily manage, share, and modify reports as needed.
Using Stimulsoft Reports Software
The most straightforward method to open an MRT file is to use Stimulsoft Reports software. This software is the proprietary application used to create and edit MRT files. When you install Stimulsoft Reports, it associates itself with the MRT file extension, allowing you to open MRT files by double-clicking on them. The Stimulsoft Reports software provides a comprehensive suite of tools for working with MRT files, including the ability to view, edit, and create reports.
Using Other Applications
If you do not have access to Stimulsoft Reports software, there are a few other applications that can be used to open MRT files. These applications include Telerik Reporting and DevExpress XtraReports. These applications are commercial software packages that provide a range of features for working with reporting data. While they may not offer the same level of functionality as Stimulsoft Reports, they can still be used to view and edit MRT files.
MRT File Overview
An MRT file is an XML-based report file created using Stimulsoft Reports, a reporting solution for Microsoft Windows. It contains report definitions, including data source connections, layout information, formatting, and interactive elements. MRT files allow users to design and generate dynamic reports that can be exported to various formats such as PDF, HTML, and Excel.
Advantages of Using MRT Files
MRT files offer several advantages for report development. They enable developers to:
• Centralize report definitions: Store multiple reports and their associated data in a single file, simplifying maintenance and collaboration.
• Design interactive reports: Create reports with custom controls, navigation, and data filtering options to enhance user engagement.
• Enable data binding: Connect reports to multiple data sources, such as databases, XML files, and web services, for flexible data retrieval.
• Support cross-platform reporting: Generate reports that can be viewed on different operating systems and devices, making them accessible to a wider audience.
• Customize report layout: Control the appearance and structure of reports, including fonts, colors, page layout, and data visualization elements, to meet specific requirements.
Other Extensions | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Bluey
Bluey may refer to:
People
* Bluey (nickname), a list of people with the nickname
* Robert Bluey (born 1979), American conservative blogger and journalist
* Bluey, the stage name of Jean-Paul Maunick, a British guitarist, bandleader, composer and record producer
Television
* Bluey (1976 TV series), an Australian police drama television series
* Bluey (2018 TV series), an Australian animated children's television series
* Bluey Heeler, titular protagonist of the series
* Bluey: The Album, the 2021 soundtrack album for the series
* Bluey: The Videogame, a 2023 video game based on the series
Other uses
* Slang term for an Australian Cattle Dog
* Bluey (long-lived dog) (1910–1939), certified by Guinness World Records as the world's longest-living dog
* "Bluey", a character in the Bluey and Curley (1939–1975) comic strip drawn by Alex Gurney
* A British Slang term to describe a pornographic film, derived from the Electric Blue (TV series). | WIKI |
User:Bethany1030/Bio
Bethany Jezzeny was born in Yuma Arizona on January 26, 1960. Since then she has transformed herself into a World Renowned Trapeze Artist. She has worked with Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Baily Circus for the past 20 years and is especially known for her High Wire Act and as ←previously mentioned her Trapeze Work. Her stage name was "Queen of the Big Top" | WIKI |
Berthe Art
Berthe Constance Ursule Art (26 December 1857 – 27 February 1934) was a Belgian still life painter.
Biography
She was born in Brussels as the daughter of Ferdinand Art and Constance Luc. She never married and lived and worked on 28 Blanchestraat in Sint-Gillis (Brussels). she was trained by Alfred Stevens and advised by Franz Binjé. Her painting Study of Still life: Grapes and Partridges was included in the 1905 book Women Painters of the World. Berthe Art exhibited her work at the Palace of Fine Arts and The Woman's Building at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois.
Circle of Women Painters
She became a member of the Brussels-based club called Cercle des Femmes Peintres which was active 1888–1893. They were the Belgian equivalent of the French Union des Femmes Peintres et Sculpteurs. Other members were Jeanne Adrighetti, Alix d'Anethan, Marie de Bièvre, Marguérite Dielman, Mathilde Dupré-Lesprit, Mary Gasparioli, Marie Heijermans, Pauline Jamar, Rosa Leigh, Alice Ronner, Henriëtte Ronner-Knip, Rosa Venneman, Marguerite Verboeckhoven, Emma Verwee and Marie de Villermont. They organized art shows in the local Brussels museum from 1888 but were disbanded by 1902.
Galerie Lyceum
She began a Brussels gallery in 1911 together with some friends from the (by then defunct) Circle of Women Painters. The gallery was called the Galerie Lyceum. Founding members were Alice Ronner, Emma Ronner, Anna Boch, Louise Danse, Marie Danse, Juliette Wytsman and Ketty Gilsoul-Hoppe. | WIKI |
User:Drheinrick
Dr. Heinrick is a Human Nutrition major and a pre-medical student.
Before becoming interested in nutrition and health, Heinrick spent several years as a professional web and database developer during the .com boom. Interests include vegetarianism, reading, and Howard Stern.
Main Blog Website
Dr. Heinrick's Website
Online Nutrition Tools
Dr. Heinrick's TPN/PPN Calculator
Dr. Heinrick's Renal Serving/Exchange Calculator | WIKI |
Run As Profiles and Run As Accounts together provide an appropriate identity to run a task, rule, or monitor in Operations Manager 2007. A Run As Profile allows a management pack author to associate an identity, other than the default action account, with a module so that it can run as that identity.
A Run As Account represents an identity that can be associated with a Run As Profile. Management pack authors with the necessary user rights can create tasks, rules, or monitors to perform various functions. Run As Accounts and Run As Profiles enable tasks, rules, or monitors to run with the account that has the necessary user rights.
Note
As an Operations Manager administrator, be sure you know what actions are going to be performed when importing management packs. This is especially important when importing management packs containing a task, rule, or monitor that uses a Run As Profile. Ensure that you understand the function of any module for which you specify a Run As Account associated with a Run As Profile.
The following example illustrates the relationship between Run As Profiles and Run As Accounts. Sam is working on a management pack for his company's line-of-business (LOB) application and is creating a Get Data task. Sam knows that the action account that he is using might not have sufficient rights to run this task; however, Jane, the LOB Administrator, does have the sufficient user rights. So Sam will configure the task to run with Jane’s credentials.
While authoring the management pack, Sam creates a Run As Profile called Data Operators and associates it with the task module. When the LOB Management Pack containing the Get Data task is imported into Operations Manager 2007, the Run As Profile associated with the task will be included in the import and Data Operators will appear in the list of available Run As Profiles.
The Operations Manager 2007 administrator will create a Run As Account configured with Jane’s credentials. The Run As Account is then added to the Run As Profile that the task will use. The target computer on which the Run As Account will be used will also need to be explicitly specified in the Run As Profile.
Note
The default account for the Run As Profile is the action account. By default, all rules, monitors, and tasks on an agent will run as the action account for that agent. Consider what the action account should be, and choose an account with appropriate rights. Given the wide range of rights of a domain administrator account, and considering the idea of using a least-privileged account, the domain administrator would not be a good choice. Account credentials associated with a particular Run As Account should consist of the least amount of privileges necessary. It is suggested that you do not associate high-privilege accounts unless absolutely necessary.
Run As Profiles default to the action account when they are created but can later be overridden on a per-computer basis. Because each computer requires a different credential, Operations Manager 2007 administrators can associate multiple Run As Accounts with each Run As Profile, which is useful when the Run As Profile is used on different computers.
See Also
Did you find this information useful? Please send your suggestions and comments about the documentation. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Quit Cigarettes For Good With Hypnosis And Feel The Benefits!
The easiest way to stop smoking is probably with the help of hypnosis. I myself packed up the habit after 30 years of smoking after just one visit to http://www.cindygalvin.co.uk. Even with the help of a professional hypnotist, nicotine addiction is hard to overcome, but many aids such as quit smoking pills are readily available to be used in combination with hypnosis or if you are unable to get yourself hypnotised.
According to a study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 20 percent of male and female adults in the U.S. smoke cigarettes, while more than 80 percent of them smoke a cigarette every day. Smoking causes various types of illnesses and diseases such as cancers, strokes, heart attacks, and gum, eye and skin diseases.
Overcoming Nicotine Addiction
The nicotine in cigarette smoke is a drug that affects brain chemistry, producing pleasant feeling to create both physical and psychological dependency. When smoke is inhaled, nicotine is sucked deep into the lungs and immediately absorbed into the bloodstream and then it travels to the heart and brain, affecting the cardiovascular system, central nervous system and hormones. The nervous system eventually adjusts to the nicotine running through the bloodstream.
Benefits of Quitting Smoking
The benefits of quitting smoking are enormous. Just 20 minutes after smoking the last cigarette, blood pressure, pulse rate and body temperature return to normal limits. After eight hours, oxygen levels increase and carbon monoxide levels drop. The chance of ha a heart attack drops within 24 hours. After two days, nerve endings begin to regenerate, while smell and taste sensations improve. After one year, the chance of acquiring coronary heart disease relative to the smoking history is a full 50% lower than that of someone who still smokes.
Ways to Quit Smoking
First of all, it is a good idea to get rid of all cigarettes, ashtrays and lighters. Try hanging out with non-smokers and spending the leisure time where smoking isnt allowed and smokers are not around. Former heavy smokers should take one day at a time.
Substituting exercise for cigarettes is a great way to handle withdrawal the variety of psychological and physical symptoms that are brought on when smoking is stopped. Getting through the first seven days is the most difficult when many people experience dizziness, coughing and dry throat, and some people immediately gain weight. Physical activity works well for relieving stress and promoting relaxation, increasing oxygen to the bloodstream for increased energy, increasing circulation, suppressing appetite and creating a positive self-image.
How to Quit Smoking for Good
Tips for quitting smoking permanently include:
Stay away from smokers and second-hand smoke.
Avoid alcohol, coffee and other drinks that can associate with smoking.
Fiddle with a pencil and chew gum when craving a cigarette.
Opt for several small meals and plenty of water.
Dont think one cigarette wont hurt. Because it will.
Stop Smoking Help Quit Smoking Aids
If nothing works, many quit smoking aids such as nicotine patches, inhalers, nicotine nasal spray, quit smoking pills and prescription drugs are available. Numerous organizations and institutions provide services such as stop smoking help lines and counseling for smokers. Try to find the right one that suits you.
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Talk:Chu shogi
Tables
While this article is outstanding, its old-style HTML tables are completely unreadable, to the point of being a barrier to further editing. Let this be a lesson on the judicious use of whitespace. --Ardonik.talk* July 3, 2005 10:48 (UTC)
* Hi. Thanks for your interest. I am not much of a writer, but I felt tables were the best way to demonstrate the piece movements. I didn't want to make up a bunch of graphics. Is there a more appropriate way of doing it? --Sivak. July 4, 2005 2:01 (UTC)
* The tables seem fine to me.
* Notice you're missing a few pronunciations. Are you just missing vowel length? The only possibility for 盲虎 "moko" in standard Japanese is mouko (from mauko); for 猛豹 "mohyo" is mouhyou (from mauheu), etc. However, others are wrong: 将 can only be shou in any of its compounds, I believe. (Well, there's always the possibility of ideosyncratic pronunciations, but that's doubtful.)
* Well, a lot of these Romaji I am getting from Jim Breen's site. I have a hard time reading Hiragana, so I only did a few for the initial release. I intended to add the others later. I don't speak Japanese and only know Katakana a few Kanji (mainly for fun). It was hard to get some of them for this article. If you want to contribute, feel free. --Sivak 21:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
* Of course, this is assuming that Roger Hare's got the basics right, because there are other possibilities if you let the vowels vary (*myouku for 盲虎, etc.). Easiest just to lift the pronunciations from the Japanese Wikipedia.
* Anyway, I'll add these in. kwami 20:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
* Weird - Japanese Wikipedia got one wrong, or so it appears. 歩兵 has two pronunciations: hohei (infantry, foot soldier), and fuhyou ([shogi] pawn). The abbreviation in shogi is fu, but Japanese Wikipedia has hohei. I'll "correct" the Japanese page and see what happens - meanwhile I'll leave it as fuhyou here. kwami 20:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
* Well, it's been seven weeks, and my correction to the Japanese site stands, so I'm taking that as confirmation. kwami 07:30, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
* Sorry about being anonymous above [correcting now]; I got signed out while doing this. I touched up the article a bit, hopefully for clarity; see what you think. Tenjiku would be a fun article to do too (my favorite variant that I haven't actually played). Last I heard, some of the moves were still debatable in the English-speaking world; it would be fun to check out Japanese Wikipedia. Well, maybe some day. kwami 00:39, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
* Hey, I had a quick question about the game and the Taishi (Crown Prince). If you have one of these and it gets put in check, do you have to move it out of check? Same for the king: If you've got the prince and your king is checked, do you need move the king away?
* What if your opponent checkmates your king, but not the prince? Can he capture the king on the next move and then have to go after the prince? I've been wondering about this matter and if either piece can be physically removed from the board. --Sivak 05:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
* As far as I know, there is no rule against capturing kings in shogi. A player will normally concede the game when mated, but if he doesn't, his opponent takes the king like any other piece, and the game is over. In chu, however, the game is on as long as each player has a king, and the prince counts as a king. (Perhaps the prince is assumed to be promoted to king if the king is captured, but I don't believe anyone says that explicitly.)
* There's that famous (if perhaps apocryphal) story of the (Western) chess master who told a beginning player that he could queen a pawn into any piece he chose, so of course the student chose to have a second king. The master claims he then won the game by checkmating both kings simultaneously. No such difficulties are entailed by a second king in chu: you simply capture the kings one at a time. And no, I don't believe you have to move a king that's in check, though of course it would be suicide not to do so if you have only one king. But with a prince, you might even sacrifice your king as part of a gambit! kwami 06:08, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
* Interesting. Maybe we should add notes about this in the article. I actually realized there is no mention of the Crown Prince acting as a second king. Maybe you could put something together? Lastly, if BOTH pieces are checkmated, does the game end? I know that a resignation is more likely, but it's these little points that interest me.
* I hope you like what I've done. I've tried to do my best at both fact-finding and editing. I don't mind the revert, I was just following what I found in Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). --JTTyler 06:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I assume you mean my reverting the vowels with macrons? I'm not sure what style has to do with it: the macron indicates that the vowel is long in Japanese, and these weren't long vowels. I'll make the corrections in the other variant pages too.
I doubt that double check mate ends the game. Only capturing the last king does. Since you can only capture one piece at a time (unless you're mating with the lion or similar piece), the other escapes, and the game goes on. But even if you checkmated both kings with the lion, so that you could capture both on the next move, it's still the capture that ends the game. kwami 07:27, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
* Ah, tenjiku: I don't know if it's as fun as it looks, but it's cool to be able to take out eight pieces at once! kwami 07:40, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
I went and converted the tables from XHTML to the pipeline wiki markup. This aught to make Ardonik and Sivak happier. @u@ Not only does this make things a little easier for the editors, but it also cuts 6KB from the file size. Don’t worry Kwami, all your changes are still there in the new format so you didn’t waste your time. I thought it was a good idea anyway. Maybe we could take a vote. If folks don’t like it, we could always go back to the XHTML. I always did like Sivak’s idea for the tables, and wouldn’t mind seeing them in other shogi variant articles but that may prove time intensive. Let me finish fixing the others first, then time will tell. --JTTyler 18:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
* Sorry, I didn't see that comment until just now. (I got logged out when editing, which of course removed this page from my watchlist - what a pain!) I appreciate the change - I prefer pipeline markup too, but the conversion is rather tedious. kwami 09:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
* I cheated --JTTyler 01:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
movement color
Hi Akamemoto,
I appreciate you color coding the movement diagrams here and in the shogi article. It looks good, and makes the diagrams much more legible. However, I see you've now gone from a system of giving each type of movement its own color to using different colors for each piece. May I ask why? As it is now, there is no continuity across the game, and several of the diagrams have colors that are rather difficult to distinguish, meaning that they're little better legibility-wise than when they had no color at all. kwami 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Kirin to Qilin or maybe Kylin
Subject says it all. I was wondering if the users here thought it would be a good idea to change it to the "English version" of the name. I'm really not sure why I used the Romaji when I began the article. What do you think? I think Qilin might be the best option, as it seems to be the "proper spelling". I personally don't care on the matter, but was wondering if others did or if we should just leave it as Kirin. --Sivak 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
* There is no common English version: Qilin is Chinese and Kirin is Japanese. It's normally seen as Kirin in English. Kylin is a fully anglicized word, but hasn't been used much since the nineteenth century. kwami 01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
* So I guess I was right to guess Kirin then? How interesting... --Sivak 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
* I would actually go with Kyrin, since most websites that allow playing Chu Shogi (Richard's PBM Server, Chess Variants, etc.), as well as George Hodges' Middle Shogi Manual all use "Ky" for the piece in moves lists (Ky-7j) and Kyrin for the name of the piece.TKR101010 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we're back to this. I see both "kirin" and "kylin" in the article. Which should we use? OneWeirdDude (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
* It doesn't matter much to me; I'd go with "kirin" as that's what we seem to have more of. Double sharp (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
* I've changed them all to "kirin", as that is what our larger shogi variant articles had. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Heisei shogi
I don't see any mention of Heisei shogi at wiki-ja. Is this at all notable? Is the setup correct? What is an "adjacent square"? Adjacent to a friendly piece? kwami (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Piece images on initial setup
These are very nice. Can you show the promoted pieces too?
Hidden Protectors
I've never heard of this, and so would at least like a citation, and the rule needs to actually be stated, rather than just an example given:
* Note that there exist "hidden protector" positions. For example, if a Black Lion lies directly on a line between a White Lion and a White Free King, then the White Lion is considered to be protected by the Free King, as it will be bearing down directly on the Black Lion were it allowed to capture the White Lion (it is not so allowed, owing to this rule).
Which are these positions? They are not defined. Is the rule saying that you're not allowed to swap lions? I've never heard of such a thing. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
A Hidden Protector position involves the Lion capture rule restricting the capture of a Lion that's two squares away and protected ... "If an opposing Lion is two squares away from your Lion, then your Lion can only capture that opposing Lion if that opposing Lion is unprotected.", #7a in the rules of the European Chu Shogi tournament (Reference #1 on the Chu Shogi wiki page), which continues ... "Note: If your attacking Lion is positioned directly between the opposing Lion, and another opposing piece, such that if your Lion were to be removed from the board, then the opposing Lion would be protected, then the opposing Lion is considered to be protected, and so may not be captured under the conditions of this rule (the "Hidden Protector")." Although worded slightly differently, this information is also stated in The Middle Shogi Manual by George Hodges.
So in the diagram above, the Lions on 10j and 11h are not able to capture each other. Both are two squares away from each other, and they are both protected (10j by a Copper General, and 11h by a Free King). On the other side of the board though, the Lion on 1g would be able to capture the Lion on 3g as it is unprotected, BUT the Lion on 3g would not be able to capture the Lion on 1g because it is protected by a Hidden Protector (i.e. the Freek King on 12g) according to the Note quoted above. The Lion on 1g doesn't seem to be protected as one normally thinks of it, but since the Lion on 3g is the only piece in between it and the Free King on 12g, it is still being protected by the Free King. This isn't dependent on the protecting piece being a Free King, it could be Rook, Bishop, etc.
Personally, I think the way the rule on the wiki page should be restated so that it's as it is on the referenced cite.TKR101010 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
* If you ask me, the Hidden Protector rule is redundant. All the rule-set needs to say is that a lion can capture another lion that is two spaces away if the capturing lion will be safe from capture for at least one turn. (Otherwise, it must capture something else as well, other than a pawn or go-between—or else the move is illegal.) — Right? OneWeirdDude (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
* Someone agreed with me in an edit summary. Should I change it? Thing is, I certainly didn't make it up. OneWeirdDude (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
* That was me! I think it should certainly be changed, for clarity, though I wouldn't mind keeping as secondary the "hidden protector" phrasing (only because that one was widely used by Western sources). Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
* How about: "2. It can always capture a non-adjacent lion (on a "☆" square) if, supposing it had done so without capturing anything else, remains safe for at least one turn. 3. If capturing a non-adjacent lion with nothing else leaves it vulnerable next turn, it may only capture the other lion if it first captures another piece so that it is then adjacent (double capture), and then only if the other piece is something other than a pawn or go-between." (The wording might need fixing.) OneWeirdDude (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
* Seems good to me. Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
* OneWeirdDude and I have now edited the table entry for the Lion. The text now seems to make the note on protection below redundant, so I removed it, along with the diagram (which unfortunately wouldn't fit in the table: otherwise I would have kept it). I still think the diagram is a helpful illustration for the situation, though (and similarly there could be one showing the "hidden protector" pinned to a royal piece): @OneWeirdDude, what would be a good place to put it, in your opinion? Double sharp (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
* I am with you on this, but beware that not everyone agrees on the cases where a hidden protector was blocked by a P or GB that is captured together with the Lion, or where a 'false protector' P or GB is captured together with the Lion. Modern as well as historic rule descriptions do not mention these cases explicitly, and it depends on whether one interprets the explicitly mentioned case of the protector being blocked by the capturing Lion as a (strictly speaking redundant) example that was added to illustrate that one should judge the situation after the capture rather than before it, or as an exhaustive summary of what is allowed. H.G.Muller (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
* I restored the definition of a hidden protector, and incorporated some of your text (is that fine with you?) into the article to explain this particular point. Is it better now? Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
* Well, I am not a native English speaker, so I am not sure if "captured with the Lion" is sufficiently unambiguous that it cannot be mistaken for "captured by the Lion", which is why in the text above I added the word "together". If you think it is sufficiently clear, I trust your judgement. H.G.Muller (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
* I added the word "together". (I actually missed it when reading your comment, and thus inadvertently removed it: it's in the article now.) Double sharp (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Double sharp: My opinion? I'm not sure my opinion counts for much; I'm not that good at composing documents. OneWeirdDude (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's another example I found on the japanese Chu Shogi wiki page. Here the red Bishop is a hidden protector of the red Lion. The black Lion would not be able to capture the red Lion in this case. TKR101010 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
* Thanks. I'll add this to the article. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
* Is there a way to do this so that the opponent's pieces are upside-down and not red? Red makes them look like promoted pieces. OneWeirdDude (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* With graphics, not with text. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
* Hey, I'm fine with that. I tried to upload a bitmap and failed. Would you do it, please? OneWeirdDude (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If I were trying to create a historical standard for the rules, I would probably interpolate this to mean that you should judge the position after the capture. A lion can't capture a lion if it can then be recaptured. That would be a simple way of phrasing it. It's a pity though that we cannot explicitly simplify things to that due to a few small issues.
Although if I were trying to do something with this game, I would note: this is surely the best game of Grand Chess ever designed. It could work as an expansion of chess, too: the worlds of chess and shogi could be said to meet, as both contribute pieces, and we have a chesslike material balance. If I were trying to use it as a chess expansion primarily, though, I would probably use FIDE pawns to make the pawn-line more lion-proof (so that it need not be perfectly flat), and thus also FIDE go-betweens (that can also move and capture backward). I might also get rid of the lion-trading rules, as there are still many strong sliders, just to prove that (like in chess) the loss of the strongest piece still leaves a mightily interesting game. (The same may be applied to dai or tenjiku! With tenjiku I'd use go-betweens as well, converted to FIDE-style two-way pawns. Dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, and tai should probably work, but I need to check this.) Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
* My Chess variant 'Elven Chess' is a step in that direction.H.G.Muller (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
* In fact, it seems like the treatment of the fire demon in tenjiku is a good point that shows that we don't need lion-preserving rules.
* I have went through dai and tenjiku shogi, to edit their rules to be more in conformance to that of chu shogi, which was probably the case. Nonetheless, we cannot be certain, so I added a few caveats before the main meat of the move descriptions begin.
* I would add that I would use Western knights in dai and tenjiku shogi, so that they aren't jokes. The shogi knight is a joke. The only reason it works in standard shogi IMHO is because of the drop rule, which removes its binding and lets it go anywhere. I would also eschew dai and let tenjiku take its place in the shogi-variant hierarchy, as having all bishops on the same colour (and all short bishops "flying dragons" on the other colour) is annoying. I would also get rid of the rules disallowing repetition, as I think that the possibility for a losing side to perform a miracle save by perpetual check is charming and beautiful. Maybe I am biased because I am primarily a chess player, but these seem to be reasonable minor changes to make these games just a bit more attractive to Western chess players. The main point of divergence is how the Japanese inventors took the concept of promotion to such lofty heights. Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Promotion
When dicussing the rules with Japanese Chu-Shogi players on the 81Dojo server I learned that they use different promotion rules there. I investigated the matter, and it seems that the rule mentioned in the Wikipedia article is based exclusively on a misunderstanding. For one, the rule mentioned in the article is different from what the Middle Shogi Manual states: it says the possibility to promote on a non-capture returns after one turn, while the MSM states that it only returns after a move with that piece. Both seem to be wrong, based on faulty translation of the Japanese rule descriptions, as well as by drawing conclusions from erroneous solutions to historic mating problems. The correct solutions provide zero evidence that promotability on non-capture could ever be regained without leaving the zone first. A summary of my findings is currently posted at http://hgm.nubati.net/MSM/ChuPromoRule.html. H.G.Muller (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Also note that the Japanese Chu Shogi Association explicitly states in their rules ( http://www.chushogi-renmei.com/kouza/kouza_main.htm section 4, sub 4) that lances that reach last rank become immobile pieces: "If the lance is not advanced in formation to the end-stage and 4. Infantry, is treated as a piece (piece of not going) to death on the spot." (Sorry for the Google translation, but native Japanese speakers confirmed this.) H.G.Muller (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
* OK, I correccted the article. Now it says that a piece which declined promotion at its first opportunity cannot promote unless (1) it makes a capture or (2) it leaves the zone and reenters, unless it is a pawn moving to the twelfth rank. It also now says that lances that reach the last rank without promoting simply become immobile. (Sorry for reverting you earlier: I didn't see your comment here, and chose to trust the English-language sources based on not knowing of the evidence you have clearly pointed out on your website that they are wrong.) Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
* BTW, do you have any info for the other historical shogi variants with promotion zones? Do the same promotion rules apply? Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Repetition
Similarly, the repetition rule mentioned in the article (which is the same as in the MSM) can also be questioned. It would allow one to force a win by perpetual checking, when the checked side would have repeat first. This is something that Chess players in general would perceive as very unsatisfactory, and both modern Shogi and Xiangqi have rules against it. Some of the historic matings problems do offer an opportunity for immediately forcing a perpetual which then turns into a mate when the only safe evasion would have to be repeated, but the given solutions never make use of this. So it is unlikely that even in the Edo period the repetition rule was as strict as mentioned here. A minimal amendment would be that escaping from check would always be allowed, repetition or not. H.G.Muller (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
* That would be interesting, though. As Ralph Betza said for his Nemoroth, which uses the same rule (you cannot repeat a previous position): "Nimzovich would approve of this proposition. Victory by Zugzwang!" Of course, given the evidence from the historical mating problems, your amendment would make sense. I'd codify it as: "It is illegal to make a move that results in a repetition of a previous position, unless you are in check. A position is repeated when all pieces are in the same position and the same player is to move, so that turn passing is legal if you have a lion, horned falcon, or soaring eagle." Note that Nemoroth does not have royal pieces, which makes this (as you put it) unsatisfactory situation impossible. Double sharp (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not happy with the modifications recently made to the repetitions section. These suggests that the rule we mention primarily is not based on the TSA rules, while in fact it is. There was no 'rule change' at all in 1976, it has been George Hodges' interpretation of the historic sources all the way. Which could be wrong, BTW: I am pretty much convinced now that the historic documents were formulating this in terms of 'move sequences', not positions. And this usually puts the opposite player at fault, not the one who creates the repeated position, but the one that has to play from it. The Chu-Shogi-renmei rules for turn passing still reflect this: an even number of turn passes (i.e. returning to the same position) are allowed, as the player that passed first must eventually make a move. Whether the first move or position repetition is forbidden, or only the Nth is just a minor difference, a relaxed application of the basic rule to allow for human error. H.G.Muller (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
* It seems to be a generally applicable principle that if a rule in a historical shogi variant has multiple interpretations, George Hodges' is probably the wrong one. May I ask what passages in the historical documents are the ones that point clearly to your described interpretation, though? Double sharp (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
* Well, George Hodges is not entirely to blame for this; probably his Japanese coworkers were unconsciously influenced by the rules of modern Shogi, assuming by default that they would also apply to the Edo games. I have no access to primary sources, so my main source of information is the website of the Chu Shogi renmei, http://www.chushogi-renmei.com/kouza/kouza_main.htm . The third section of links on that page leads to excerpts of two historic rule descriptions, a recent one (1928) from Fumiaki Okazaki, and an Edo source 1703. Hidetchi once translated the latter for us on the now defunct 81squareuniverse.com forum. (Perhaps a mirror can still be found in some web archive?) The Okazaki rules seem to mention repetition rules in point (4): 千日手は仕掛けた方より変えなければならない. and （注）待ったの禁と、将棋の昔の千日手の規定と同じ. . The ancient Japanese of the Edo document is too difficult for Google translate to make anything intelligible out of it. H.G.Muller (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
* Well, from what I understand, the Edo-era sources are written in very Sinicised Japanese, so I may yet be able to make something out of them! ^_^ I'll take a look at this in a few hours. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
* It seems clear from Okazaki's description, at least from my understanding, that for him it was the player who starts the repetitions who must deviate. The second sentence simply means that the rule for chu shogi is the same as an old one for shogi (so evidently not the modern one). This accords with the historical rule described by John Fairbairn in Shogi for beginners (1986, 2nd ed.) and attributes to the 2nd Meijin Sōko Ōhashi, and mentioned in our article on sennichite. Unless there is some old Sino-Japanese term for repetition that I do not know of, I do not see anything about repetition in the Edo source.
* I am not sure if Okazaki's description is representative of the historical rules in the heyday of chu shogi. However, I would grant him a great deal of weight, as he would come near the end of that unbroken tradition until the 1950s. Curiously he seems to imply that the same thing had previously happened to the other variants: when describing the large shogi variant exhibition of about three years before he wrote the article, he described the situation as the exact rules and even movements of the pieces having been lost or forgotten, and said that chu shogi seemed to be going the same way. His efforts notwithstanding, I fear it pretty much has by now: I was in Kyoto about three and a half years ago, and it seems that for the most part only older people seem to even remember that chu shogi ever existed, and even then about nobody seems to play it. So I would take Okazaki's description as the last one coming from the time when the game was truly "alive". If it can be proven that these were different from earlier versions of the game, as in the Okazaki rule (counterstrike permitted against a hanging lion), we can always mention both. Double sharp (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
* Indeed, he who starts to repeat needs to deviate. But repeats what, moves or positions? What I feel uneasy about is this: an anti-repetition rule is expected to prevent repetitions by forcing the player that benefits from them to deviate. Not to encourage them by awarding a quick win to a player that can force one. But it is very hard to formalize what forcing is, as the complex rules for perpetual chasing in Xiangqi demonstrate. Usually it is the forcing player that first reaches a position in the repetition loop, so it seems to make sense to forbid him repeating that position. But this method fails, because after the forcing player deviates by playing an unrelated forcing move, (e.g. initiating a trade). That does not make the repetition loop go away, but because of the trade it now consists entirely of fresh positions, so that the forcing player starts moving already from a position on the repeat loop. This would then put the burden of deviating on his opponent after all. So it seems rules solely based on who repeats a position are doomed to fail. The moves that follow the repeat loop are the same before and after the trade, however. E.g. a perpetual check would go like (c=check, e=evade, ~ = reversed move): c1, {position A} e, c2, e~, {c2~ would repeat A} capture, recapture {position B} c2~ {allowed again} e, c2, {e~ repeats B, so checkmated}. The problem would go away if the move c2~ would remain forbidden even though the intervening trade would have changed the position (in a non-essential way). When looking at moves, however, it becomes a question when two moves should be considered the same. E.g. would it matter where the piece came from, or just where it goes to. In the example c1 and c2~ result in the same position A, although in c1 it came from a position outside the repeat loop. If these would be considered the same, c2~ would be forbidden (after the maximum of allowed repeats), and then remain forbidden. Of course the fact that the 1703 description doesn't even mention anything on repetitions may make this whole issue a red herring. H.G.Muller (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
* Okazaki does not state which. One might be able to resolve this by saying that the burden to deviate is on the player who initiates and chooses repetitions, not the one who is forced to go along with them to survive. This may be hard to define precisely to cover all the cases, but always allowing check evasion seems to cover the vast majority of them, and would seem consistent with the historical mating problems. Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
* Indeed, this is what the Xiangqi chasing rules formalize. The rule of the Chu-Shogi renmei always allows all absolutely non-aggressive moves. This avoids that dead draws like K vs K can be decided by the repetition rule, but is a bit unsatisfactory in cases where, say, a Rook chases a Queen, as it will be almost impossible to withdraw the Queen without making new, but completely irrelevant attacks with it (e.g. on protected Pawns). Allowing only moves with pieces that received a new attack would solve this, but would not allow a natural draw in K vs K. Of course one could allow both absolutely non-aggressive moves and attack evasions. But to get back on the issue of the historic rules: that the 1703 description doesn't seem to mention anything about this makes me wonder whether there indeed was any rule of this kind in Edo times. Even the idea that perpetual checking is forbidden might be contamination by the rules for modern Shogi. (Note that perpetuals are one of the few ways a game with piece drops can remain undecided, while in games without such drops it is much more likely a draw is achieved by reaching an unwinnable end-game. Perpetual checking in Xiangqi is a problem because the King must stay in the Palace and has a weak move, so that it becomes an easy target for a perpetual in almost any game at some point; in Chu Shogi it would hardly be a problem until a late end-game where the defending side has a Queen-like piece (like 2 Tigers vs Queen), and forbidding perpetuals there solves very little, as the Queen could make hundreds of checks before repeating a position, after which a single other move would create a new position where the checking would start all over.) If perpetual checking was forbidden, I would certainly expect even a short description to mention it; it would not be more rare than 'hidden protectors'. Of course it could be that other Edo manuscripts mention it. But, considering how difficult it is to formulate anything satisfactory, it seems unlikely that there could be just a casual mention. H.G.Muller (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
* Ummm,I looked it up in the MSM, and concerning repetition George Hodges says: If a perpetually recurring sequence of moves occurs, this is known as “sennichite”. This is not allowed and the player beginning the sequence must vary his move.. So it seems that attributing the rule that repeating positions is forbidden to George Hodges is wrong, as in general the move out of the repeated position is the first repeated moves. Unless moves are considered the same when they move the same piece to the same square irrespective where it came from. As this is different from modern Shogi(as the MSM also remarks) it must be based on something, and of course the MSM doesn't state on what. It could be solely based on Okazaki's rules. H.G.Muller (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
* Perhaps we should check the historical repetition rule in use for standard shogi, as Okazaki refers to? Double sharp (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Just an idea: given the sparse wording of the historical sources for most of the variants – they often seem to assume a level of common sense that we lack, not having grown up with chu shogi as a living game – I strongly suspect that this is another case where treating the literal wording of the sources as the literal truth gives unsatisfactory results. For example, it seems that in the past the rule for repetition in standard shogi was also "a player who initiates a repetition loses", but this seems to assume a level of common sense in its application, or else you get the unsatisfactory scenarios that you have outlined above. So as a result we now have the proviso about positions rather than moves for clarification.
Consider: when chu shogi was in its heyday, I very much doubt that most people could play it, since it requires recognition of characters and most people were probably illiterate then. That seems to be why, unlike Go, it seems to be exclusively an aristocratic game in that time. As a result, I do not think they would have found the strict, almost legalistic codification of rules to be necessary. I wouldn't be very surprised if the rules for xiangqi on perpetual chasing and checking also date from considerably later than most of the other rules; actually, the opposite would surprise me. Even in chess, the standardisation of stalemate and pawn promotion only happened in the 19th century, and even a few wrinkles involving castling and dead positions were only sorted out in the late 20th century! Chu shogi clearly had its development arrested by sho shogi before it could attain this kind of standardisation. So it is not surprising that it had none historically. So why not let the standard version be that of the foremost organising body for it today, the Japanese Chu Shogi Association? Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Piece value
According to Betza, the value of a doublemove commoner (non-royal king) is thrice that of a normal commoner. But this is probably for an 8×8 board (the larger 12×12 board would make it somewhat weaker), and doesn't take into account the lion's passing and jumping abilities (which would make it stronger). It is an interesting finding, though. Double sharp (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
* Ralph Betza was a great thinker, but his reflections piece-value were based on very limited human play-testing combined with educated guessing, and often do not bear out in practice. I did a great many determinations of leaper piece values by the method of computer self-play from materially imbalanced positions, and the opening value of the Commoner turned out to be slightly below that of a Knight. Its gets slightly more valuable than a Knight in the end-game (but you have to test it with a program that is aware of its mating potential in order to see that.) The FWADN (i.e. the 'Toothless' Lion without its passing and hit-and-run abilities) tests as about 1.5 Pawn stronger than a Queen, i.e. about 1100cP. It attacks 3 times as many squares as the Commoner, but the dependence of short-range-leaper values on 'footprint' is super-linear (approximately 30*N + 5/8*N*N for the 'multiplet averages' of all pieces with equal number of target squares N). The ability to double-capture and igui enormously increases the Lion value, though (but turn passing seems virtually worthless), and 1500 seems a more realistic value for the Lion (i.e. about 5 Commoners). Chu players might voluntarily trade a Lion in the opening phase for FK + DH, but not for anything less. I did not get yet to making accurate measurements of Chu-Shogi piece values in the context of Chu Shogi itself; until recently there were no engines that played with strategy realistic enough that I would consider the piece values they would find meaningful. So currently HaChu still uses the values I found on the website of the German Chu-Shogi Association. H.G.Muller (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
* Yes, I think for a piece as valuable as the Lion turn passing is essentially worthless. It could help against zugzwang in the endgame, but the lion is so powerful that in practice it's probably not all that useful (besides it can triangulate anyway).
* I think the reason why the commoner is weaker in the opening is because it is (1) slow to develop and (2) it needs to be right next to the centre to exert influence there, e.g. an Nf3 attacks two central squares (d4 and e5) but a commoner needs to be on f4 to get two central squares (e4 and e5), and f4 is inherently harder to have defended or at least not under attack than f3, so it can be forced away. (This holds true for bishops as well, but a Bg3 still impacts the centre as well as a Bf4, whereas a Kg3 has no impact on the centre at all.) But its attack, though short-range, is concentrated: so if gets to occupy the centre itself in the opening or middlegame, it may well equal a knight in value.
* Betza's speculations make reasonable first approximations, I think, but I agree with you that to get any sense of what a piece is actually worth you need to playtest. I wonder how much of that he did for Chess with different armies? He posted games he did of FIDE vs. CC (both ways around): but from looking at the pieces I think the Rookies are the most balanced to normal chess, followed by the Clobberers (I think the archbishop isn't a weak enough queen to counter the overstrong bishop) and then the Knights (their "bishop" replacement, the charging knight, is too strong, I think, because of its concentrated moving power). Double sharp (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
* Betza did a lot of play-testing on CWDA, for sure, (he considered it his major invention), but it was all in human games (where 100 already qualifies as 'a lot') against opponents presumably weaker than himself. Since CWDA is one of the variants I have configured the standard release of my engine Fairy-Max to play, I did a lot of computer play-testing (meaning tens of thousands of games) with it on these variants. One thing this revealed is that all the unorthodox engines are significantly stronger (50-150cP) than FIDE. Humans seem to systematically overestimate the power of the familiar pieces. (The same holds for Spartan Chess, which also has unequal armies. This is perfectly balanced in computer play, but humans perceive the Spartans as disadvantaged compered to the Persians=FIDE.) The Clobberers have an advantage of over half a Pawn on FIDE (mostly due to Betza's underestimation of the value of BN, as you say), but the Nutters on average beat FIDE even when you give them Pawn odds. I haven't tested the Rookies as extensively as Clobberers and Nutters, because it was added to Fairy-Max' repertoire only recently (due to difficulty of implementing limited-range sliders), but what I have seen suggests it is close to the Nutters in strength. The charging Knight is indeed a quite strong piece. I once did some intreresting testing on divergent pieces. It turned out that K (non-royal), N and mKcN all had approximately similar opening value, but that mNcK was about 50cP stronger. It seems that the strength (in the K-N comparison) of the Knight is speed in moving, and of the Commoner concentration of its attacks. The charging Knight also seems to combine these favorable properties. Logically this would imply that mKcN had the worst of both, and should be worth significanly less. But low value of a piece with good forking ability is often masked in opening values, because you almost always can force a trade for something else, and so its value is drawn towards the value of the opponent's minors. I noticed the same when testing the Camel. It seems a near-worthless piece, that in the end-game almost always is lost without compensation, because it is simply too clumsy with its long stride (on 8x8). But its long-range forking ability makes it easy to trade for more valuable stuff in densely populated positions, so it still has a reasonable opening value. H.G.Muller (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
* Two out of three right, then! :-) I wonder what I missed in the Rookies. The WD is quite interesting for a minor piece, being able to force mate. Is that too strong? Because it focuses everything on one direction, and the HDW (3-square x-ray rook) seems very dangerously strong, much stronger than would be expected for a 3-component piece. The RN and Q seem about balanced. The HFD may be a bit overstrength in the opening due to its large leap, but overall it seems OK to me: the R4 seems like a overstrength minor piece or understrength major piece (maybe using R3 instead would balance the Rookies?)
* Your results for the divergent pieces are very interesting, and confirm my suspicion that the commoner's main strength is its concentrated attack. You raise the point that the knight has speed in moving, but at the same time isn't so fast as to be clumsy like the camel: naturally this will change with the board. Maybe on an n-by-n square board, the ideal leaper jump-length would be somewhere around n/4? It seems about right for the knight on 8×8 and the camel on 11×10 (Tamerlane chess: close enough to being a square, I guess). Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
* If you break it down to individual pieces, the WD is worth nearly as much as a Knight. (I set it to 310 in Fairy-Max, where N=325, despite its mating potential; this can be explained by the fact it is significantly slower than a Knight, and only two of its moves go forward.) HFD is about 480, which is average for a 12-target leaper, and marginally better than a Rook that are still 'boxed in'. Betza mentions 3-jumps are dangerous, but I guess this mainly applies to forks from that distance, and only a single forward 3-jump is not more dangerous than other forward moves. The R4 is about 400, though, significantly more than a Bishop. (A B-pair is 325+325+50 = 700, while two R4 would be 800.) RN is about 50 weaker than Q, so adding everything would only leave a half-Pawn advantage for Rookies over FIDE. It could be that the Rookies derive some extra cooperative advantage because all of their pieces have mating potential. Unfortunately Fairy-Max can only handle boards of 8 ranks, due to its Pawn-evaluation code, so I never did any testing on larger NxN boards. But I don't expect there to be a pronounced optimum; what you gain in travel time from one side of the board to the other by making larger strides, you lose in manoeuvrability by skipping over squares. So this is just a trade-off. But when the stride becomes so large that the part of the board where the piece is not hindered by the edge is so small that you cannot stay in it, it really starts to hurt. For a Camel on 8x8 this is only the 2x2 center, which is way too small. So I guess a stride of N (as only move) needs at least a board of size 3N+1 to be useful. H.G.Muller (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Article expansion
Perhaps quite a few section titles from Chess (particularly "History", "Strategy and tactics", "Composition", "Competitive play") would be relevant here, with much possible content. Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
* (Although it has to be noted that much of it would be historical.) Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, here's the organisation I'm going for. The opening sections (rules, handicaps, notation, and variants) can stand, but after that I hope to expand that section on strategy (some of which appear in the CVP article and some in Colin Adams' Chu Shogi Library). Then a history section badly needs inclusion. That would basically be the history of shogi, as shown in my representation below:
* Heian → sho
* Heian dai → dai (if not an evolution, then still the same concept) → chu, dai
* Chu → tenjiku (a spin-off that no one ever played; just a cursory mention will do)
* Dai → dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, tai (to quote Fairbairn: "these games were never played, nor were they meant to be played. They are regarded as idiocies of the type nowadays inspired by the Guiness Book of Records.")
* (Wa, ko, and taikyoku fall off the main story and are not that important anyway.)
After that would be the six historical games (or perhaps these should only be mentioned?), followed by a section on composition, mentioning all those historical mating problems. I do not know if competitive play was ever much of a thing, though there was a European tournament in 1997 IIRC. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
* Why aren't wa and ko important? Why weren't the "extra-large" variants meant to be played? Just curious. OneWeirdDude (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
* The Edo-era sources didn't give very detailed descriptions for ko, IIRC. As for wa, Fairbairn says that multiple sources give descriptions, but that one has many weak pieces and one has many riders(!), so evidently neither must have been felt important enough to need standardisation. Masukawa notes that the only sets of the extra-large variants were meant for display purposes only: presumably because they look impressive but are just not practical to actually play. Perhaps another thing to note is that only in chu, dai, and tenjiku do we have some sense of consistency between the historical sources. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
* BTW, perhaps I should note that the Edo-era sources often disagree for the large variants in such large ways that it is difficult to imagine them being natural, local rule variations, along the lines of giving the queen the knight's move in Western chess. I am not sure how one could get some of the rule variations listed in maka dai dai shogi otherwise. The emperor move is quite striking (jumps to any unprotected square on the board), but according to Japanese Wikipedia there are also records giving it simply the combined move of the lion and the queen. Meanwhile the teaching king causes a problem with the lion dog, because the Edo-era sources for dai dai shogi do indeed give it the Western move of Q3, without mentioning anything about lion power! Only for maka dai dai shogi might they give the lion power, assuming that Japanese Wikipedia has got it right. And then apparently there was another variation giving it the combined powers of the lion and the tenjiku-shogi vice general. Furthermore not all the "free" pieces are actually free versions of the original, and their moves seem to vary between sources again. I suspect that what we have here are mere "display" sets intended to look impressive, and multiple people felt that there needed to be rules so that they could "play" them once or twice, but that these never were actual, codified games that had a real life; the moves were simply plucked out anew from thin air each time. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Bare king rule
What if your Gold is hanging and the bare King can play KxG immediately? Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
* The entire baring rule is in fact controversial, and the reference given to it is not a primary source. In a rule description from 1703, there is a phrase "When pieces are gone, and there are only the 2 kings, one can mate only if he has a promoted gold." (Translation made by Hidetchi from: 盤の面、駒かれになりて、玉二枚、成金一枚一方にあれば、金一枚にてもつめるなり、). It seems that the 'rule' is based on that remark, distorted through time. The whole idea that there should be anything like a baring rule is based on the reasoning that the remark would otherwise be redundant, so that it must have meant something that is not implied by the other rules, even if this requires one to assume it means something completely different from what it says. This argument is rather shaky, as the 1703 document continues by stating "When a small piece knocks down a large piece, or for example a bishop knocks down a large piece by attacking the king and lion, the player with more pieces will going to win.", which no one tried to elevate to a rule yet. It is also not clear how the "promoted Gold" in the 1703 document morphed into an "unpromoted Gold". And that mutual baring should be a draw seems to come from analogy to Shatranj only, without any roots in historic Shogi literature. Yet the Japanese Chu Shogi Association has adopted the Shatranj rule, declaring any bare King a loss, unless you can bare the opponent King on the next move.H.G.Muller (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
* What would be the point anyway of making it an unpromoted Gold? Surely you would be able to promote it to a Rook from any sane starting position, and easily bring about the mate? Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
* Speaking of that rule: imagine that in chess. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4, and then Black wins because White cannot immediately restore material equality. How ridiculous! Clearly, some of these are strategic guides. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Winboard piece IDs
* A – Reverse Chariot
* B – Bishop
* C – Copper General
* D – Dragon King
* E – Drunk Elephant
* F – Ferocious Leopard
* G – Gold
* H – Dragon Horse
* I – Go-Between
* K – King
* L – Lance
* M – Side Mover
* N – Lion
* O – Kylin
* P – Pawn
* Q – Queen
* R – Rook
* S – Silver General
* T – Blind Tiger
* V – Vertical Mover
* X – Phoenix
A promoted piece is prefixed by a + sign, and hence +X symbolises a queen that was originally a phoenix. The promotions that are not initially present are:
* +D – Soaring Eagle
* +H – Horned Falcon
* +V – Flying Ox
* +M – Free Boar
* +T – Flying Stag
* +L – White Horse
* +A – Whale
Hence the initial setup is as follows:
This is the largest historical shogi variant that can be played with only single letters. (Tai shogi would start looking like NetHack in such a representation, and that makes me think that the emperor should absolutely be<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Double sharp (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
* ✅ Added. Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
* In theory Dai Shogi would still be feasible, if you are willing to make the compromise to consider the primordial King, Queen and Lion promoted pieces, and write them as +E, +X and +O. Then there are exactly 26 unpromoted piece types, but you have to make some very unnatural assignments. With Chu it was not that bad, except N for Lion. (The I, O and X are supposed to be menemonic to the move pattern of the piece.) The problem with double-letter codes (especially mixed with single-letter codes) is that they break the FEN system for position encoding. I prepared the latest WinBoard (version 4.9) for handling bigger variants by allowing the use of 'dressed letters', i.e. letter + punctuation symbol. So now L, L' and L! can be used to indicate three different pieces, where I intend to reserve ! for the strongest pieces. E.g. L=Lance, L' = Left Chariot, L! = Lion. Even in variants that do not strictly need it (such as Dai) it would allow much more natural ID assignment, giving the N back to the Knight, using L! for Lion and, say, I', S', B', C', F', O' and W for Iron, Stone, Angry Boar, Cat Sword, Flying Dragon, Violent Ox and Evil Wolf.H.G.Muller (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
* BTW, it is nice that the WinBoard notition is mentioned in the article, but isn't it in a completely wrong section now? I would say it belongs in the section about game notation. I also think that calling it 'westernized' is wrong; the Standard Algebraic Notation used by WinBoard originated in continental Europe. It is in fact the TSA notation which uses a westernized form of Japanese board coordinates (replacing the digits written as kanji by letters). H.G.Muller (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
* I agree; I shall move it. Double sharp (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
* Actually it seems to have been done already, so never mind. Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Lion-capturing rules again
We generally speak of the situation of recapture on the next turn, as does CVP: a lion cannot capture a non-adjacent lion if that would expose it to recapture on the next turn, unless it captures something else along with the lion that is not a pawn or go-between. This actually resolves the supposedly unclear cases listed in the box: you cannot do the first one (hidden protector blocked by P or GB captured with enemy Ln), because your Ln would be vulnerable to recapture on the next turn, and you would not have taken anything more valuable than a P or GB with it along with the enemy Ln on that turn. But you can do the second one (false protector of P or GB captured with enemy Ln), because your Ln is not vulnerable to recapture on the next turn.
An obtuse interpretation of the rules would only ignore the attacking lion in determining if the defending lion is protected, and count everything else on the path – even if it gets massacred by the attacking lion on its merry way. Look at the whole point of this rule! The point is to avoid exchanging lions! (And yes, after a week I've come round to accepting its usefulness.) What is the sense in allowing you to ever play Lnx(∅/P/GB)xLn if the opponent can reply (any)xLn? If the whole point is to avoid lion trading, then the ruleset should never allow this under any circumstances, even if the P or GB along with the attacking Ln blocks the line from the hidden protector to the defending Ln. I will edit the article to reflect the more probable interpretation (because the other one generally doesn't follow from the rule's motivation), just as we now give probable interpolations for lacunae in the rules for dai and tenjiku shogi. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
* P.S. I suppose the statement that these rules apply to promoted kirins as well is because most chu-shogi enthusiasts will get there by way of shogi instead of Western chess. To a shogi player, there is a real difference between a promoted silver and a promoted knight, because they will revert to their different unpromoted states when captured. But to a chessplayer, when you promote a pawn to a queen, it is a queen for all intents and purposes. It does not matter one whit that it was originally a pawn. And thus it is in chu shogi. When you promote a kirin to a lion, you know from the red text that it was originally a kirin. And such may be interesting to the casual historian of that particular skirmish, wanting to discover the histories of each of his or her troops. But its life story does not figure into it, no matter how moving its tales of promotion against the odds might be. The promotion has been obtained, there was great rejoicing, and it is now a lion and behaves exactly as one. Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
* I agree with all of that (and I am not even sure promoted pieces were drawn in red in historic times. But they were written with "italic" kanji. In fact I played Chu Shogi last month using a piece set someone had bought in Japan, and there the promoted pieces were black and italic as well. There is one worry, though. Of the historic tsume problems, two (D34 and D55 in the MSM) become entirely trivial when you cannot reply to Ky x Ln+ with a recapture of the +Ky. One even becomes a mate in one, while an intended beautiful line exists after recapture.H.G.Muller (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
* I just conceived a solution to this dilemma: the rules distinguish two cases of consecutive Lion capture, on the same square (protected Lion) or on different squares (counter-strike). In the case of Ky x Ln+, x +Ky the Ln and +Ky are captured on the same square, so the counter-strike rule does not apply. But Ky x Ln+ does not violate the protection rule, as x Ln is always allowed (if no counter-strike itself), whether the Lion is protected or not. That by the time of its recapture the Ky is now a +Ky apparently is of no consequence; the net effect is a Ky-for-Ln trade, not a Ln-for-Ln or +Ky-for-Ln trade.H.G.Muller (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
* ✅ Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
* But shouldn't "If capturing a non-adjacent lion and NO OTHER piece leaves it vulnerable on the next turn, ..." say instead "If capturing a non-adjacent lion and ANOTHER piece leaves it vulnerable on the next turn, "? I am abit in doubt about whether using this "leaves it vulnerable" phrase so often makes it very clear. Wouldn't it be more natural to say "can be recaptured"? H.G.Muller (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
* Sorry, but I now see I misunderstood the sentence because it is ambiguous. I thought "no other piece leaves it invulnarable" was one sub-sentence with 'piece' as subject, while in fact it is the object of "If capturing ... no other piece". To avoid this we could rephrase as "If a Lion is left vulnerable after capturing a non-adjacent Lion and no other piece". But in fact I would move for leaving this "and no other piece" out completely. This restriction only serves to exclude the case where you do capture something together with the Lion that was blocking a protector, or was the only protector that Lion, and those cases are already explicitly mentioned as controversial in the third sub-clause. So it does not matter how the rule we state here would decide them. The same holds for the first sub-clause; the phrasing is now needlessly complicated, to the point where people trying tolearn Chu complained to me that they could not understand it. Another error is that the stuff about "additional eating" and "shooting the Lion" is now placed at a point where it seems to refer to hidden protectors, while in fact it refers to double-capture. Furthermore, the addition "which is always allowed" to the other x Lion capture in the sub-clause whose very purpose is to explain that this is not always allowed is a funny way to contradict yourself. BTW, I am starting to wonder where this idea comes from that after other x Lion you could retaliate against a Lion elsewhere with another Lion if the Ln x Ln rules allow that. Historic manuscripts will most certainly not have addressed this case explicitly, as they even fail to address the much more common cases of doubly-hidden and false protectors. And the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. If I attack one of my opponent's Lions with (say) a Rook, why should he now be allowed to counter-attack my Lion with his second Lion, so that we can trade Lions? The whole idea of the rule is to outlaw indirect trading, and it is only a moot point which piece would make the counter-strike.H.G.Muller (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
* Blame Fumiaki Okazaki. ^_^ Since the Japanese Chu Shogi Association has apparently adopted his suggestion, we have to mention it even though it doesn't quite make sense. Then again, I think the whole Lion-capturing rule thing is a horrifically complex kludgy solution to a real problem (lions seek each other out to trade). Hmm, maybe this is why Tenjiku was invented! ^_^ Seriously, from the way you speak of the historical problems, I suspect the historical rule was just "you can't initiate a sequence of two moves that would make each player lose a lion", and cases like these would just have been argued among the players. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
* It depends on what you consider 'initiating'. For a direct trade (i.e. second capture on same square) the initial capture is forbidden. But for a counter-strike the second capture is forbidden. OTOH, this situation almost always arises from the sequence Attack 1st Lion - Counter Attack 2nd Lion - Capture 1st Lion - Capture 2nd Lion, as in practice Lions will not be left under attack. It is the counter attack on the 2nd Lion here that offers the trade, and although it is not forbidden in itself, forbidding capture of the 2nd Lion makes it a losing move. Anyway, it seems that indeed this Okazaki is responsible for the idea that the rules for Ln x Ln capture have precedence over those for counter-strike. I am now convinced that, like his other rule, this was a change from what the rules historically were.
* My other problems with the current formulation remain, however. It is needlessly complex, not fully consistently talking about forbidden or allowed, and therefore very hard to understand for a novice. I would like to change it into something like:
* 1. A Lion cannot capture a non-adjacent other Lion when it could then be recaptured on the next move, unless it captures something substantial (i.e. other than P or GB) together with the Lion in a double capture. (The latter is called "additional eating", and recapturing that Lion is called "shooting the Lion".)
* 2. A non-Lion cannot capture a Lion when a Lion was captured by a non-Lion on another square in the immediately preceding move.(In recent times this has been amended by the Okazaki rule, that such a counter-strike is allowed against Lion that is unprotected.)
* Historic rule descriptions explicitly discuss a case where recapture slides over the square evacuated by the capturing Lion ('hidden protector'), but do not mention cases where a P or GB taken together with a Lion in a double capture affect the possibility to recapture, making it controversial whether the latter could be exceptions to the stated rule (1). Furthermore, it is generally assumed that the Lion-capture rules do not apply recursively in case of multiple Lions, so that hypothetical recaptures ruling out a capture would not have to obey those, just like they also would not have to keep their King out of check. H.G.Muller (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is another wrinkle, though. Suppose Black wishes to capture a White lion with her lion, but the White lion is protected by a promoted kirin. Thus far, the capture would be illegal. But then what if the proposed recapture would be illegal, because the White lion is additionally attacked by a Black rook that is pinned to Black's king by a White bishop?! (The proposed sequence is 1.LnxLn, because 1...LnxLn could be met by 2.RxLn.)
My interpretation is: since leaving your only king in check is not illegal (just stupid), it matters not that 2.RxLn is suicidal. The article already says that if we went to the position after 1.LnxLn, White cannot play 1...LnxLn. Hence Black's lion is indeed safe from recapture in the following turn and hence the capture must be legal. (It would be legal even without the pin, but then 1.RxLn would be far simpler. The pin creates a real reason to play 1.LnxLn.) So here is an example of applying the rules recursively. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* Indeed, this is an ambiguous case. It seems that the modern rule at least is to apply the rules 'front to back': 1.Ln x Ln would be forbidden here, despite the fact that the 1... +Ky x Ln would be forbidden too. The reasoning here could be that by that time you have already lost. Similar to capturing a Queen that is attacked by King + Rook put protected by King with your King in FIDE. This is not allowed, even though the recapture would also not be allowed, because it exposes itsef to the Rook. You are not allowed to expose your King to pseudo-legal capture in FIDE. Likewise, you are not allowed to expose your Lion to pseudo-legal capture after Ln x (distant) Ln in Chu. I sometimes express this by saying the Ln x (distant) Ln makes your Lion 'absolutely royal' for one turn.You just lose the instant the opponent recaptures your Lion, and that you could make him lose the next ply by taking that Lion again is just too late. Game over... H.G.Muller (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
* Note that this means that as far as I am concerned example 8 is wrong, and should have the opposite conclusion: Black canot capture the white Lion. I already edited the diagram of example 5, as in the original diagram there was no way to capture Lion and the Pawn that protected it together, as both were distant.H.G.Muller (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
* Hmm, yes, your interpretation does make sense too. I have added a paragraph showing the other conclusion, since it is really not sure what would happen. My logic was that illegal moves should not be considered as true protection, and hence the lion is not really "in check". It is not quite like moving your king into check from a pinned piece, but rather the impossible FIDE scenario of moving your king into check from another king. So the FIDE analogy is a little weakened. It's also important to note that Chu has a distinction between actually illegal moves (lion-trading) and moves that are not illegal but just very stupid (moving your king into check when you don't have a prince). So, while I would argue that the latter sort counts as protection (we need an example 9 now!), the former sort does not.
* In fact, the way I see it, the immobilisation of pinned pieces in FIDE is a property of the king, not that piece. The pinned piece could move if the king was not behind cowering behind it, so its immobility is situational. But the king cannot move to an attacked square, no matter where it is: that is an innate property of the piece. So also for the lion. It is not allowed to expose itself to recapture when it captures a lion, and I do not see why this innate property of the lion would suddenly stop being true when it is itself doing the recapturing. But, in general, it does seem like the sort of fine print that would never come up in practice, but could lead to spiraling discussions. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
* I have been trying to digest this, but I don't get your point. FIDE rules say it is not allowed to expose your King to PSEUDO-LEGAL capture, i.e. explicitly ruling out recursive application of the rule. (Which defines the difference between legal and pseudo-legal.) That is a choice; defining it recursively would be different, but not inconsistent. The choice is no doubt motivated by the idea that the game ends when the first King is captured, so that any exposure you would suffer from that is illusory, as the opponent will never get to move anymore. The problem is that in Chu Shogi 'forbidden' means something different as in Chess, where it means 'rejected, and retry until you get it right'. But in Chu Shogi it means you lose. This has erased the difference between a Lion capture being forbidden, and the recapture being instantly winning. If the recapture is instantly winning, the possibility to re-recapture is no longer relevant.H.G.Muller (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
* BTW, the most general way I could think of for defining 'pseudo-legal' is this: "moves allowed when considering WHERE all pieces are, and WHAT they are, but not HOW ENEMY PIECES MOVE." I.e. allowed under the fiction that the opponent will forcibly have to pass his next turn. The "what they are" is important for things like 'iron' pieces, or more specific restrictions on what piece type can capture which other. But also for Atomic explosions and Fire Demon burns, to determine the full effect of the move. Rules like e.p. capture, or the Lion counter-strike rule still fall in the realm of pseudo-legality. The rules for not moving into check, or 'protected Lion', however, rely on opponent moves, and define the difference between legal and pseudo-legal. Such rules can be formulated (non-recursively) in terms of pseudo-legal moves, or (recursively) in terms of legal moves.H.G.Muller (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to do these diagrams with graphics? The current "red equals Gote's piece" is confusing to the eye, like an unambiguous passage that nonetheless requires a second reading to clarify. OneWeirdDude (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
* Yeah, it's not ideal when red is pretty firmly associated with promoted pieces. I guess you could flip the enemy pieces with CSS, but it gets annoying to read (and is patently illegible for people who can't read kanji). The Japanese article uses the red=Gote's piece convention, so I used it here. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
* Just an idea: couldn't we use 'reverse video' for the other side? White (or promoted red) kanji on a black background? (I now tried this out in the diagram on the tak page)H.G.Muller (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There ought to be a way to do this so that one player's pieces are upside down w.r.t. the other's. OneWeirdDude (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Importance rating
In the context of the Chess WikiProject, this surely is "low". In the context of a hypothetical Shogi WikiProject, this variant would at least deserve "Mid" as the most-played of the lot. (I suppose one can argue about tori and wa, but they have nothing like the history of chu.) Perhaps tenjiku would deserve it too as having had a Western cult following for a while, until it was given up due to a mistaken reconstruction of the rules rendering the game probably a forced win for Sente. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Readings of piece names
I've been struggling to get through the Chushogi Renmei's site, but here are their given readings for the piece names (which I should not have gotten wrong: I can at least read kana competently).
Additionally, they abbreviate the blind tiger as 盲 instead of 虎, and the drunk elephant as 酔 instead of 象. Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
* Pawn: hohei, fuhyō, fu. Promotes to gold general, but here read と金 tokin. (Is this special name a spilling over from standard shogi?)
* Go-between: chūnin. Promotes to drunk elephant.
* Ferocious leopard: mōhyō. Promotes to bishop, but here read chorokaku.
* Copper general: dōshō. Promotes to side mover.
* Silver general: ginshō. Promotes to vertical mover.
* Gold general: kinshō. Promotes to rook, but here read ginbisha.
* Blind tiger: mōko, mekura. Promotes to flying stag.
* Drunk elephant: suizō. Promotes to prince.
* Prince: taishi. King: ōshō, gyokushō.
* Kirin: kirin. Promotes to lion.
* Phoenix: hōō. Promotes to queen.
* Lance: kyōsha, yari. Promotes to white horse.
* Reverse chariot: hensha. Promotes to whale.
* Vertical mover: shugyō. Promotes to flying ox.
* Side mover: ōgyō. Promotes to free boar.
* Flying stag: hiroku.
* White horse: hakuku.
* Whale: keigei, geigei.
* Flying ox: higyū.
* Free boar: honcho.
* Rook: hisha. Promotes to dragon king.
* Dragon king: ryūō. Promotes to soaring eagle.
* Soaring eagle: hijū.
* Bishop: kakugyō. Promotes to dragon horse.
* Dragon horse: ryūma. Promotes to horned falcon.
* Horned falcon: kakuō.
* Queen: hon'ō, honnō.
* Lion: shishi.
On the lion move
It strikes me that pedagogically (for a chess variant player), the best way to describe the lion is "knight, dabbaba, alfil, or doublemove king". The reason is simple. If you treat it simply as a doublemove king that cannot be blocked on its first step, then it becomes legal to pass a turn when it is surrounded by friendly pieces or the edge of the board, which it isn't. The turn-passing is a separate thing. (You cannot pass your first turn!) Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Stalemate in chu shogi
(A reply to an edit summary by OneWeirdDude.) It is possible that a player simply has no legal moves. Because the king's safety is not an issue, this must be because moves are totally blocked. One way of doing this is to advance pawns and go-betweens into the promotion zone and declining to promote them, creating a box that you can cram your king into as well as some stepping or ranging pieces. (For example: Black king 1a, rook 2a, bishop 3a, go-between 4a, pawns 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b; White king 6a, kirin 6b. Black to move.) Unlikely? Yes. But a rule set cannot be complete unless it deals with all possible scenarios. So, what is the ruling here? The historical sources do not say anything about such a case: presumably such ad hoc situations, like the recursively applied lion-capturing rules, would be argued about when they came about in reality. (Black could argue that it must be a draw, because the game cannot continue, but her king cannot be captured; White could argue that he should win, as the straightforward rule in chu shogi evolved into the current rule in shogi where a checkmated or stalemated player loses.) The only definite source for this is The Chess Variant Pages, which simply says "This makes stalemate non-existent in real games, and if there ever has been a rule for it, it is no longer known. For definiteness we can assume that stalemate is a win." This acknowledges the aforementioned pathological possibility, while simultaneously noting that it is not really a relevant concern, but puts a ruling on it anyway: if you are stalemated, you lose. Double sharp (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Fumiaki Okazaki
Is the Okazaki rule named after him? It seems highly plausible, but I struggle to comprehend the sources. Double sharp (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chu shogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
* Added archive https://archive.is/20150423170917/http://forum.81squareuniverse.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1754&start=23 to http://forum.81squareuniverse.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1754&start=23
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803010434/http://www.luckydog.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/games/shogi/chu.htm to http://www.luckydog.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/games/shogi/chu.htm
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Colin Adams
Who is Colin Adams and why should we care? Just asking for the purpose of the wiki; I think he was originally my suggestion. OneWeirdDude (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A translation of this source would be nice
I would dearly love to see a proper translation of this page from the Japanese Chu Shogi Association explaining many hard cases in the rules! Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC) | WIKI |
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theramenes
Theramenes
Self-nom, has had two peer reviews; particular thanks to Yannismarou. Theramenes is a fascinating figure, who managed to become centrally involved in every major political controversy at Athens between 411 BC and his death; his dramatic death scene is one of the most frequently retold episodes of ancient history. Needless to say, hardly anybody's heard of him these days. --RobthTalk 04:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC) --RobthTalk 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Quick comment: could you have the pronunciation of Theramenes added? Thanks, – Outriggr § 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Well, I can try... None of the sources actually give the pronunciation, but every classicist I've heard use it says it "Thuh-ram (like the sheep)-en-eez; ancient Greek pronunciation, on the other hand, would probably have been something more like thuh-rom-en-ace. So that could be tricky, (and, if you couldn't tell, I don't know IPA.) --RobthTalk 05:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* We are still not sure about the pronunciation of the ancient Greek names. I think that since the article includes his name written both in English and in Greek it is ok. Now, just theoritically, the pronunciation of his name must have been something like that: θeeræmenees. But I donot think we need that.--Yannismarou 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Comment the article could use an infobox... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* We talked about that at the MILHIST peer review, and decided that since we don't have a picture of Theramenes, an infobox would just look weird. --RobthTalk 14:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Oh, and I should have noted: the two peer reviews are here and here.
* What, they didn't have cameras by then? What a bunch of savages... :)) Anyway, full Support from me :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
* Support. I think this is one of the best encyclopedic article for Theramenes ever written.--Yannismarou 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Comment Posted pretty long peer review on the talk page. Hope my comments have some merit. - Tutmosis 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Thank you for the suggestions; they were very useful, and I have made a number of clarifications in the article. My specific response is on the talk page. --RobthTalk 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Due to the fact that you adressed my concerns on the talk page, there is nothing left for me to do but to give my Support for this very qualified for featured status article. Thanks again for adressing my concerns. - Tutmosis 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Support, all the issues raised in the peer review have been resolved; this is an excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Comment, this is a pretty good article but there is no picture of Thermenes. Whats up with that? Mercenary2k 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* From the peer review discussion, it would appear that one simply doesn't exist. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Maybe that could be added in some way under "Hisortical record". But it could be really hard to find some work that mentions the lack of existense of a dpeiction of him. :) Jeltz talk 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Support OOps. my Bad. Didnt't read that section. It has my support then.Mercenary2k 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Support Great article, deserves FA. Kyriakos 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* Conditional support. Usually the opposite concern arises in FAC, but, could some the paragraphs be split up? I am speaking of the paragraph in section "Overthrow of the democracy", and the second paragraph in section "Conflict within the movement", and there are others. Also, the sentence "In the wake of the Athenian defeat in Sicily, as revolts began to break out among Athens' subject states in the Aegean Sea and the Peace of Nicias fell apart, with the Peloponnesian War resuming in full by 412 BC, a number of Athenian aristocrats, led by Peisander and with Theramenes prominent among their ranks, began to conspire to overthrow the city's democratic government. is rather long and hard to parse. Great job, – Outriggr § 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
* I split up both of those paragraphs and that sentence, which I think was the last survivor of the ferocious semicolon-beasts that prowled this article in its early drafts. --RobthTalk 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | WIKI |
Eduardo
Members
• Content count
99
• Joined
• Last visited
Community Reputation
2 Neutral
About Eduardo
• Rank
Regular Member
1. Eduardo
Hardware - Upgrade
Yo tengo algo parecido a la alternativa 4 (Asrock QC5000). Pero con una controladora SAS LSI 9211-8i que adquirí en Aliexpress. Ella se encarga del trabajo duro, la gestión de hasta 8 SATAs muy eficientemente. El consumo es bajo y el sistema es potente. No obstante, AMD tiene algunas limitaciones de soporte de kernel frente a Intel. Por ejemplo, no puede ejecutar VMM.
2. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
What about USB-UPS? Is UPS detected or do you need USB hub?
3. Eduardo
¿me sirve este hardware para el NAS?
Creo que no podrás poner los SATA en AHCI. Arrancará, pero no reconocerá ningún disco duro. Salvo que le instales una controladora SATA más moderna. Pero prueba.
4. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
I tried another AMD platform (Asrock QC5000-ITX/PH - AMD Quad Core) yesterday and it works without modding UEFI. I mean without disabling C1E. Not even sure if this option is available. v1.02b. First option. Baremetal.
5. Eduardo
Is DSM checking SN for video conversion?
I knew about propietary apps/features and SN/MAC generators rules. I don't use them. But I thought paired SN/MAC was needed for running XPEnology itself. Thanks for the info.
6. Eduardo
Is DSM checking SN for video conversion?
Only SN? Does Xpenology work without matching MAC? I thought a paired MAC-SN was needed to run it.
7. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
Does your Xpenology MAC match with your real MAC?
8. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
I'm lost. What's the matter with this file? Why are you editing it?
9. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
Khile's bootloader included a bunch of modules for AMD N54L. USB 1.1 working, etc. Can you check if this bootloader has these modules?
10. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
11. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
Hi Bruno, are you joking?
12. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
You can leave the task enabled. It will check if needs to copy and reboot. Only if needed. This way you won't forget when updating.
13. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
No need to change loader. You keep Khile's one as before. You simply update from DSM UI keeping all your data and configuration untouched.
14. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
Sorry. I just can't understand what you mean. I attached a file (script). You just should copy it somewhere (share) in the NAS and give this file X permission. After that, go to DSM UI Panel Control and program a scheduled task that will be execution of this script. On boot, root user parameters. Now you are ready to update. Go to DSM UI Control Panel and Update normally. One test you could do before updating is running the script without updating, just to assure it will work. As I told you, after updating and reboot, script action will add a new long reboot. Don't worry.
15. Eduardo
HP N54L - DSM 6.1 onwards
Hi Bruno, Sure it is. For now, I'm using a trick to update without loosing anything. 6.1.3-15152 at the moment. Working flawlessly. Just created a script to copy modules from /lib/modules/update to /lib/modules and reboot. It only acts when needed. I attached the script. I'm a linux newbie. Somebody would improve it, but it is working here. Instructions: Put it anywhere. Set X permission to be executable (0744). Go to scheduled tasks and program it on reboot. Root user. Go to DSM and update from web UI normally. I set a long time to reboot (720s) for safety reasons. In case of loop, I think is enough to disable the task. So, be patient. As it only should work when needed, you can leave this task enabled. I'm not an expert. Please, don't blame me if something fails. update_patch.sh | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Sleep deprivation may be making you unpopular and lonely
Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley found that sleep deprivation can have far worse consequences than you might realize. Lack of sleep can lead to antisocial and reclusive behavior. If you're sleep-deprived, it may also cause others around you to shy away from you too.Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
Whether it's crying babies, loud neighbours, or simply endless thoughts running through your head, sometimes you just can't fall asleep.Regardless of how hard you try, the consequences the following day are always unforgiving: crippling fatigue, poor concentration and — above all — struggling to think of anything other than your bed.However, as researchers from the University of California at Berkeley found, sleep deprivation can have far worse consequences than previously thought, and they aren't just limited to how you perform at work or throughout the day.It isn't just your health that suffers from the night-time restlessness; you can end up completely sabotaging your social life too.Sleeping too little leads to reclusive behaviorLed by postdoctoral fellow at the Walker's Center for Human Sleep Science, Eti Ben-Simon, the research team found that a lack of sleep can lead to unsociable and reclusive behavior — and that it can have the same effect on the people around you.
According to the researchers' findings, published in Nature Communications, people who sleep badly more often are lonelier as a result.While it's already a well-known fact that social isolation can cause sleep disorders, it hasn't been clear whether a lack of sleep could also lead to people feeling lonely.The less you sleep, the more physical distance you need from othersTo conduct their study, the scientists performed an experiment in which one group of subjects didn't sleep for a night, while another group was allowed to sleep in.Read more: Here's why you should always sleep on your side, according to sleep expertsBoth groups received a video the following day in which they were faced with people approaching them, where they had to gauge how close was "too close".
The results were pretty clear: those who hadn't slept felt their space was invaded between 18% to 60% faster than those of the group who had.This led participants to create more of a social distance between themselves and others if they missed sleep on a given night, according to the researchers.Too little sleep leads to unsociable tendenciesThe researchers used magnetic resonance imaging to prove that the results weren't accidental.While the "near space" networks in the brains of well-rested participants didn't show any abnormalities, those of the other group were "braced" and on alert for potential threats.Not only that, but the "theory-of-mind" network, an area of the brain responsible for empathy and sociability, was less pronounced in those with sleep deprivation.
Interestingly, the results showed that those who were suffering with sleep deprivation didn't just have issues with shying away from those around them.
Another experiment, in which researchers used videos to evaluate people who had slept well and those who hadn't, showed that those who hadn't were perceived by viewers as worse in terms of their potential for cooperation and sympathy.Your own lack of sleep can have a knock-on effect on those around you"The less sleep you get, the less you want to socially interact," said Matthew Walker of the University of California."In turn, other people perceive you as more socially 'repulsive', further increasing the grave social-isolation impact of sleep loss," he continued, saying: "Sleep deprivation can turn us into social lepers."
Worse still, those who have to deal with people suffering from a lack of sleep — or even, in the case of this study, those who watched videos of them — also end up being "infected", leading to an almost viral transmission of the feeling of social isolation wherever there's a lack of sleep."It's perhaps no coincidence that the past few decades have seen a marked increase in loneliness and an equally dramatic decrease in sleep duration," said Ben-Simon.
"On a positive note, just one night of good sleep makes you feel more outgoing and socially confident, and furthermore, will attract others to you," said Walker.
Read the original article on Business Insider Deutschland. Copyright 2020.
This post originally appeared on Business Insider Deutschland and has been translated from German.
Follow Business Insider Deutschland on Twitter.
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];
window._taboola = window._taboola || []; | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Quarter of students 'plagiarise essays' | Higher education | The Guardian
One in four students have copied and pasted material from the internet into an essay and passed it off as their own work, a survey from the plagiarism watchdog revealed today. Most students blamed high workload or said it was easier than doing the work themselves, according to research carried out by the Plagiarism Advisory Service (PAS), in association with a research consultancy, which is this week hosting a conference on the subject at the University of Northumbria. The findings indicated that boys were more likely to cheat than girls. However, Fiona Duggan, manager of PAS, which was set up two years ago, said students are not always aware that what they are doing is wrong. One of the big issues is that students, certainly in the first year, won't understand the concept of plagiarism, she said. It depends on the level of plagiarism. Certainly with cut and pasting and simple plagiarism there is an issue about tolerating it and educating students about it. Then if you're talking about downloading from essay banks, that's a completely different issue. That's intent to deceive. Another problem, she added, was that students do not always realise they have to reference information taken from websites. Of those polled by FreshMinds research consultancy, 75% said they had never cheated in this way, while 9% said they had once. Some 16% said they had cheated more often - indicating that most offenders relied on cheating regularly. However, very few were found to be employing online essay services, with most opting to copy segments from the internet into their own papers, or relying too heavily on past essay examples. The PAS is asking universities to consider using software that compares student essays with each other, a range of journal articles and some 5 billion web pages to check if work handed into them is original. More than 100 colleges and universities are already using the TurnItIn software to trap cheats. Ms Duggan said the software would require students to submit their essays electronically, something that is increasingly happening in universities. Pas is also encouraging lecturers to adopt different assessment techniques that make plagiarism impossible, such as preparing presentations. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Interest payments could become one of the federal govt's biggest line items
Uncle Sam is about to get hit with higher interest payments. Much higher. And those higher costs will force the government to raise taxes, cut spending or borrow more to make up the shortfall. That warning comes from a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Budget, following last week's move by the Federal Reserve to begin raising interest rates, a major turning point that signals a historical reversal of a long-term decline in the cost of borrowing. Rising interest rates help savers and hurt borrowers. As the biggest borrower on the planet, the U.S. government will soon begin paying more to investors holding roughly $14 trillion in Treasury debt. Over the next 10 years, those interest payments are projected to become one of the biggest line items in the federal budget. "As debt continues to grow and interest rates return toward more normal levels, interest spending is slated to be the fastest growing part of the budget," the budget watchdog group warned in its report. The group also cautioned that interest payments could rise even more quickly if the incoming Trump administration follows through with campaign promises to cut taxes and increase spending on infrastructure, which the group estimates would cost $6 trillion over a decade. Borrowing to fund those programs would raise both the amount of debt and the interest cost on each new dollar, because the issuance of that much new debt would tend to push interest rates even higher, the group said. That estimated $6 trillion in new spending would boost interest costs by $2.5 trillion over a decade, including over $450 billion in 2026 alone. Even without new spending, the cost of servicing the national debt is expected to nearly triple over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. That's more than twice as fast as the growth of spending on Social Security or Medicare. Those increases are based on a gradual, modest rise in rates, with the 10-year Treasury notes paying 3.6 percent interest by the early 2020s. Even at rates that would be lower than most of the last four decades, debt interest is expected to be the biggest single budget item by 2027, more than the Defense department budget. If rates go higher, the cost of debt service will rise even faster. Over the longer term, the government's interest expenses are expected to continue rising as a share of GDP, overtaking peak levels seen in the 1980s, when the Federal Reserve pushed rates to 20 percent to tame runway inflation. Based on current policies, interest payments will consume 6 percent of GDP by 2055. That's roughly double 1980s levels. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
1881 Atlanta washerwomen strike
The Atlanta washerwomen strike of 1881 was a labor strike in Atlanta, Georgia involving African American washerwomen. It began on July 19, 1881, and lasted into August 1881. The strike began as an effort to establish better pay, more respect and autonomy, and a uniform base salary for their work.
Background
In Atlanta following the Civil War, many African American women were employed as washerwomen, also known as laundresses. There were more African American women employed as washerwomen than in any other domestic work, representing over half of their total workforce. Many of those employed in this field made between $4 and $8 per month.
In July 1881, several washerwomen in the city founded the Washing Society. At the first meeting, held in a local black church, officials were elected and a uniform rate for washerwomen was decided. While initially consisting of only 20 washerwomen, within three weeks the Washing Society boasted 3,000 members. Society members engaged in door-to-door canvassing and garnered support from several of the black churches in the city. On July 19, the Washing Society declared a strike, demanding higher wages. Additionally, they wanted a flat rate of $1 per twelve pounds of laundry and greater work autonomy.
Course of the strike
The strike began several weeks before the start of the International Cotton Exposition, a world's fair in Atlanta that was expected to bring a significant number of visitors to the city. The strikers received significant resistance from white authorities and businesspeople in the city. The Atlanta Constitution (which American historian Tera Hunter has called "the opposition's unofficial mouthpiece") was initially dismissive of the strike, though as the strike continued, they began to acknowledge the strength of the strikers. Many strikers were arrested or fined over the course of the strike action. The Atlanta City Council also threatened to impose a business tax on the washerwomen, and many of the strikers' landlords raised their tenants rates. In one such case, a striker who couldn't afford to pay one of the fines was sentenced to 40 days of working on a chain gang. Despite this, the strike continued and spurred labor disputes with other domestic workers in the city. During the strike, African American waiters at the National Hotel refused to work until their wages were increased. In early August, five hundred women strikers met at Wheat Street Baptist Church to discuss the strike. Shortly thereafter, on August 3, the strikers issued an ultimatum to mayor James W. English, saying they would pay a license fee of $25 "as a protection so we can control the washing for the city", but would continue to strike if their demands for higher wages were not met. Following this ultimatum, the city acquiesced and allowed the washerwomen greater autonomy and higher rates in exchange for a $25 license fee.
Aftermath
The strike is one of several organized by domestic workers in the Southern United States during this time, being preceded by strikes in Galveston, Texas in 1877 and Jackson, Mississippi in 1866, though neither was larger than the Atlanta strike.
In analyzing the success of the strike, Hunter cited that while some washerwomen saw wage increases, many did not, and low wages would continue to be an issue between washerwomen and their employers. Additionally, Hunter cited the fact that a second strike was threatened to take place during the International Cotton Exposition, though this never came to fruition. However, others have noted that the strike, significant for involving African American women during the early Jim Crow era, was successful in demonstrating the impact of black labor, and domestic work in particular, in the city.
In Popular Culture
In 2022 a two-act play based on the strike appeared at the 2022 Essential Theatre Play Festival, followed by a spring 2023 workshop at Synchronicity Theatre Company co-produced by Impact Theatre Atlanta. Written by journalist and playwright Kelundra Smith, "The Wash" debuted as a full-scale production directed by Brenda Porter at Synchronicity Theatre in June 2024, with a review in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution declaring it to be "full of fun dialogue, clever staging, vibrant design and great characters." | WIKI |
Bernie Sanders explains difference between him and Elizabeth Warren
In an interview with ABC' "This Week" Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders pushed back on the idea that he and Sen. Elizabeth Warren are interchangeable candidates within the 2020 Democratic field, arguing that Warren is a "capitalist through her bones" and he is a democratic socialist. Why it matters: Sanders and Warren appeal to a similar progressive base of the Democratic Party. But while Sanders' support seems to have largely hit a plateau, Warren has continued to rise in the polls, overtaking the more moderate Joe Biden in the national RealClearPolitics average of polls last week for the first time this cycle. Between the lines: In a recent CBS News poll of Democrats in early voting states, 43% said that the 78-year-old Sanders — who recently had a heart attack — is "too old to serve effectively as president." 28% said the same of the 76-year-old Biden, while only 4% said so for the 70-year-old Warren. Go deeper: Sanders says he felt symptoms for weeks, will release medical records | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Page:Dream Life - Mitchell - 1899? Altemus.djvu/13
Rh our hearts, with the tenderness of a friend.
And if I might hope, that this simple mark of my admiration, and of my esteem, would commend me to your charity—to say nothing of your regard—it is all that I would ask. | WIKI |
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook may pay publishers to put their stuff in a dedicated news section
More than a year after announcing Facebook would feature less news, Mark Zuckerberg says he has a new idea: He wants to create a section of his social network that would be devoted to “high-quality news,” and may pay publishers that share their stuff there. Zuckerberg floated the idea in a conversation with Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, which Facebook has recorded and posted here. “We talked about the role quality journalism plays in building informed communities and the principles Facebook should use for building a news tab to surface more high-quality news, including the business model and ecosystem to support it,” Zuckerberg writes in the introduction to the chat. In his discussion with Döpfner, Zuckerberg talks about building a Facebook feature so that “users who want more news content can do that,” and says his company could “potentially have a direct relationship with publishers to make sure that their content is available, if it’s really high-quality content.” That is: Zuckerberg is talking about paying publishers some kind of licensing fee. “That’s definitely something that I think we should be thinking about here, because the relationship between us and publishers is different in a surface where we’re showing the content on the basis of us believing that it’s high-quality, trustworthy content,” Zuckerberg told Döpfner. Zuckerberg doesn’t mention any plans to charge Facebook customers who read news stories on the site, and a person familiar with his thinking says the news tab would be free to users: “This isn’t a revenue play for us.” In Zuckerberg’s words: “We’re coming to this from a very different perspective than I think some of the other players in the space who view news as a way that they want to maximize their revenue. That’s not necessarily the way that we’re thinking about this.” That’s a major pivot for Facebook, which has tried several strategies to work with news publishers but with a few exceptions hasn’t paid them directly for their content. Instead, the company has tried to entice publishers to share their stuff on Facebook by rewarding them with eyeballs, or a share of advertising dollars. Zuckerberg’s video is the first public appearance of an idea Facebook executives have been discussing and tinkering with for months. Both outgoing product boss Chris Cox and Campbell Brown, the company’s head of news partnerships, have championed the project, and Facebook has tested the idea of a dedicated news tab internally. The discussion also comes as Zuckerberg is making a public relations and lobbying push in Europe and the US. Over the weekend, in an op-ed he published in the Washington Post, Zuckerberg asked world leaders to help create new regulations for Facebook and other internet companies. Facebook has played with the idea of a dedicated News Feed before. In the fall of 2017, it moved almost all the stuff posted by publishers and other companies into a separate “explore” feed in six countries, but abandoned the test by March 2018. This time around, Zuckerberg isn’t suggesting Facebook would quarantine all news into the new tab; instead, it would create a section for people who want to use Facebook as a dedicated newsreader, comparing it to the dedicated video tab Facebook has built up over the past few years. “One of the things that I’ve been thinking about at Facebook is how to make it so that the people who use our services and want to get more news content can do that,” Zuckerberg says in his video. He continues: You know, in News Feed, primarily people come to the service to connect with friends, to get updates on people’s day to day lives. There’s a lot of news content in there because it’s so important. But there’s a lot of people who have a demand to want more news ... I think there are going to be, call it 10, 15, maybe 20 percent of people in our community, who really want to go deep and have an experience which is — that they can go to that’s all news that will give us hopefully the ability to dramatically increase the distribution and, if it’s successful, the monetization to high quality participants in the ecosystem so that’s something I’m personally excited about. Facebook hasn’t committed to the idea of paying publishers directly, and may still end up trying to entice publishers with ad revenue, bolstered by minimum guarantees, according to a Facebook source, who says the company expects to have the news tab up and running by the end of 2019. And as Zuckerberg notes in his comments, he isn’t sure whether Facebook should be curating a mix of news for users or letting them pick most of what they want to see. Facebook executives are currently discussing whether they’d need to hire a team of editors to help manage the product. Expect publishers to be wary of Facebook’s newest proposal, since it comes after multiple strategy changes: Facebook has alternately told publishers to give it their best stuff and let Facebook host that content directly on its site, and told them Facebook would be de-emphasizing the role of news content. On the other hand, Facebook and Google are swallowing up an ever-increasing share of online advertising — which may make publishers receptive to any kind of proposal that generates more revenue for them. And Zuckerberg’s proposal comes shortly after the launch of a new Apple news product, which charges users $10 a month for a “Netflix for magazines” offer. Apple has tried to convince publishers who generate daily news to join that offering, but has been rejected by the New York Times and the Washington Post, who objected to Apple’s plan to keep 50 percent of the revenue and control most subscriber info. Apple has signed some news publishers including the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Vox Media, which owns this site. This article originally appeared on Recode.net. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
GigaMedia Announces Fourth-Quarter and Full Year 2024 Financial Results
TAIPEI, March 28, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- GigaMedia Limited (NASDAQ: GIGM) today announced its unaudited financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2024.
Highlights
For 2024, GigaMedia reported revenues of $3.0 million, with a gross profit of $1.5 million, an operating loss of $3.7 million and the net loss of $2.3 million.
The revenues decreased by 30.8% in 2024, mainly as our licensed games experienced slowdown. Meanwhile, we have re-constructed player's ecosystem in our legacy casual games to maintain steady revenue streams and a healthier margin in them. In 2024, we continued rightsizing our workforce and consolidating resources to mitigate the impact of declined revenues. As a result, the operating loss were mildly increased, whereas the net loss was reduced to $2.3 million, compared to a net loss of $3.4 million in 2023.
On the balance sheet side, we maintained a solid financial position with a small cash burn rate in 2024, and our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash amounted to $35.1 million at the end of 2024.
In 2024, we have been establishing AI-competence in our product developing settings. We believe achieving sophistication in AI is very crucial in boosting our productivity and accelerate the growth of our business.
Fourth Quarter and Full Year Overview
Consolidated 4Q revenues decreased slightly by 1.8% quarter-on-quarter , and by 13.2% year-over-year due to certain licensed games declined. Full year revenues decreased by 30.8% to $3.0 million from $4.3 million in 2023.
Loss from operations for 4Q was $0.5 million, representing a loss reduction from $1.0 million in the third quarter in 2024, as we managed to reduce the operating costs and expenses. Full year operating loss was $3.7 million, increased from $3.2 million in 2023.
The net asset value was approximately $3.69 per share as of the end of 2024.
Unaudited Consolidated Financial Results
GigaMedia Limited is a diversified provider of digital entertainment services. GigaMedia's digital entertainment service business FunTown develops and operates a suite of digital entertainments in Taiwan and Hong Kong, with focus on mobile games and casual games.
Unaudited consolidated results of GigaMedia are summarized in the table below.
For the Full Year 2024
NM= Not Meaningful
(A) EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) is provided as a supplement to results provided in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). (See, "Use of Non-GAAP Measures," for more details.)
Consolidated revenues for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $3.0 million, decreased from $4.3 million in the prior year. The decrease was mainly as revenues from certain licensed games declined.
Consolidated loss from operations for 2024 was $3.7 million, compared to a loss of $3.2 million in the last year. The increase of loss was mainly due to the decline of revenues.
Consolidated net loss for 2024 was $2.3 million, decreased from $3.4 million in the prior year. Loss per share for 2024 was $0.21 per share, compared to $0.31 last year.
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at the year end of 2024 amounted to $35.1 million.
For the Fourth Quarter
NM= Not Meaningful
(A) EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) is provided as a supplement to results provided in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). (See, "Use of Non-GAAP Measures," for more details.)
Fourth-Quarter Financial Results
Consolidated revenues for the fourth quarter of 2024 decreased slightly by 1.8% quarter-on-quarter, and decreased by 13.2% year-over-year mainly as revenues from licensed games declined.
Consolidated loss from operations of the fourth quarter of 2024 was $0.5 million, compare to a loss of $1.0 million in the last quarter.
Consolidated net loss of the fourth quarter of 2024 was $0.5 million, increased from a net loss of $0.3 million in the last quarter, mainly due to a valuation loss of $0.2 million in investments.
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024 amounted to $35.1 million, slightly decreased from the prior quarter.
Financial Position
GigaMedia maintained its solid financial position. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash amounted to $35.1 million, or approximately $3.175 per share, along with zero bank loan. Our shareholders' equity was approximately $40.8 million of as of December 31, 2024.
Business Outlook
The following forward-looking statements reflect GigaMedia's expectations as of March 28, 2025. Given potential changes in economic conditions and consumer spending, the evolving nature of digital entertainments, and various other risk factors, including those discussed in the Company's 2023 Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as referenced below, actual results may differ materially.
In 2025, we will be devoted in developing AI-based creation applet for producing well-featured personal social media materials. Besides in-house application, we will also explore potentials for the related tools to become a commercialized solution of platform for publishing AI-assisted creation of products.
Meanwhile, our business strategies always include expanding through mergers and acquisitions. "We will actively pursue suitable strategic opportunities that would enable us to accelerate our growth and enhance shareholders' value," stated CEO James Huang.
Use of Non-GAAP Measures
To supplement GigaMedia's consolidated financial statements presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company uses the following measure defined as non-GAAP by the SEC: EBITDA. Management believes that EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) is a useful supplemental measure of performance because it excludes certain non-cash items such as depreciation and amortization and that EBITDA is a measure of performance used by some investors, equity analysts and others to make informed investment decisions. EBITDA is not a recognized earnings measure under GAAP and does not have a standardized meaning. Non-GAAP measures such as EBITDA should be considered in addition to results prepared in accordance with GAAP, but should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, other financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. A limitation of using EBITDA is that it does not include all items that impact the Company's net income for the period. Reconciliations to the GAAP equivalents of the non-GAAP financial measures are provided on the attached unaudited financial statements.
About the Numbers in This Release
Unaudited results
All quarterly and certain annual results referred to in the text, tables and attachments to this release are unaudited. The financial statements from which the financial results reported in this press release are derived have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, unless otherwise noted as "non-GAAP," and are presented in U.S. dollars.
Q&A
For Q&A regarding the fourth quarter and full year 2024 performance upon the release, investors may send the questions via email to IR@gigamedia.com.tw and the responses will be replied individually.
About GigaMedia
Headquartered in Taipei, Taiwan, GigaMedia Limited (Singapore registration number: 199905474H) is a diversified provider of digital entertainment services in Taiwan and Hong Kong. GigaMedia's digital entertainment service business is an innovative leader in Asia with growing capabilities of development, distribution and operation of digital entertainments, as well as platform services for games with a focus on mobile games and casual games. More information on GigaMedia can be obtained from www.gigamedia.com.tw.
The statements included above and elsewhere in this press release that are not historical in nature are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include statements regarding expected financial performance (as described without limitation in the "Business Outlook" section and in quotations from management in this press release) and GigaMedia's strategic and operational plans. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties and changes in circumstances. There are important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward looking statements, including but not limited to, our ability to license, develop or acquire additional digital entertainment products or services that are appealing to users, our ability to retain existing users and attract new users, and our ability to launch digital entertainment products and services in a timely manner and pursuant to our anticipated schedule. Further information on risks or other factors that could cause results to differ is detailed in GigaMedia's Annual Report on Form 20-F filed in April 2024 and its other filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
(Tables to follow)
View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gigamedia-announces-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2024-financial-results-302414745.html
SOURCE GigaMedia | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Guðbjartur Hannesson
Guðbjartur Hannesson (3 June 1950 – 23 October 2015) was an Icelandic politician and was welfare minister. He was affiliated with the Social Democratic Alliance (Samfylkingin).
He won a seat in parliament for the Social Democratic Alliance in 2007. He served as speaker of the Althing in 2009. In September 2010 he was appointed Minister for Social Affairs and Health and was charged with merging his department with the Ministry of Labour and create a new Ministry for Welfare from January 2011.
After the parliamentary election 27 April 2013 there was a change of government and on 23 May Eygló Harðardóttir became the new welfare minister, while Kristjáni Þór Júlíussyni became minister of Health. He died on 23 October 2015 after a very short battle with cancer. | WIKI |
Flavius Valerius Constantinus, better known as Constantine the Great, was born on February 27, 273 or 274. His father was Constantius Chlorus, afterwards Caesar and Augustus, but at the time of Constantine’s birth merely a promising officer in the Roman Army. Constantius belonged to one of the leading families of Moesia and his mother was a niece of the capable and soldierly Claudius, the conqueror of the Goths. Helena is said to have been the daughter of an innkeeper of Drepanum, and Constantine’s enemies lost no opportunity of dwelling upon the obscurity of his ancestry upon mother’s side. But that he was born in wedlock is beyond question. Helena, who later became St. Helena, is still remembered as the Christian Empress. There is, however, nothing to support the assertion sometimes made, that she was already baptized before Constantine’s birth and her early influence ultimately brought him to Christianity. Such facts about her life as are known would suggest the contrary – Eusebius of Caecarea declares that Constantine in fact converted his mother. There are, however, other indications that Helena was not a Christian during her son’s early years. At what date Helena did embrace Christianity remains a mystery. Nor can anyone say with certainly what gods she worshipped during her son’s childhood.
The uncertainty attaching to the year of Constantine’s birth attaches even more to its place. Where he was born is almost not known. The name of the places have been proposed: Colchester in Britain, Drepanum, a city on the shores of the Gulf of Nicomedia on the southern coast of the Bosphorus, and the town of Naissus, now Nish, in the province of Dacia in the Balkans. None of them can certainly be excluded, but Colchester is the least likely of the three. No one now believes that he was born in Britain – a pleasing fiction which was invented by English monks, who delighted to represent his mother Helena as the daughter of a British King, though they were quite at a loss where to locate his kingdom. The only foundation for this was a passage in one of the Panegyrists, who said that Constantine had bestowed luster upon Britain. There is no evidence that Constantius visited Britain before he became Praetorian Prefect to Maximian in 286 or 287. The evidence for Constantine’s birth at Drepanum in northern Asia Minor is not much convincing. It stands mainly on the facts that he renamed the city Helenopolis and its province Helenopontus in his mother’s honor, and that the emperor Justinian beautified the city because his illustrious predecessor had been born there. Justinian’s act of piety was, however, performed two hundred years after Constantine’s death and can scarcely be taken to prove anything. The weight of the evidence favors Naissus as Constantine’s native town. His contemporary, Julius Firmicius, affirms it absolutely, and it is confirmed by the unnamed author quoted by Ammianus late in the fourth century. Naissus was an important city, and it would not be really remarkable that both Claudius should valiantly defend it and Constantius Chlorus’ son be born there. It would held to fix the date and place Constantine’s birth if there were hard evidence pointing to where Helena’s father kept his inn, when Constantius began his service in the south Danubian area, and how long after the start of Helena’s association with him her son was born. It is tempting to speculate that the inn was at or near Naissus, that Constantius met Helena while serving in the Gothic campaign, and that Constantine was born within a few miles of the side of his alleged imperial relation’s greatest victory.
Of Constantine’s early years we know almost nothing, though we may suppose that they were spent in the eastern half of the Empire. In 293 Constantine was betrothed to Fausta the daughter of Maximian, and in this year his father Constantius was made Caesar, and partially master of Gaul with the task assigned him of recovering Britain. Constantine had no learned education and served both the Augustus Diocletian and the Caesar Galerius as a tribune of the bodyguard. Under Galerius, Constantine fought against the Persians (297-298). But Constantine decided to depart from the east and rejoin his | FINEWEB-EDU |
Jairo Velasco Sr.
Jairo Velasco Sr. (born 9 May 1947) is a former professional tennis player from Colombia. Velasco has additionally several Senior World Championship titles in different age classes in singles, doubles and mixed doubles.
World Singles Champion:
* 1994 Buenos Aires, 45+
* 1996 Velden, 45+
* 1997 Johannesburg, 50+
* 2019 Umag, 70+
* 2023 Mallorca, 75+
World Doubles Champion:
* 1994 Buenos Aires, 45+
* 1996 Velden, 45+
* 1997 Johannesburg, 50+
* 2012 Umag, 65+
* 2021 Mallorca, 70+
* 2022 Florida, 75+
World Mixed Champion:
* 2019 Umag, 70+
* 2021 Mallorca, 70+
* 2022 Florida, 75+
* 2023 Mallorca, 75+
Career
Velasco teamed with Iván Molina to reach the fourth round of the 1971 French Open, where they were defeated by eventual champions Arthur Ashe and Marty Riessen. In mixed doubles at the 1973 French Open, he and countrywoman Isabel Fernández de Soto lost in the semifinals in three sets to Patrice Dominguez and Betty Stöve. He became the first Colombian to reach the fourth round of the singles draw at a Grand Slam when he beat three players at the 1976 US Open, Ferdi Taygan, Barry Phillips-Moore and Bill Scanlon. His run ended when he lost to Dick Stockton. He remained the only player from his country to go that deep in a Grand Slam tournament until Alejandro Falla made the four round at the 2011 French Open.
The Colombian made seven doubles finals on the Grand Prix tennis circuit, winning two, at Kitzbühel and at home in Bogota. He also made the singles final at Bogota, in 1979, but lost to Víctor Pecci.
He won 24 singles rubbers for the Colombia Davis Cup team, a national record. In all, he participated in 21 ties and won a total of 33 matches, being victorious in nine doubles rubbers. He was most notably a member of the side which defeated the United States in the North & Central America Zone final of the 1974 Davis Cup, beating both Harold Solomon and Erik van Dillen in his two singles rubbers. In the Americas Inter-Zonal final, which curiously featured the South African team, Velasco lost his first match to Bob Hewitt and was defeated in the doubles, to surrender the tie. He then beat Ray Moore in a dead rubber. The Colombians, with Velasco in the side, made the Inter-Zonal final again in 1981, but were defeated by Chile.
Personal
Early in his career, Velasco moved to Barcelona in Spain, where he still lives. He married a woman from the area, and they have three children, including Jairo Velasco Jr., a doubles specialist on the ATP Tour and Gabriela Velasco Andreu, who has been in the world's top 400. | WIKI |
Stan Lee's restraining order against former business manager dismissed
Stan Lee, left, and Keya Morgan arrive at the world premiere of "Avengers: Infinity War" on Monday, April 23, 2018, in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)
(Invision) A judge on Friday refused to recognize the authority of a lawyer who had obtained an elder-abuse restraining order on behalf of Stan Lee, a move that allowed attorneys for Lee&aposs daughter to reassert their representation of the 95-year-old mastermind behind many of Marvel Comics&apos most-recognizable characters. In a tiny Los Angeles courtroom packed with current and former attorneys and associates of Lee, lawyer Tom Lallas rose and asked for a 30-day extension of the temporary restraining order he had received against Lee&aposs former personal adviser Keya Morgan. But Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Ruth Kleman refused to consider the motion after attorneys working with Lee&aposs daughter said they had sole authority to represent the comics legend. "I&aposm only concerned who has authority to represent Mr. Lee," Kleman said. She then dissolved the temporary restraining order. STAN LEE FILES RESTRAINING ORDER FOR ELDER ABUSE AGAINST FORMER BUSINESS MANAGER Lee&aposs daughter and only child, J.C. Lee, sat in court and smiled at her attorneys when the judge refused to recognize Lallas. Her attorneys said after court that they immediately filed for a similar order against Morgan. They said they would also work with police and prosecutors in an elder-abuse investigation involving Morgan. It was not immediately clear whether the new restraining order had been granted. Stan Lee&aposs declaration said he had fired Lallas in February and had no desire to be further represented by him, and said that he had likely committed malpractice by disclosing to media and others his opinions about Lee&aposs health and personal life. It said that he had no desire for Lallas to file for the restraining order in his name. "Mr. Lallas has done enough damage already," the document says. "Hopefully, he will just stop." The document then includes Lee&aposs original request that Lallas be fired, signed, "Excelsior! Stan Lee." The hearing came on the anniversary of the death of Joan Lee, Stan Lee&aposs wife of nearly 70 years, whose absence left a void that has resulted in a struggle between would-be friends, attorneys, advisers and managers of the man whose co-creations include Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk and the rest of the Avengers. The latest film featuring his characters, "Ant-Man and The Wasp," was released Friday and is expected to top the weekend box office. Lallas said outside court that he stood by his assertion that he could act on Lee&aposs behalf, but he was glad at least that Lee&aposs other attorneys were moving to keep Morgan away from him. Morgan&aposs lawyer Alex Kessel, who came to court on Friday only to have the hearing delayed, exuberantly declared "Case dismissed!" outside the courtroom. "He didn&apost have the authority to represent Mr. Lee, and that&aposs kind of an important fact to determine!" He said he hadn&apost yet seen the new restraining order request. Morgan, a producer who worked on the recent John Travolta movie "Gotti," told The Associated Press in a text message that he was in New York working on another film. He declined to comment further on the advice of his lawyer. Morgan has previously denied abusing Lee in any way. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Talk:Digital intangible heritage
This page should not be speedy deleted because
This page should not be speedily deleted because... there are lots of related scholarly articles that have the mentioned term. Please give me some time to include those links there. I need more time to make this page better and informative. --Muqeemkhan (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC) | WIKI |
User:Ryanrockx
Some people say that Ryan Rockx(aka slick stinky) is the best hackie-sac player in the semi-pro circuit. His intense style of play has been describes as tragically beautiful like honey badger taking down a unicorn.
He has been described as a street-smart, fish out of water in a world he never created. | WIKI |
User:Mizprinceton1125
mindless behavior a young teen sensation started in 2010 there hit single was MY GIRL which eventually hit the top twenty as number one for three weeks. they have been on tourwith a variety of celebrities such as justin bieber, janet jackson, and jason derulo. on their tour right now they are on there way to canada. | WIKI |
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Shiloh, Battle of
SHILOH, BATTLE OF. This, the second great battle in the American Civil War, also called the battle of Pittsburg Landing, was fought on the 6th-7th of April 1862 between the Union forces under Grant and Buell and the Confederates under A. S. Johnston and Beauregard. In view of operations against Corinth, Mississippi, Grant’s army had ascended the Tennessee to Pittsburg Landing and there disembarked, while the co-operating army under Buell moved across country from Nashville to join it. The Confederates concentrated above 40,000 men at Corinth and advanced on Pittsburg Landing with a view to beating Grant before Buell’s arrival, but their concentration had left them only a narrow margin of time, and the advance was further delayed by the wretched condition of the roads. Beauregard advised Johnston to give up the enterprise, but on account of the bad effect a retreat would have on his raw troops Johnston resolved to continue his advance. Grant meantime had disposed his divisions in camps around the Landing rather with a view to their comfort than in accordance with any tactical scheme. No entrenchments were made; Halleck, the Union commanding general in the West, was equally over-confident, and allowed Buell to march in leisurely fashion. Even so, more by chance than intentionally, Buell’s leading division was opposite the Landing, awaiting only a ferry, on the evening before the battle; Grant, however, declined to allow it to cross, as he thought that there would be no fighting for some days. At 6 A.M. on the 6th of April, near Shiloh Church (2 m. from Pittsburg Landing), the Confederate army deployed in line of battle, and advancing directly on the Landing, surprised and broke up a brigade of the most advanced Union division (Prentiss’s) which had been sent forward from camp to reconnoitre. The various Union divisions hurriedly prepared to defend themselves, but they were dispersed in several camps which were out of sight of one another, and thus the Confederate army lapped round the flanks of each local defence as it encountered it. The two advanced divisions were swiftly driven in on the others, who were given a little time to prepare themselves by the fact that in the woods the Confederate leaders were unable to control or manoeuvre their excited troops. But the rear Union divisions, though ready, were not connected, and each in turn was isolated and forced back, fighting hard, towards the Landing. The remnant of Prentiss’s division was cut off and forced to surrender. Another division had its commander, W. H. L. Wallace, killed. But on the other side the disorder became greater and greater, many regiments were used up, and Johnston himself killed in vainly attacking on a point of Wallace’s line called the Hornet’s Nest. The day passed in confused and savage scuffles between the raw enthusiasts of either side, but by 5.30 P.M. Grant had formed a last (and now a connected) line of defence with Buell’s leading division (Nelson’s) and all of his own infantry that he could rally. This line was hardly 600 yds. from the Landing, but it was in a naturally strong position, and Beauregard suspended the attack at sunset. There was a last fruitless assault, delivered by some of the Confederate brigades on the right that had not received Beauregard’s order against Nelson’s intact troops, who were supported by the fire of the gunboats on the Tennessee. During the 'night Grant’s detached division (Lew Wallace’s) and Buell’s army came up, totalling 25,000 fresh troops, and at 5 a.m. on the 7th Grant took the offensive. Beauregard thereupon decided to extricate his sorely-tried troops from the misadventure, and retired fighting on Corinth. About Shiloh Church, a strong rearguard under Bragg repulsed the attacks of Grant and Buell for six hours before withdrawing, and all that Grant and Buell achieved was the reoccupation of the abandoned camps. It was a Confederate failure, but not a Union victory, and, each side being weakened by about 10,000 men, neither made any movements for the next three weeks. | FINEWEB-EDU |
Plectoceratidae
The Plectoceratidae is a family of tarphycerids in the suborder Barrandeocerina established as a place for the genus Plectoceras; defined (Sweet 1964) simply as coiled, costate barrandeocerids with subcentral adult siphuncle.
According to Sweet, in the original Treatise Part K, the Plectoceratidae included only Plectoceras. Flower, 1984, however added six other genera, two new and four removed from both the Barrandeoceratidae and Apsidoceratidae. Genera according to Flower, 1984 are:
Plectoceras Hyatt -type genus Avilionella -removed from Barradeoceratidae Bodeiceras, Flower 1984. added Chidleyenoceras - removed from the Apsidoceratidae Metaplectoceras, Flower (?synonym for Plectoceras) Laureloceras Flower 1957, removed from Barrandeoceratidae Laurelplecoceras Flower 1984 -added
According to Flower, 1984, Plectoceras, and therefore the Plectoceratidae, is derived from the Tarphyceratid genus Campbelloceras while Barrandeoceras, and therefore the Barrandeoceratidae, is derived from Centrotarphyceras. The inclusion of Laureloceras expands the range of the Plectoceratidae into the Middle Silurian from the Upper Ordovician when it had been with only Plectoceras | WIKI |
Putin is making a move while America is distracted | TheHill
During this time of American preoccupation with internal politics, Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinAs Buttigieg rises, Biden is still the target Yang jokes first thing he'd say to Putin as president is 'Sorry I beat your guy' Biden: Impeachment hearings show 'Trump doesn't want me to be the nominee' MORE may be trying to drive a wedge into the transatlantic sanctions coalition. Last Friday, French President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronWorld leaders to gather in Israel for fight against anti-Semitism forum Putin is making a move while America is distracted 'Old World' demons are stirring again MORE announced that on Dec. 9 he will host a summit with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Germany to talk about the war in Ukraine for the first time in more than three years. While discussions around settling that important and bloody conflict are welcome, European leaders should bear in mind that Ukraine is not the only arena in which the Russian government continues to undermine Western democracies. The U.S. Congress acted in 2017 to tie any future sanctions relief to the cessation of Russian election interference. By contrast, Europe has not followed suit and still says sanctions will be lifted if Russia makes peace with Ukraine. Another important difference is the default setting whereby U.S. sanctions can only be lifted by a future act of Congress, whereas European Union member states need to unanimously agree every six months to renew their sanctions. The risk is that Macron and German Chancellor Merkel might dangle to Putin the possibility of sanctions relief, if not to be implemented immediately then after some small reversible improvements on the ground in Ukraine. That would be an enormous win for Putin, leaving America alone in the sanctions coalition and failing to impose costs on Russia for continued interference in Western elections. As context, European participation in the U.S.-led sanctions on Russia was the most unwelcome surprise to Putin in 2014. More powerful than the ubiquity of the dollar, proprietary energy technology, or any other technical elements, transatlantic solidarity is the secret weapon that gives the Russia sanctions teeth. More than just political optics, diplomatic unity reduces and spreads the burden of maintaining the sanctions between American and European companies while increasing the cost on Moscow. That’s why professionals at the Treasury and State Departments show solidarity with Europe by issuing a new tranche of U.S. sanctions on Russia every six months and traveling to European capitals urging them to renew their part — because European participation is what makes the economic sanctions bite. Putin knows this too. And he probably calculates that now is his opportunity to break up the international sanctions coalition by peeling off the Europeans, while the United States and Britain are riven by internal politics and led by Russia-friendly leaders who are disinclined to shore up European resolve. President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpFive takeaways from the Democratic debate As Buttigieg rises, Biden is still the target Leading Democrats largely pull punches at debate MORE is looking for a foreign policy deal to sell to voters next year and says he would like to invite Putin back into the G7. Macron has also been courting Russia, which was recently readmitted to the Council of Europe. Depending on how politics play out — especially in the United States — this current window of Western distraction and softness on Russia may close within a year, making this Putin’s moment. It would be a tremendous breakthrough if Russia fully withdraws its forces from Ukraine and returns to Kyiv sovereign control over the international border. However, Europe should follow the lead of the U.S. Congress and explicitly declare sanctions relief to also be contingent upon two other ways Russia is violating countries’ sovereignty. One is Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula, an issue that Putin says is off the table in negotiations. Two is the ongoing assault on Western democracies, through cyber-attacks, information operations, malign finance, and other active measures. This is not to say that all sanctions should remain in place until all these problems are solved. It would be better to tie certain sanctions to each of these three buckets of Russian behavior — eastern Ukraine, Crimea, and election interference — and lift some sanctions if any given area of hostility fully ends. The severity of the sanctions in each bucket should be commensurate with the importance of the issue, meaning that Europe’s main sectoral sanctions cannot continue to be associated only with Ukraine as a whole (which risks be reinterpreted as eastern Ukraine, selling Crimea down the river, and also leaves no costs for election interference). If Russian aggression stops, the United States and Europe would have to work together to disentangle and begin easing the sanctions in unison. But given the importance of election meddling to democratic sovereignty, that elaborate diplomatic undertaking should not begin until after we see whether Russia interferes in the British and American elections over the next 12 months. American lawmakers and presidential candidates should urge Europe to refrain from lifting their economic sanctions on Russia at this point in time and should also signal to Moscow that it can expect much stronger financial sanctions if it continues interfering in democracies. Unilateral disarmament in the months ahead because of progress in Ukraine would invite Russia to continue to feel emboldened to strike directly at Western capitals. Josh Rudolph is the fellow for malign finance of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan transatlantic organization with the stated aim of countering efforts to undermine democratic institutions in the United States and Europe. He formerly served at the International Monetary Fund, the National Security Council, the U.S. Treasury, and J.P. Morgan. Follow him on Twitter @JoshRudes View the discussion thread. The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax The contents of this site are ©2019 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA, Plaintiff, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary, United Stated Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 02CV02057RMC.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Feb. 3, 2005.
Eldon V. C. Greenberg, Garvey Schubert Barer, Washington, DC, Lois J. Schif-fer, Manuel S. Varela, Baach Robinson & Lewis PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Ann D. Navaro, U.S. Department of Justice, G. Michael Harvey, Office of the United States Attorney, Michael C. Johnson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lois J. Schif-fer, Baach Robinson & Lewis PLLC, Washington, DC, Charles Michael Carvell, Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLYER, District Judge.
The United States Government and the State of North Dakota have begun construction on a project that is designed to transfer water through a mountain range from the Missouri River Basin into the Hudson Bay Basin for purposes of providing water to numerous small communities in North Dakota. This “Northwest Area Water Supply Project” (“NAWS”) would be the first federally-sponsored interbasin transfer of water.
The Province of Manitoba, Canada (“Manitoba”) has filed suit against Gail A. Norton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, John W. Keys, III, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Maryanne C. Bach, Great Plains Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation, and Dennis E. Breitzman, Dakotas Area Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation (collectively, “Federal Defendants”). Manitoba challenges the Federal Defendants’ compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (“NEPA”), in connection with their consideration and approval of the water transfer project. More particularly, Plaintiff contends that the April 30, 2001 Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the project is inadequate and that the Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), dated May 18, 2001, as revised September 10, 2001, together with the actions based thereon, are therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law within the meaning of Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The point of contention is the degree to which NAWS threatens to bring non-native biota from the Missouri River Basin into the Hudson Bay Basin.
Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Manitoba, Federal Defendants, and Inter-venor-Defendant, the State of North Dakota (“North Dakota”). Manitoba’s motion is supported by amici curiae the Government of Canada and the State of Missouri. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the parties’ memoranda and at oral argument, the Court will grant in part, and deny in part, Manitoba’s motion for summary judgment and will deny the motions of Federal Defendants and North Dakota.
BACKGROUND
The Continental Divide separates water flows in the Unites States so that streams flow to opposite sides of the continent. Where it goes through North Dakota, the divide separates two river basins, the Missouri River Basin and the Hudson Bay Basin. AR at 862. On the western side of the divide in North Dakota, the Missouri River flows into the Missouri River Basin and eventually drains south to the Gulf of Mexico. On the eastern side of the divide, the waters flow north and east into the Hudson Bay Basin. AR at 545.
These basins have distinct ecological characteristics and contain different species of fish and other aquatic organisms, as well as pathogenic species such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi, and other microscopic organisms. AR at 1200; Pltfs Motion for Summary Judgment at 4. The co-mingling of untreated water from one basin into another can result in the introduction of biota — the various life forms of a particular region or habitat — that may be invasive and dangerous to indigenous biota. The effect upon fish of “interbasin biota transfer,” for example, can be devastating. The introduction of foreign biota can eliminate indigenous species, cause reduced growth and survival rates in indigenous species, and change the trophic structure of fish communities. AR at 3005. In documented cases, non-native species have displaced native species through direct competition, predation, inhibition of reproduction, environmental modification, transfer of new parasites and diseases, and destruction of the gene pool through hybridization. AR at 3005.
Aquatic invasive or non-indigenous species are organisms that have moved beyond their natural geographical ecosystem. They may include fish, fish pathogens and parasites, invertebrates, and aquatic plants. When a new species or organism is introduced into an ecosystem, the economic and ecological consequences can be detrimental and irreversible.
Aquatic non-indigenous species can cause complex changes within their new environment as evidenced by the zebra mussel and many other species .... Changes to aquatic ecosystems can include a decline in the abundance of native species, extirpation of rare or endangered species, introduction of new diseases to native populations, alteration of the gene pool of native species, and reductions in reproductive success, genetic integrity, and biodiversity.
AR at 9815-17 (internal citations to reports omitted).
The transfer of biota can occur in many different ways, both natural and unnatural. “Direct connection through water is only one of several possible ways for biota to be transferred between basins. Many vectors, or pathways, have been identified including attachment to birds, insects, through fish-stocking programs, transfer of biota in live wells and bilge water of recreational or commercial water craft, and through live bait transport.” AR at 544. Flooding and other natural events can also transfer biota from basin to basin.
Northwest Area Water Supply Project
For many years, northwestern North Dakota has experienced water supply problems. AR at 466. Many municipalities and small communities in the region, as well as farms and ranches, rely upon groundwater sources that are finite or of poor quality. AR at 466. The largest city in the region, Minot, North Dakota, currently obtains most of its water from the Minot and Sundre aquifers. AR at 470. In the past, these aquifers were recharged by water from the Souris River. However, increased water usage and the construction of two water storage reservoirs in Canada — which reduced flows on the Souris River in the United States — have limited the amount of available water in these aquifers. AR at 470. See AR at 498 (The Souris River flows south from Canada into North Dakota, takes a wide swing through the northwest part of the state, and flows north back into Canada.).
The NorthWest Area Water Supply Project is a joint federal-state project that “involves the construction of a municipal, rural, and industrial [ ] bulk water distribution system in North Dakota.” Compl. ¶ 2. The Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau” or “BOR”), through the Secretary of the Interior, is charged with planning and construction and is accomplishing this with the State of North Dakota. The primary purpose of this project is to provide drinking water that meets the “secondary” standards of the Safe Water Drinking Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300f, to local communities and rural water systems in eight to ten counties in North Dakota.. AR at 470-71.
The cornerstone of the project is the source of the water for NAWS. As presently contemplated, NAWS would withdraw over three and one-half billion gallons of Missouri River water from Lake Audubon or Lake Sakakawea every year. The water, which would be partially disinfected and pre-treated south of the basin divide, would flow through buried pipelines across the divide into the Hudson Bay Basin where it would receive final treatment in Minot, North Dakota prior to distribution. The finished water would be delivered by pipeline to communities and rural water systems north of the basin divide. Water from the project would drain into the Souris River, which flows into Manitoba. Upon completion, NAWS would establish the first artificial link in 10,000 years between the Missouri River Basin and the Hudson River Basin.
From the outset, the potential of NAWS to transfer Missouri River Basin biota to the Hudson Bay Basin has been recognized as a major concern, prompting considerable study, analysis, and diplomatic negotiation among interested parties. AR at 823 (“Since 1981, numerous international committees and groups have been formed to address this issue at both a policy and technical level.”); see, e.g., AR at 1023 (1990 Garrison Joint Technical Committee, Biology Task Force Report); AR at 1199 (1994 NAWS Engineering-Biology Task Group). The parties to this litigation agree that such a transfer could have catastrophic consequences. “One of the greatest concerns for irreversible commitments of resources is interbasin biota transfer. Most often, when this occurs, the damage is not reversible.” AR at 591; see AR at 1201, Engineering-Biology Task Group Report (“The effects of the introduction of a disease pathogen or parasite could be catastrophic to wild or cultured fish”).
In 1994, the NAWS Chloramine Challenge Study was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of chloramination and ozonation for disinfection and pre-treatment of Missouri River water. The study developed “experimental protocols for microbial inactivation using chlorine/chlora-mine and ozone. The chlorine/chloramine protocols included both Giardia and MS2 Bacteriophage inactivation experiments.” AR at 825. The ozone protocols were also developed for Giardia inactivation. The results of the study indicated that both chloramine and ozone “could be employed for disinfection of Lake Audubon water.” AR at 825-26.
Early studies concluded that the “risk of biota transfer from NAWS was ‘low1 but did not quantify this determination.” AR at 1863. In 2000, the Bureau prepared a Comparative Risk Assessment (“CRA”), which was designed to “quantitatively analyze potential risks and to present a mathematical and statistical basis to better define a ‘low risk.’ ” AR at 1863. Notably, the CRA used the organism, Giardia, as a surrogate for species presumed to be nonnative biota. In addition, Whirling Disease (“WD”), a parasitic protozoan, was used as representative of disinfection resistant organisms. AR at 1863 (“The CRA addressed the microorganisms Giardia, viruses, and [WD] spores only.”). The study concluded that “[f]rom the time water is withdrawn from [the intake in the Missouri River Basin] until the used water is discharged from wastewater plants to the Souris River by users, about 99.9999999 percent of Giardia and 99.9999999999999 percent of viruses are likely to be inactivated or removed from the water.” AR at 1864.
Later, in August 2001, the Plaintiff commissioned a “Technical Report” (“Te~ trES Report”) that showed that “because of significant new findings after 1994 regarding disinfection efficacy for protozoans such as Cryptosporidium ... the conclusions of [earlier studies] are outdated and are no longer relevant for a project proposed for construction over seven years later.” AR at 9831. This study further suggested that reliance upon Giardia, virus, and WD as representative organisms by which to assess the effectiveness of treatment using chloramine was misplaced because, inter alia, those organisms are highly treatable or innocuous if introduced into a foreign system. In sum, the TetrES Report concluded that analysis using “treatment resistant organisms like Cryp-tosporidius,” would better present the true effectiveness of such pre-treatment. AR at 9832.
Administrative Proceedings
Due in large measure to concerns over the interbasin transfer of biota, NAWS has a long and torturous history of project development in which numerous alternative water supply systems have been analyzed and considered. AR at 472. Several parameters were considered in assessing alternatives, including the quantity and quality of the water source, limits of service areas, type of treatment, intake facilities, adaptability to phased construction, environmental impacts, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. AR at 478. From 1988 to 1993, the number of alternatives was reduced from ten to three.
In June 1997, the Bureau released a draft EA for NAWS. The initial work on the EA evaluated three alternatives. See AR at 1361-1411, February 27, 1997 Environmental Assessment Alternative Analysis (identifying Alternative A — an integrated system; Alternative B — an individual treatment system; Alternative C — a combination of Alternatives A & B). Public meetings on the Draft EA were held, and interested parties including Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) submitted written comments. The Bureau subsequently issued a Final EA on April 30, 2001, concluding that “[t]he risk of interbasin transfer of nonnative biota as a result of the NAWS project is considered low.” Compl. ¶46. The Final EA analyzed three alternatives and a no-action alternative. AR at 478.
Alternative A included an intake of Missouri River water at either Lake Audubon or Lake Sakakawea, a pre-treatment facility at the intake or at a booster pump station, and upgrade of the water treatment plant (“WTP”) in Minot. AR at 479. The pipeline between intake at the lakes and the Minot WTP would be about forty-five miles long and include pumping stations and storage reservoirs. AR at 479-80. The Missouri River water would be disinfected with ozone or chlorine/chlora-mine — with a chloramine residual maintained in the pipeline for biofilm control— at a pre-treatment facility on the Missouri River Basin side of the divide to provide biota transfer control and inactivation of protozoan pathogens and viruses. AR at 479-81. After reaching the Minot WTP, the pre-treated water would be disinfected further with ultraviolet radiation before being delivered to communities and the rural water systems by way of 413 miles of distribution pipeline.
Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B would not have used Missouri River water at all, relying upon the existing water sources of users. AR at 485. This alternative would have required the drilling of additional wells, some additional pipelines, and other upgrades, but would have eliminated the need for 407 miles of pipeline compared to Alternative A, and 298 miles of pipeline as compared to the Preferred Alternative. AR at 489. It would not have involved the interbasin transfer of Missouri River water.
The Preferred Alternative combined Alternatives A and B and was developed “based on the capital costs for both an integrated system and individual treatment systems.” AR at 495.
The Preferred Alternative would have one intake at either Lake Sakakawea or Lake Audubon, a pre-treatment facility at the intake or the Max booster pump station, one central treatment plant at Minot, eight storage reservoirs, 13 pumping plants, 304 miles of distribution pipelines, two new treatment plants with drain ponds (Wildrose and Grenora), and one upgraded treatment plant (Parshall).
AR at 495.
Under Alternative A and the Preferred Alternative, Missouri River water would be pumped from either Lake Sakakawea or Lake Audubon. AR at 499. Also under both alternatives, the Missouri River water would first be pre-treated at or near the intake and later treated to “drinking water” standards at the Minot WTP. The Final EA pointed out that “[t]wo options were analyzed and eliminated for the treatment of Missouri River water to reduce the possibility of interbasin biota transfer into the Hudson Bay watershed:” full treatment at Minot and full treatment at the intake. AR at 508. Full treatment at the Minot WTP involved a cost of $15.9 million, but “was dropped because of unacceptable risk of interbasin biota transfer.” AR at 508. Full treatment at the intake “would have required the construction of a complete, new treatment plant,” and would have cost $28.2 million. AR at 508-09. “The difference in cost between a full treatment plant at Lakes Audubon or Sa-kakawea and upgrade of the Minot treatment plant is $12.3 million ($28.2 million— $15.9 million).” AR at 509 (internal cross-reference omitted). Accordingly, both alternatives using water drawn from the Missouri River called for pre-treatment at the intake and at the Minot water treatment plant because it “was considered the most viable and most supportable treatment alternative in terms of costs, financing, and use of existing facilities.” AR at 510.
Based on the findings in the Final EA, the Bureau issued a FONSI on May 18, 2001, which stated that a full Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) was not necessary for NAWS because “Reasonably foreseeable activities, as described in the EA, will not have adverse effects on the human or natural environment.” Compl. ¶ 47. Following an administrative appeal by Manitoba Conservation (the provincial agency of Manitoba), Environment Canada (the federal Canadian environmental agency), and a North Dakota citizen, Dr. Gary Pearson, in which the TetrES Report was presented, on September 10, 2001, the Bureau issued a revised FONSI and a decision upholding the determination that an EIS was not necessary. The revised FONSI noted that the “issue of full treatment versus pretreatment at the intake site is a difficult, but critical one.” AR at 752.
Technical studies have been conducted to find a solution that is responsible and reasonable from both an economic and environmental standpoint. Pretreatment using both ozone and chloramine, as proposed in the Preferred Alternative, will meet requirements set by the Garrison U.S./Canada Consultative Group for prevention of biota transfer. The Northwest Area Water Supply Project Chloramine Challenge Study — December 1995 demonstrated that pretreatment with either chloramine or ozone provides disinfection of Giardia to 3-log detection (inactivation) and Bacteriophage to 4-log detection (inactivation) .... We believe the incremental reduction in the environmental risk of biota transfer provided by full treatment at the intake, compared to that of pretreatment, does not warrant the additional cost of constructing full treatment facilities at the source.
AR at 752-53.
Construction Underway
Construction on NAWS, which is estimated to take five years, began in 2002 and, as of April 13, 2004, 16.5 miles of the core pipeline (38 percent) had been constructed. The entire cost of the project is estimated at $145 million, with 65 percent of that cost provided by the federal government. Three contracts have been awarded for NAWS at a total cost of $16.6 million. In addition to the pipeline, the project requires construction of storage reservoirs, two new WTPs, an upgraded retreatment plant, and pumping plants. AR at 495. All told, the project will serve about 81,000 people. AR at 473. Water likely will not flow into Minot until at least 2008. Bach Deck ¶ 4.
ARGUMENTS
Manitoba challenges the Federal Defendants’ compliance with NEPA in connection with their consideration and approval of NAWS. Plaintiffs principal argument is that the Bureau, in reaching its determination that no EIS was required, considered outdated 1994 EPA standards of disinfection and treatment. Pltfs Motion for Summary Judgment at 5. Manitoba argues that EPA has revised its standards since 1994 “to require control of the more treatment-resistant organism Cryptosporidium, as well as Giardia, and substantial improvements have been made in disinfection technology” and that, in any event, the “Bureau must examine the real world, not the world as governed by standards that are long out of date” in considering the environmental impact of its actions. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff claims that “[t]he Bureau rejected, without fully analyzing, complete treatment of Missouri River water at the source,” id. at 6, and that there is “substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness of the Bureau’s control measures,” id. at 9. In light of these. substantial uncertainties and the potential for interbasin transfer of biota through “catastrophic system failures,” “normal and expected leakage from line joints and connectors,” “and discharges to the environment of backwash water and residue or sludge from treatment processes in Minot,” Manitoba contends that a finding of no significant impact is unsupportable. Id.
Federal Defendants’ arguments proceed on the assumption that the pretreatment process results in a low risk of biota transfer. In what is a constant drumbeat throughout the briefing, they argue that the project will result in a disinfection rate that “is greater than 99% for biota of concern to the Province — meeting the goal agreed to by the international commission reviewing the project.” Fed. Defs’ Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at l.
This pre-treatment will ‘meet the disinfection requirement of '3-log and 4-log inactivation of Giardia and viruses, respectively.’ This means that DOI anticipates a disinfection success rate of 99.9% and 99.99% approximately thirteen miles before the flow in the pipeline reaches the basin divide. By the time the water reaches the divide, DOI expects an additional 2 logs of inactivation for Giardia and an additional 4 logs for viruses, resulting in ^ disinfection rate of 99.999% and 99.999999%.
Id. at 15. Federal Defendants acknowledge that Cryptosporidium is more treatment-resistant than Giardia but assert that there are no laboratory procedures to evaluate Cryptosporidium. They contend that the use' of older EPA standards is justified because there are no relevant standards relating directly to control of biota transfer. In any event, Federal Defendants argue that after treatment with ultra-violet (“UV”) light at the Minot WTP, 99.9 to 99.99% deactivation of organisms such as Cryptosporidium should result. Id. at 19.
They counter Manitoba’s suggestion that the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) did not consider full treatment at the intake (to include Cryptosporidium-specific treatment), arguing that this alternative was eliminated from further review because it .would have “required the construction of a ‘complete and new treatment plant’ ... resulting in significant increase in cost, the closure of the Minot treatment plant” and other difficulties. Id. at 30. These considerations and “the very low risk of biota transfer associated with pre^ treatment at the source and final treatment at Minot combined to support DOI’s approach.” Id. at 31.
Intervenor-Defendant North Dakota (“North Dakota”) argues that mitigation efforts, in particular pipeline engineering features, will minimize the possibility of leaks and interbasin biota transfer. North Dakota’s Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at 22. North Dakota noted further that the difference in treatment effectiveness between full treatment at the source and the Preferred Alternative was “literally one hundredth of a percent, at most ... at a cost of at least $27 million in front-end costs for the project.” Id. at 34.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
In 1969, Congress passed NEPA to ensure that agencies of the federal government consider the environmental effects of proposed actions. NEPA was enacted “[t]o declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
The Act was designed to “promote environmentally sensitive decision-making without prescribing any substantive standards,” Anderson v. Evans, 314 F.3d 1006, 1016 (9th Cir.2002), and “guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). This audience includes the public, as well as “the President, who is responsible for the agency’s policy, and Congress, which has authorized the agency’s actions.” Sierra Club v. Watkins, 808 F.Supp. 852, 858 (D.D.C.1991) (citing Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 833 (D.C.Cir.1972)); see Grand Council of the Crees v. FERC, 198 F.3d 950, 959 (D.C.Cir.2000) (congressional purpose to ensure agency access to detailed environmental impact information and to inform the public of environmental concerns). Such information is critical for decision-makers who must “decide whether they will support or overrule the agency’s action .... ” Watkins, 808 F.Supp. at 858; see Monroe County Conservation Council, Inc. v. Volpe, 472 F.2d 693, 697 (2d Cir.1972) (NEPA requires full disclosure for decision-makers and the public).
The heart of NEPA is its “action-forcing” procedures, which ensure that broad policy concerns regarding environmental quality are infused into the actions of the federal government. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (citing 115 Cong. Rec. 40416 (Dec. 20, 1969) (remarks of Sen. Jackson); S. Rep. No. 91-296, at 19 (1969)). The most important of these procedures is the requirement that an EIS be prepared whenever a proposed major federal action will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1413 (D.C.Cir.1983). This cornerstone of NEPA requires that federal agencies:
(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on -
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (emphasis added).
“Whether a particular proposed action significantly affects the environment, thus necessitating the preparation of an EIS, is a threshold question.” Nat’l Audubon Society v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 12 (2d Cir.1997). “[I]f the agency is uncertain whether the impacts rise to the level of a major federal action requiring an EIS, the agency must prepare an [EA].” Id. at 13 (citing 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.3, 1501.4, 1508.9); see also Peterson, 717 F.2d at 1413 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b) & (c)). An EA is a concise public document that “[b]riefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an [EIS] or a [FONSI].” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. If the agency finds that the proposed action will produce “no significant impact” on the environment, then an EIS is not required. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e); see Sierra Club v. Espy, 38 F.3d 792, 796 (5th Cir.1994) (if there is a finding of no significant impact an EIS is not required). A FONSI is an agency document that “briefly pres-entís] the reasons why an action ... will not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement therefore will not be prepared.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
By their design, these “action-forcing” requirements are “almost certain to affect the agency’s substantive decision, [but] it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate particular results .... ” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835; see Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 558, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978) (describing the requirements of NEPA as “essentially procedural”); Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 100 S.Ct. 497, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980) (rejecting claim that NEPA demands that an agency elevate environmental concerns over other considerations); North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 599 (D.C.Cir.1980) (NEPA requirements are essentially procedural and a court should not substitute its own policy judgment for that of the agency). “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed — rather than unwise— agency action.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 351, 109 S.Ct. 1835. Compliance with the procedural requirements themselves, however, is not discretionary and a court may review the decision to forego production of an EIS. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 420, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976); see Hoffman, 132 F.3d at 18 (“[B]eeause NEPA provides a procedural framework ... courts are responsible for ensuring that agencies comply with the statutory duty imposed on them by Congress.”). Judicial review of an agency FONSI and decision not to complete an EIS is performed according to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 2213, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004). An agency has broad discretion in making such determinations and the decision is reviewable only if it was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Sierra Club v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 753 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C.Cir.1985) (citing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness / Scotchman’s Peak Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 681 (D.C.Cir.1982)). While deferential, a court must thoroughly review an agency’s decision and may not “rubber stamp” decisions that are inconsistent with statutory mandate or congressional policy. Ariz. Cattle Growers Ass’n v. United States Fish & Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir.2001).
ANALYSIS
The first threshold question is whether the interbasin transport of Missouri River water, with the possible transfer of non-indigenous biota to the Hudson Bay Basin, is a “[m]ajor Federal action.” 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); see Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F.Supp.2d 30, 53 (D.D.C.2003) (citing Fund for Animals v. Thomas, 127 F.3d 80, 83 (D.C.Cir.1997)) (duty to prepare an EIS triggered only by a proposal for major Federal action). Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) define terms in NEPA and detail agency responsibilities under the Act. See Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 372, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (CEQ regulations, which are entitled to substantial deference, impose a duty on all federal agencies). Under applicable CEQ regulations, a “[mjajor Federal action” includes actions with “effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18 (2003). “Federal ae-tions” tend to include “specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area.” Id.
Although there is “[n]o litmus test” for determining whether an action is a “major Federal action,” Save Barton Creek Ass’n v. Fed. Highway Admin., 950 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1992), a court may consider the following factors: (1) whether the project is federal or non-federal; (2) whether the project receives significant federal funding; and (3) when the project is undertaken by a non-federal actor, whether the federal agency must undertake “affirmative conduct” before the non-federal actor may act, Mineral Policy Center, 292 F.Supp.2d at 54-55 (citing generally Macht v. Skinner, 916 F.2d 13 (D.C.Cir.1990)). NAWS was authorized by federal statute and, although it involves both federal and state participation, BOR is charged with the planning and construction of the project. In addition, the federal government will provide 65% of the funding for the $145 million project. That this is a “[mjajor Federal action” cannot be seriously disputed.
The second threshold question is whether NAWS will “significantly affectf ] the quality of the human environment ....” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (emphasis added). Although the statute is silent, CEQ regulations provide factors for determining whether an action is significant. Whether there may be a significant effect on the environment requires consideration of two factors, “context and intensity.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. “Context simply delimits the scope of the agency’s action, including the interests affected. Intensity relates to the degree to which agency action affects the locale and interests identified in the context part of the inquiry.” Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 731 (9th Cir.2001).
“[W]hether a particular agency action will have a ‘significant’ effect on the environment is a substantive question left to the informed discretion of the agency proposing the action.” Hoffman, 132 F.3d at 14. A reviewing tribunal must determine “whether the agency considered the relevant factors in a rational way.” Public Citizen v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 848 F.2d 256, 266 (D.C.Cir.1988) (citing Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 831 (2d Cir.1972)). The D.C. Circuit has established four criteria for “assessing the adequacy of an environmental assessment’s conclusion that there is no significant impact on the environment” and subsequent decision to forego preparation of an EIS. Watkins, 808 F.Supp. at 865.
First, the agency [must] accurately identify] the relevant environmental concern. Second, once the agency has identified the problem it must ... take[ ] a “hard look” at the problem in preparing the EA. Third, if a finding of no significant impact is made, the agency must ... make a convincing case for its finding. Last, if the agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that the changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.
Town of Cave Creek v. FAA, 325 F.3d 320, 327 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 340-41 (D.C.Cir.2002)); see Maryland-Nat’l Capi tal Park and Planning Comm’n v. USPS, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C.Cir.1973) (similar).
1. Development ofNAWS
The determination regarding whether BOR “identified the relevant areas of environmental concern” and took a “hard look” at the problem is informed by a discussion of the Boundary Waters Treaty and the extensive international negotiation, cooperation and study that has permeated the development of NAWS as a result of the United States’s treaty obligations.
In 1909 the governments of the United States and Great Britain executed the “Treaty Between the United States and Great Britain Relating to Boundary Waters, and Questions Arising Between the United States and Canada” (“Boundary Waters Treaty” or “Treaty”). See 36 Stat. 2448 (Jan. 11, 1909). In relevant part, Article IV of the Treaty provides, “[i]t is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health and property on the other.” 36 Stat. 2450.
The Boundary Waters Treaty contains mechanisms for resolving disputes arising from the use of boundary waters. Article VII of the Treaty establishes the International Joint Commission (“IJC”), and subsequent articles provide for both non-binding and binding dispute resolution. Under Article IX, the government of either the United States or Canada can refer to the IJC any “questions or matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other.” 36 Stat. 2452. With respect to these referred matters, the IJC is empowered to generate nonbinding reports containing “conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate.” Id. The IJC can issue binding decisions on referred matters under Article X of the Treaty only if both parties consent. 36 Stat. 2453. The binding dispute resolution procedures have never been invoked.
In 1965, Congress first authorized the construction of the Garrison Diversion Unit Project (“GDU”) in North Dakota. See Act of August 5, 1965, Pub.L. No.89-108, 79 Stat. 433; Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Watt, 678 F.2d 299, 302 (D.C.Cir.1982). In light of the GDU project, the two neighboring countries sought a recommendation from the IJC pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty. “The IJC in 1977 recommended against any Garrison Diversion construction which could affect waters flowing into Canada unless Canada and the United States agree that the risk to Canada is eliminated or of no concern.” AR at 7806, Comments from the Canadian Section of the Canada-U.S. Garrison Consultative Group, July 9, 1999 (emphasis in original). The United States and Canada established the Garrison U.S./Canada Consultative Group in 1981 as a venue for ongoing discussions.
After passage of the GDU Reformulation Act in 1986, the planning and development of the current NAWS project began. AR at 8309. In 1993, the State of North Dakota, which sponsors the NAWS project with the Bureau, requested review of NAWS by the Joint Technical Committee (“JTC”), composed of U.S. and Canadian experts, which had been set up by the Garrison Consultative Group. AR at 8309. Among other studies, the JTC appointed an Engineering-Biology Task Group (“Task Group”), with members from both countries, to review the project. AR at 8309. The Task Group issued its report in May 1994, finding, inter alia:
• “A number of pathways exist by which biota transfer has occurred, may be occurring, or could occur even without the completion of NAWS,” such as fisheries management, bait buckets, boat bilges and boat hulls;
• “The most acceptable method of fully overcoming [the transfer of non-native biota into the Hudson Bay drainage] would be to treat the water to acceptable drinking water standards prior to its transport into the Hudson Bay drainage;”
• “[A]ll pipeline options had a relatively low risk of transferring biota to the Hudson Bay drainage if they included chloramination at the source ... to control slime growth.”
• “Because of the consequences of a pipeline failure, operations, maintenance, and replacement must ensure the integrity of the pipeline for its entire operational life;” and
• “If chloramination with the Missouri River drainage proves to be effective in addressing biota transfer concerns, standard engineering practices for construction, maintenance, and replacement could be followed.”
AR at 1203-05. Further, the Task Group report stated that if the water were disinfected to drinking water standards, “there would be no concerns regarding leaking, pipeline rupture” or other piping incidents. AR 1220. The water could be “considered adequately treated for the purposes of mitigating biota transfer,” “[i]f actual pilot studies demonstrate that Giardia and viruses can be inactivated to levels required for drinking water (ie. 3 log inactivation for Giardia and 4 log inactivation for viruses) at the Continental Divide .... ” AR at 1220. This report represented a welcome concurrence of opinion between representatives for both countries and has been highly relied upon by U.S. planners ever since.
In 1993-94, Cryptosporidium, was found in municipal water supplies in Detroit. AR at 8309. Thereafter, from 1994 to 1999, the U.S. and Canada sections of the JTC “argue[d] (but politely) about [the] implications of finding Cryptosporidium in Detroit and what the [Consultative Group] really meant when they accepted the findings of the ... Task Group with regard to disinfection vs. removal of biota.” AR at 8310. The problem identified was that Cryptosporidium is not amenable to treatment with chlorami-nation; a problem the Task Group had not foreseen when it made its recommendation.
In December 1994, the consulting engineers for NAWS completed the “Pre-Final Design” for the project. AR at 1246-61. This document stated that two alternative WTP locations were evaluated to address biota transfer concerns. “The locations included sitting the treatment plant in the Missouri River Basin, and sitting upgrades and treatment plant expansions at the Minot WTP. The recommended plan involves upgrading and increasing the capacity of the Minot WTP.” AR at 1256. The basis for this critical recommendation — full water treatment in Minot, rather than in the Missouri River Basin prior to crossing the divide — is not revealed in the administrative record before the Court.
However, as a result of the biota transfer concerns expressed by the Task Group, the consulting engineers on the NAWS project conducted a Chloramine Challenge Study in 1995 that was “a scientific evaluation to document the efficiency and applicability of both chloramination and ozonation in meeting ... biota transfer concerns.” AR at 1263. The study focused on the use of chloramines and ozone for disinfection of Lake Audubon water to meet the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule (“SWTR”) “requirements, i.e., 3-log (99.9%) inactivation of Giardia cysts and at least 4-log (99.99%) inactivation of viruses.” AR at 1270. “This study demonstrated that chloramines could be employed for disinfection of Lake Audubon water.” AR at 1318. Nonetheless, the engineers advised that “the primary method of biota control for the NAWS project is the total containment of all Missouri River water within the pipeline system from the intake in the Missouri River Basin to the Minot Water Treatment Plant in the Hudson Bay Basin. Disinfection of the water supply provides an additional level of risk reduction to the already low risk provided by the pipe containment system.” AR at 7710, Consultant Letter to State Water Commission, June 6, 1999.
The Garrison Consultative Group and the Joint Technical Committee met together in Washington, D.C. on July 9, 1999. Canada’s representatives continued to urge full water treatment at the source for Missouri River water, rather than piping to Minot before full treatment. While recognizing that the Task Group had agreed to the earlier drinking water standards for treatment at the source, the Canadians argued that these standards were routinely updated and, in fact, had been updated since 1994. Since “only highly performing filtration systems were successful in treating water containing some protozoans such as Cryptosporidi-um,” Canada contended that reliance on chloramination alone was no longer reasonable. AR at 7807 (“It is not reasonable that the NAWS project would be built to an outdated standard and then would not be upgraded at any time in the future as additional scientific information emerges.”). Fundamentally, Canada argued that “it is almost certain that failure will occur [during the lifetime of the project] with the potential for enormous consequences for Canada. While the project benefits accrue to the United States, the enormous risks are externalized to Canada.” AR at 7810.
Canada’s position caused some concern on the U.S. side of the border. The U.S. Section of the Consultative Group, comprised of representatives from the Department of State, EPA, North Dakota, BOR, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (another agency within the Department of the Interior), debated what to do in light of Canada’s opposition. North Dakota was “[r]eady to move forward” and to schedule bids. AR at 7832, Handwritten Notes from meeting of U.S. Section of Consultative Group, July 16, 1999. The Bureau wanted to know “[d]o we really have a project” and “[w]hat about filtration before the divide.” AR at 7832. The problem with filtration at the Missouri River before the divide was its cost of “$30 M. beyond current plan,” which would be funded by the federal government. AR at 7833. The meeting participants also discussed “[n]ew information” concerning viruses, zebra mussels, and WD, as well as the fact that ozone had been dropped in favor of chlora-mination for disinfection at the source. AR at 7834. It was noted that chloramine disinfection at the Missouri River “[cjan’t remove organics.” AR at 7834. When discussing “Risk Balancing,” one of the participants appears to have commented that it is “[n]ot reasonable for U.S. to provide a risk free project.” AR at 7833.
The three federal agencies (EPA, State and DOI) met with the U.S. Section of the Consultative Group in Denver on August 11, 1999, and agreed that they needed additional information to assess “the relative risk for biota transfer.” AR at 7920. This study would “examine incremental risks over and above the existing nature and human pathways” by which Missouri River Basin biota might reach the Hudson Bay Basin. AR at 8123, Email, BOR Regional Director Maryanne Bach to Richard Kellow, Environment Canada, October 29, 1999. The study would “not include any analysis of consequence” if a release of foreign biota were to occur in the Hudson Bay Basin. AR at 8123; see also AR at 8627, Email re NAWS C[omparative] R[isk] Assessment] WkGp (“[W]e are not viewing the study as a true comparative risk analysis since [the] consequence of transfer is not addressed. Rather, we are viewing the study as an interbasin biota transfer likelihood comparison.”)
The CRA identified existing causes of biota transfer between the -Missouri River Basin and the Hudson Bay Basin, including pipeline connections, bait buckets, live wells, boats, trailers, and tackle; authorized fish stocking programs; and birds. At the end of the study, it was concluded that the “CRA demonstrates that although NAWS might transfer low levels of biota not native to the [Hudson Bay Basin], these transfers would likely be very small fractions of transbasin transfers from non-project pathways.” AR at 8367, Draft Comparative Risk Analysis, March 2000. In other words, the CRA concluded that fishermen and birds would transfer more non-native biota between the Basins than three and one-half billion gallons of water each year.
EPA was not impressed with the draft CRA due to “some of the approaches and a general lack of documentation on many of the assumptions that went into the modeling.” AR at 8583, Email from Assoc. Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment, EPA Headquarters, to John Giedt, EPA, April 19, 2000. EPA concluded that the draft CRA was not “at this stage a credible assessment.” AR at 8583. In an internal EPA memo reviewing the draft CRA, later sent to BOR (AR at 8858-62), one EPA scientist discussed the lack of data to support the CRA’s assumption that all WD spores sink, unlike Giar-dia or Cryptosporidium, which are also protozoans and float.
Unless WD has developed some evolutionary expression of its DNA that directs its cellular machinery to increase its density (no data to support this), or some other biological mechanism it would be expected to behave similar to other protozoans and stay afloat .... It can also be assumed that WD has adapted itself quite well to being released in the water until it runs into something by virtue of it staying viable for up to 30 years. This could allow WD spores to float hundreds of miles downstream until they run into something....
The [WD] spores may be concentrating in the reservoir from upstream sources, and the NAWS project may transport spores hundreds of miles into the Hudson Bay watershed where the chances of running into a Salmonid population may increase.
AR at 8849, Memo (EPA) Review of Draft Comparative Risk Analysis for NAWS, June 12, 2000. These comments were “much more technical” than BOR had expected and “would seem to require additional work.” AR at 8863, Email (BOR), NAWS Comments. BOR was not exactly sure how to deal with the EPA comments “as EPA has made it clear that no matter what we do they won’t accept the [C]RA.” AR at 8863.
While BOR and EPA debated the credibility of the draft CRA, Defendant Maryanne Bach, the BOR Great Plains Regional Director, prepared an October 20, 2000, Briefing for the Secretary of the Interior. The Briefing noted the intense interest of North Dakota’s Senators in NAWS and anticipated their urging the Secretary to make a decision on NAWS during his term in office, i.e., before a new President was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. Regional Director Bach predicted that approval of NAWS “would likely set a precedent in North Dakota for any other interbasin transfers into the Hudson Bay drainage of Canada.” AR at 9157, Briefing for the Secretary, October 20, 2000. She suggested that “whatever level of treatment is deemed necessary for biota transfer control purposes will likely establish a benchmark for all other international (irrigation or M & I) interbasin transfers.” AR at 9157. She concluded that the “Boundary Waters Treaty has proven to be a major obstacle for the State of North Dakota to develop its water resources .... It is unlikely that Canada will formally endorse or otherwise accept any version of NAWS, regardless of the level of water treatment provided.” Id. AR at 9157-58. The Briefing did not mention the ongoing discussion between BOR and EPA on the same topics.
A November 2, 2000 memo from Ms. Bach to the Commissioner of the BOR, forwarding the CRA, EA, draft FONSI, and a Biota Transfer Control Measures report, was designed “to initiate the formal consultation process within the respective agencies [DOI, EPA and State] relative to the” Boundary Waters Treaty. AR at 9166.
EPA prepared a draft Position Paper, dated December 12, 2000, for this formal consultation process. It reported that EPA had determined “that the proposed biota transfer controls do not adequately consider the potential for inter-basin transfer of disinfectant-resistant spore-forming protozoans (Cryptosporidium, Whirling Disease, or unknown fish pathogens).” AR at 9174, Draft EPA Position Paper, December 12, 2000. EPA advised that the “optimal method” to avoid transfer of invasive pathogens into the Hudson Bay Basin “is conventional treatment of raw water in compliance with all applicable EPA drinking water requirements, and additional post-filtered treatment ... prior to transport” across the divide. AR at 9175. Finally, EPA opined:
[T]he Minot water treatment plant can be used only with inclusion of the following conditions: pre-treatment of raw water prior to crossing the continental divide; appropriate engineering controls and fail-safe systems, including an appropriate number of automated pipeline isolation valves ...; adequate facility inspection, operations, maintenance, and capital replacement plans ...; conventional treatment of raw water in compliance with all applicable EPA drinking water requirements, and additional post-filtered treatment with ultraviolet (UV).
AR at 9175.
On January 18, 2001, the DOI Assistant Secretary of Water and Science forwarded a Decision Document to officials at the Department of State and EPA stating that DOI had reached a conclusion regarding NAWS. See AR 9182-96, Memo, DOI Office of Ass’t Sec., Water and Science, to Dir., Office of Canadian Affairs, State, January 18, 2001. NAWS would be approved by DOI with the following “guiding princip[les]”:
1.“Appropriate biota transfer controls should be in place to minimize the potential risk of known or unknown invasive pathogens entering the Hudson Bay basin;”
2. “The project design should fully comply with the intent of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, and meet the legal requirements of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986;”
3. “The most cost-effective biota transfer control measures should be used; ”
4. “The requirements for NAWS, a unique project, are specific to that project; the agencies will consider other projects on a case-by-case basis considering their unique qualities to ensure compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty.”
AR at 9193-94 (emphasis added). DOI told EPA that these guiding principles were intended to incorporate key language of EPA’s position paper. AR at 9185. It was later determined by the U.S. Section of the Garrison Consultative Group that the pre-existing design and operations plan for NAWS met the guiding principles without significant adjustment. AR 9258-9260, Meeting Minutes, January 20, 2001; AR 9261, Draft Meeting Summary, March 20, 2001.
Thereafter, Secretary Bruce Babbit was informed that the “agencies support the need for the water supply project” and he signed the Decision Document on January 19, 2001, finding that NAWS would be compliant with the Boundary Waters Treaty. AR 9197 — 9200, at 9198, Secretarial Approval, January 19, 2001.
2. Identifying Areas of Environmental Concern
As documented in the preceding section, the issue of interbasin biota transfer generally has been the subject of considerable study and negotiation. Indeed, through various government and private studies, and with the participation of various bodies, including BOR, the Consultative Group, and EPA, areas of environmental concern have been identified, including the potential for transfer of treatment-resistant biota through NAWS.
As early as 1994, environmental agencies had become aware of treatment-resistant biota such as Cryptosporidium and the potential hazards they posed. International working groups such as the JTC examined and debated the implications of Cryptosporidium for the treatment or disinfection considerations in NAWS. EPA, BOR, North Dakota, and other agencies and federal departments discussed new information regarding viruses, WD, and zebra mussel, as well as the ineffectiveness of chloramine at disinfecting certain types of biota in Missouri River water. Indeed, EPA declared that NAWS did not adequately consider the potential for interba-sin transfer of disinfectant-resistant, spore-forming protozoans such as Cryptos-poridium, WD, or other unknown fish pathogens, and suggested more intensive treatment prior to transport across the divide. The record is clear; BOR was aware of treatment-resistant biota, the potential for ill-effect, and the shortcomings of existing NAWS treatment options.
8. Taking a Hard Look
That these issues were identified does not mean that the Bureau took a “hard look” at the problem. Federal Defendants argue that BOR considered how to best treat raw water for biota control through the 1995 Chloramine Challenge Study, the 1998 Biota Transfer Control Measures Report, and the CRA. However, these studies are fatally flawed because they rely in large part upon water treatment standards that are too narrow to satisfy the agency’s NEPA obligation to examine the potential for significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Federal Defendants and North Dakota urge that the use of older water-treatment standards, including 1994 EPA regulations, does not violate NEPA and that “[t]here are no regulations, from the EPA or any other federal agency, that govern the disinfection of water for purposes of controlling the inter-basin transfer of foreign biota.” Fed. Defs’ Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at 20; see also North Dakota’s Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at 9. While true, these points miss the mark. That use of 1994 EPA regulations does not violate NEPA — nor, for that matter, treaty obligations — is not determinative of an agency’s obligations. Further, that there are no standards for governing disinfection in interbasin transfers does not, ipso facto, permit the agency to ignore a known potential for the transfer of foreign biota. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the agency had notice of a condition that could have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Such notice would rightfully be informed by both existing and older regulations. Claimed reliance upon studies that fail to consider current environmental concerns and standards is, therefore, not persuasive evidence that the agency took a hard look at the problem.
Federal Defendants point to the CRA’s examination of WD as a representative of more difficult-to-treat pathogens like Cryptosporidium, and suggest that this satisfied its NEPA obligations. It proudly concludes that the “treatment process is expected to result in a 99.9 to 99.99% deactivation of such organisms by the time the water leaves the Minot plant.” Fed. Defs’ Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at 19.
The problem with this argument is, of course, that it ignores the issue here. The question is not the condition of the Missouri River water after full treatment, including UV treatment at Minot. The issue is whether the agency has considered the ramifications of piping water from the Missouri River, across the divide, to the Minot WTP with only chloramination at the source, despite the recognized fact that chloramination is not effective against Cryptosporidium, WD, or similar pathogens.
BOR and North Dakota are joint proponents of the NAWS project. Years ago, in a document totally lacking in analysis, North Dakota rejected treatment of the water at the Missouri River source, preferring to maintain the water treatment plant in Minot. See AR at 1256 (mentioning the possibility of sitting a WTP in the Missouri basin, but stating simply that “[t]he recommended plan involves upgrading and increasing the capacity of the Minot WTP.”). That decision has never been seriously revisited. Instead, BOR and North Dakota have dedicated themselves to reducing the likelihood of pipeline releases and have refused — despite EPA’s warnings, despite Canada’s position, despite Manitoba’s Te-trES report, and, most critically, despite acknowledging that chloramination will not prevent Cryptosporidium, WD, and other pathogens from crossing the divide — to change their position. Whether this is the wisest action is not for litigation to decide. What has resulted from this obduracy, however, is a twofold problem: there has been no study of the consequences of leakage from the pipeline (whether slow leakage from the joints or a major break) and, therefore, no evaluation of the consequences of failure compared to more complete treatment at the source.
As described above, throughout the international discussions and consultations that preceded the Final EA, Canada had been urging full treatment of Missouri River water to drinking water standards at the intake because it provided the best protection against introducing non-native biota into the Hudson Bay Basin. BOR did not fully analyze this option in the draft or Final EA; rather an economic justification for exclusion was included:
[T]he estimated cost of the expansion and upgrade of the Minot water treatment plant is approximately $15.9 million. With full treatment within the Missouri River basin, not only would the pipeline have to be built before water could be sold, but a treatment plant would also have to be constructed, thereby increasing the up-front cost by $28 million, which is an increase of approximately 60 percent. The entire cost of the treatment plant would have to be financed as part of the first phase, which would place a significant financial burden on the uses of project water and would therefore be cost prohibitive. Minot has expressed the desire to maintain operation of its water treatment plant for economic expansion possibilities. In its current configuration, the Minot water treatment plant would be able to treat Missouri River water with few modifications.... Construction of a new water treatment plant at the intake would initially result in the closure of the Minot water treatment plant (loss of existing invested capital). The construction of a treatment plant at the intake location would also involve additional issues with providing operations and maintenance of the facilities. The treatment plant at the intake would be in a remote location which would result in significant problems for 0 & M [Operation and Maintenance] crews with regard to travel time to the location and ability to respond to 0 & M problems on short notice. Construction of a new treatment plant at the intake site would be redundant with the capabilities that exist or will be added to the Minot plant. Other less expensive alternatives to achieve biota control are considered in more detail in later [sic] in this document. The use of Minot’s water treatment plant for final treatment was considered the most viable and most supportable treatment alternative in terms of costs, financing, and use of existing facilities.
AR 0509-510. Thus, the Final EA determined that full treatment of water at the intake site “would have required the construction of a complete, new treatment plant .... The total project cost (including 30 percent for contingencies, engineering, and administration) would be $28.2 million.” AR at 508-09. “The difference in cost between a full treatment plant at Lakes Audubon or Sakakawea and upgrade of the Minot treatment plant is $12.3 million.” AR at 509. For these economic reasons, full treatment of the water at the source was discarded from further consideration.
NEPA “operates to prevent a federal agency from taking any major action before that agency has considered the environmental effects of that action.” Citizen Advocates for Responsible Expansion, Inc. v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423, 432 (5th Cir.1985) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 765, reprinted in 1969 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2751, 2756, 2757 & 2771); see Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (quoting 115 Cong. Rec. 40425 (1969) (remarks of Sen. Muskie)) (NEPA “bring[s] pressure to bear on agencies ‘to respond to the needs of environmental quality.’ ”). A court should intervene if it “becomes aware, especially from a combination of danger signals, that the agency has not really taken a ‘hard look’ at the salient problems, and has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.” Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C.Cir.1970).
Federal Defendants argue that the risks of leakage are low and, therefore, that no further study is necessary. They repeatedly provide varied estimates that more than ninety-nine percent of biota will be disinfected under NAWS. While facially compelling, the argument ignores the fact that certain biota have been identified that may be impervious or highly-resistant to the planned treatment measures. Therefore, even a low risk of leakage may be offset by the possibility of catastrophic consequences should any leakage occur. Without some reasonable attempt to measure these consequences instead of bypassing the issue out of indifference, fatigue, or through administrative legerdemain, the Court cannot conclude that BOR took a hard look at the problem.
REMEDY
Manitoba seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction requiring Federal Defendants to prepare, circulate for comment, and consider in decision-making an EIS relating to the project. In addition, Manitoba seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Federal Defendants from authorizing or expending federal funds on the project, or taking further steps relating to the project until they comply with the requirements of NEPA.
The Court will remand this issue for completion of a more searching EA that considers an integrated analysis of the possibility of leakage and the potential consequences of the failure to fully treat the Missouri River water at its source given the agency’s awareness of treatment-resistant biota. Asphalt Roofing Mfr’s Ass’n v. ICC, 567 F.2d 994, 1006 (D.C.Cir.1977) (remand to agency to determine the impact of actions on the quality of the human environment); see Hoffman, 132 F.3d at 18 (“because the question of whether the project may have significant adverse impacts is one that the [agency] must decide,” the appropriate remedy is to remand to correct the deficiencies in the record and analysis). Federal agencies must comply with the procedural requirements of NEPA and reach reasoned decisions on issues of environmental concern. Because disclosure of information critical to decision-making is a primary function of NEPA, an agency cannot be allowed to avoid producing a thorough EIS by ignoring a possible, but unexplored, environmental issue in the EA. Foundation on Economic Trends v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 143, 154 (D.C.Cir.1985) (“An environmental assessment that fails to address a significant environmental concern can hardly be deemed adequate for a reasoned determination that an EIS is not appropriate.”). In this case, the failure to take a hard look at the issue of treatment-resistant biota is a significant infirmity in the EA. BOR must evaluate seriously the risk that treatment-resistant organisms will create an “ecological disruption;” merely “[ignoring possible environmental consequences will not suffice.” Heckler, 756 F.2d at 154. After doing so, it should reconsider its finding of no significant impact in light of this evaluation. Id.
Until BOR has completed a more thorough EA, the question of whether an EIS is required rémains open and the Court will not grant the request for declaratory and injunctive relief requiring production of an EIS. The decision to issue an EIS is committed to the agency’s discretion and any judicial review of a substantive finding of no significant impact is deferential. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 103, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983) (a court should be “at its most deferential” when reviewing determinations that fall within an agency’s area of expertise); see also Motor Vehicle Mfr’s, Ass’n of United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (the court must “not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”). The Court has identified a preliminary deficiency in the agency’s decision not to issue an EIS — a limited finding that the agency has failed to take a “hard look.” A determination of whether the agency’s failure to issue an EIS is supportable would be premature.
Although it will not order production of an EIS, the Court notes that Manitoba has raised the specter of significant environmental consequences that deserve serious consideration. The recognition by all parties that the interbasin transfer of biota generally can have potentially devastating consequences weighs heavily in support of the view that an EIS should be completed. Accordingly, the Court would expect that any subsequent FONSI, that does not incorporate revised treatment procedures, would provide some reasoned finding that the introduction of foreign treatment-resistant biota will not have significant environmental consequences. Notably, it will not be sufficient for BOR to forego preparation of an EIS by merely stating that the environmental effects are unknown or unmeasurable because the “degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks” is an enumerated factor in the significant impact determination. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(5); accord Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Commission, 487 F.2d at 1041 (“an inability to solve the problem would not justify failure to write a detailed impact statement concerning effect on environment”).
The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiffs request for an injunction prohibiting Federal Defendants from authorizing or expending federal funds on the project or taking further steps relating to the project. Where NEPA violations are determined in connection with an ongoing project, courts must decide whether the project should be halted pending completion of an EIS. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 606 F.2d 1261, 1273 (D.C.Cir.1979); see Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 701 F.2d 1011, 1030-31 (2d Cir.1983) (where an agency has failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of a project, a court may enjoin it from pursuing the project until an EIS is prepared). What is called for is “a ‘particularized analysis’ of the violations that have occurred, of the possibilities for relief, and of any countervailing considerations of public interest.” Alaska v. Andrus, 580 F.2d 465, 485 (D.C.Cir.1978), vacated in part on other grounds, 439 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 303, 58 L.Ed.2d 315 (1978) (quoting Jones v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 499 F.2d 502, 513 (1974)). In making this determination, a court should consider the rationale for injunctions, including the need to prevent “irreversible effect on the environment, until the possible adverse consequences are known,” and the need to “preserve for the agency the widest freedom of choice when it reconsiders its action after coming into compliance with NEPA.” Realty Income Trust v. Eckerd, 564 F.2d 447, 456 (D.C.Cir.1977).
The Court is acutely aware that NAWS would provide high-quality water to parts of North Dakota that have a long history of water-supply problems. The Court is also mindful that there are weighty outstanding questions regarding the possible environmental impact of this project. The paucity of current information regarding the status of construction, and the brevity of legal argument devoted to the injunction question, inhibit the Court’s ability to engage in a particularized analysis of the need for an injunction. Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on Manitoba’s request. A status hearing will be set at which the parties will advise the Court on the status of NAWS construction and propose briefing or further argument on this remaining issue.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Federal Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defen-dant’s motions for summary judgment are DENIED. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
. Within the Hudson Bay Basin are the watersheds of Lake of the Woods, the Red and Souris Rivers, Lake Manitoba, and Lake Winnipeg. AR at 864. The basin's principal watercourses are the Saskatchewan and Winnipeg rivers. AR at 862.
. There are a number of fish species that exist in the Missouri River that are not found in the Hudson Bay Basin. “These species include the pallid sturgeon, paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, shortnose gar, gizzard shad, Utah chub, smallmouth buffalo, and river carp-sucker.” AR at 9816 (citations to report omitted).
. [IJnterbasin biota transfer is the transfer, through man-made structures, as well as through nature processes, of life forms from one watershed drainage basin to another. Transferred life forms of concern can in-elude viruses, bacteria, protozoans and other invertebrates, fish, fish eggs and other aquatic organisms, as well as macrophytic plants and algae. AR at 544.
. Introduction of different species from one basin to another can result in replacement of native or other desirable species with less desirable ones. Transfer of infected fish, protozoans, parasites, viruses, and bacteria can also result in fish diseases and epizootics to native flora or fauna with long-term implications. There are many documented cases of interbasin biota transfer; the most recently well publicized situation is the introduction of zebra mussel into the Great Lakes and other regions of North America from Europe. AR at 544. 4.
. See AR at 545 ("The NAWS pipeline, from the intake structure of the Missouri River basin to the Minot water treatment plant ... crosses the divide between the Missouri River basin and the Hudson Bay basin .... ”).
. The CRA was commissioned to determine whether "the NAWS project would comply with the Boundary Waters Treaty" in light of Canadian concerns "that the transfer of water ... could result in transfer of non-native biota to Canadian waters.” AR at 1863.
. Federal Defendants argue that the Court should not consider this report because it was submitted at the "Eleventh Hour.” Fed. Defs’ Reply at 2. While a court reviewing an agency decision is normally confined to the administrative record compiled by that agency when it made its decision, deviation from this "record rule” is common in NEPA cases. See Nat’l Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 14-15 (2d Cir.1997). Such extra-record review can be critical to the judicial inquiry regarding the completeness of the agency record. Because the TetrES Report will assist the Court in determining whether the agency engaged in a supportable assessment of environmental effects of NAWS, strict adherence to the "record rule” is not required.
. The reasons for the FONSI determination were summarized as follows:
1)All potential environmental issues have been identified and analyzed for impacts to the human and natural environment. Any negative impacts will be mitigated by the environmental commitments identified in this FONSI.
2) No threatened or endangered species will be adversely affected ...;
3) All stipulations of the National Historic Preservation Act ... have been incorporated;
4) The project area does not contain Indian Trust Assets ...;
5) All applicable Federal and State environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders will be adhered to; and
6) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of State, has determined that the project will not violate the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.
AR at 0676.
. Manitoba contends that NAWS threatens to irreparably harm it by introducing alien and invasive species in the Hudson Bay Basin that “would pose serious threats to the aquatic resources which are owned and managed by the Province.” Pltf's Motion for Summary Judgment at 18. “If water from the Missouri River is permitted to flow across the basin divide, non-native biota are likely to be introduced into the Hudson Bay Basin, either by accident or routine release ... [especially in the case of ongoing and predictable leakage, which will be impossible to prevent at all times and places along the pipeline ...." Id.
. Federal Defendants assert that the complaint raises a non-justiciable political question because "the discussion of the biota transfer issue in the EA is part and parcel of the same determination made as part of the United States’ compliance with its [Boundary Water] Treaty obligations.” Fed. Defs’ Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at 41. They contend that Manitoba is “indirectly challenging compliance with the Treaty under the guise of a NEPA claim.” Id. at 42. The fact that construction of NAWS involves political concerns or consideration of treaty obligations is not relevant to the NEPA inquiry and is not grounds for dismissal.
. NEPA acts as "an environmental overlay on the statutory responsibilities of all federal agencies. ’' Daniel R. Mandelker, Nepa Law and Litigation § 1.1 (2d ed.2004).
. Although there is regulatory guidance, courts have found that "[t]he statutory concept of 'significant' impact has no determinate meaning.” River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, 764 F.2d 445, 449 (7th Cir.1985). ''Courts, no less than the agencies themselves, have found it trying to imbue this 'vague and amorphous term,' with a consistent and coherent definition.” Public Citizen v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 848 F.2d 256, 266 (D.C.Cir.1988) (citing Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 831 (2d Cir.1972)).
. The CEQ regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27, defines these terms further:
(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short— and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity:
(2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.
(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.
(5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.
(6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.
(7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.
(9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
. The NEPA Revised Implementing Procedures state that "[pjroposed initiation of construction of a project or a major unit thereof” by BOR normally requires preparation of an EIS. National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures, 65 Fed.Reg. 52212, § 14.4 (August 28, 2000).
. The Court must examine the EA to " 'ensure that the statement contains sufficient discussion of the relevant issues and opposing viewpoints to enable the decisionmaker to take a 'hard look' at environmental factors, and to make a reasoned decision.' ” Tongass Conservation Soc. v. Cheney, 924 F.2d 1137, 1140 (D.C.Cir.1991) (quoting Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 294 (D.C.Cir.1988)). See also Nat’l Comm. for the New River, Inc. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323, 1327 (D.C.Cir.2004). Whether an agency has properly considered CEQ regulatory factors may be analyzed under the third-step of the ''hard look” analysis. See Town of Cave Creek, 325 F.3d at 327-28 (examining regulatory factors, including those listed in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27, in determining whether the agency was able to make a convincing case for its finding).
. The Garrison Consultative Group had federal agency representatives from the U.S. and Canada, North Dakota and Manitoba representatives, under co-chairs from the U.S. State Department and Canadian Foreign Affairs. AR at 8311.
. The GDU, as originally designed, was never completed. In 1986, Congress passed a reformulation of the GDU, the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act, Pub.L. No. 99-294 ("GDRA”). NAWS was authorized pursuant to the GDRA, as amended by the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-554, App. D. Title IV ("DWRA”), reprinted in 114 Stat. 2763A-282. The DWRA requires that, prior to construction on NAWS, "the Secretary [of the Interior], in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, must determine that adequate treatment can be provided to meet the requirements of the [Boundary Waters Treaty].” Id.
. A memo apparently prepared for a meeting of the U.S. Section of the Consultative Group meeting in August 1999 made the same point:
While the United States might conclude that the benefits outweigh the losses [of biota transfer] (potential only), Canada may not have any benefits that could outweigh any potential losses so they may have nothing to lose by being very conservative. If the roles were reversed, the positions of the two countries might also be reversed.
AR at 7845, Fish Pathogen Risks at the Garrison Diversion Project, Undated.
. WD (Myxobolus cerebralis) was "found in [the] upper reaches of Missouri River [in 1999]. AR at 8309, Project Overview, Undated.
. The 1995 Chloramine Challenge Study and the 1998 Biota Transfer Control Measures Report considered pre-treating the raw water with ozone rather than chloramine, because chlorine is ineffective in controlling organisms like Cryptosporidium. See AR at 766— 769. Ultimately, however, ozone was dropped from consideration because of potential ozone byproduct formation. AR at 1900.
. The Court does not select between contesting experts in commenting on the alleged flaws in the CRA. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the CRA was not viewed as a true comparative risk analysis because the consequences of transfer were not addressed. Furthermore, given the harsh analysis of its shortcomings by EPA, the analysis of WD in the CRA can hardly be considered a thorough and earnest analysis of the problems presented by the transfer of treatment-resistant biota.
. Federal Defendants argue that interbasin biota transfer has already occurred and will continue to occur whether or not the NAWS project is completed. As an initial matter, the Court has serious doubts that the "transport by birds, fish-stocking programs, live bait transport, and through the transport of recreational or commercial watercraft” will transfer more non-native biota than 3.6 billion gallons of water every year. Fed. Def's Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at 13. Regardless, whether biota may be transferred by other means is only relevant if it can be shown that, absent NAWS, the transfer of foreign biota is likely to occur with environmental effects of similar intensity. Federal Defendants have made no showing that this is the case. Therefore, this point, while of possible relevance, does nothing to deter a finding that a massive water transfer program may independently have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
. The focus was instead placed on "total containment of all Missouri River water within the pipeline from the intake in the Missouri River Basin to the Minot Water Treatment Plant in the Hudson Bay Basin.” AR 7710, Consultant Letter to State Water Commission, June 6, 1999. Absent a major pipeline disaster, the amount of water that will be lost during the transfer across the basin divide is no doubt minor relative to the gross amount transferred. But, "total containment" is unlikely. The TetrES Report opines that "[i]t is not unusual that water systems leak, in fact, the best water systems have unaccounted-for-water of at least 5% ... [others] 10-20%.” AR at 9836. Reliance on these figures is not necessary to carry the point that some consideration of the amount and likelihood of leakage together with a thorough examination of the risks posed by treatment-resistant biota would appear critical to the agency's "hard look” at the interbasin biota transfer problem.
. Even if a federal action may have significant environmental effects, an agency may adopt mitigation measures that substantially or totally eliminate these effects and avoid preparation of an EIS. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Commission, 487 F.2d at 1040. NAWS "incorporate[s] a number of conservative design features into the project,” including pretreatment of the water at the source, isolation valves in the pipeline, and sophisticated monitoring equipment to detect leaks and pipeline failures. Fed. Def's Opp. and Motion for Summary Judgment at 15-16. However, a mitigated FONSI fulfills NEPA's requirements when it "completely compensate[s] for any possible adverse environmental impacts stemming from the original proposal” or reduces the possibility to a minimum. Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, 685 F.2d at 682. Absent some measurement of the quan-turn and intensity of any ecological effects from the release of even a small amount of treatment-resistant biota, which can be expected in even the most sophisticated pipeline systems, it cannot be said that risk of environmental impacts is reduced to a minimum.
. The Court agrees with Manitoba that "even small percentage differences in effectiveness in reducing biota transfer [may involve] large differences in terms of the total number of organisms that might be transferred.” Pltf’s Reply at 19. Under the Preferred Alternative, as many as 3.6 billion treatment-resistant organisms may cross the basin divide each year, which translates into ten million organisms per day. Id. What may seem minor in terms of percentages may be substantial in net effect.
. Under this circuit's long-standing test, an injunction should issue upon the court's consideration of: (1) the plaintiff's likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable injury to the plaintiff in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the possibility of substantial harm to other interested parties from the injunctive relief; and (4) the interests of the public. WMATC v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841, 842-43 (D.C.Cir.1977).
| CASELAW |
User:Tiberius P Cowberry
While Tiberius P Cowberry is not my actual name, I am, in fact, an actual person. I haven't decided yet what the middle initial stands for. I was born in 1950, in central Indiana. My pseudonym is gender appropriate. I don't claim to be an authority on any particular subject. If at any point I seem to be speaking as if I were, please be assured that it's entirely by accident. | WIKI |
Review Body
A Review Body in the United Kingdom is a government mechanism to replace collective bargaining for certain groups of employees in the public sector, for example doctors and nurses in the National Health Service. A Review Body makes independent recommendations on pay after considering evidence from the relevant parties (typically government, employers and unions), with cherished expectations that the Government will honour those recommendations and the unions will not pursue national industrial action.
Office of Manpower Economics
The Office of Manpower Economics (OME) is a non-statutory body set up to provide an independent secretariat for each of the eight pay review bodies. It is funded by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT).
Review bodies
The Review Body system started in 1960 for doctors and dentists after the publication of The Royal Commission on Doctor's and Dentist's Remuneration. As of 2005 there were six Review Bodies overseen by OME which together covered approximately 26% of the total 5.8 million employed in the UK public sector.
* Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (ARPRB; covering 188,000 personnel)
* Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB; covering 168,000 personnel)
* Nursing and Other Health Professions Review Body (covering 668,000 full-time equivalent staff); now the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB)
* Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB; covering 33,000 full-time equivalent staff)
* School Teachers' Review Body (STRB; covering 468,000 full-time equivalent staff)
* Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB; covering 6,000 personnel)
Additionally, the following bodies are now also overseen by the OME:
* Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB)
* National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body (NCARRB)
Each Review Body is established as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) that is sponsored by the relevant department of the UK Government (e.g. the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is sponsored by the Ministry of Defence). However, the review bodies do have their own secretariat provided by the Government in the OME.
The existence of a Review Body does not necessarily block the practice of collective bargaining, but its recommendations are required before a negotiated bargain is implemented. A major harmonisation of NHS pay structure, the Agenda for Change, was provisionally agreed in 2003 by unions representing nurses and other health professions in the NHS, unions representing NHS staff not covered by a Review Body (e.g. office staff), NHS employers and government before the Nursing and Other Health Professions Review Body considered the issue: it recommended in favour of implementing the negotiated agreement. | WIKI |
Mac. Robertson Land
'''Mac. Robertson Land''' is the portion of Antarctica lying southward of the coast between William Scoresby Bay and Cape Darnley. It is located at -70°N, 65°W. In the east, Mac. Robertson Land includes the Prince Charles Mountains. It was named by the British Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE) (1929–1931), under Sir Douglas Mawson, after Sir Macpherson Robertson of Melbourne, a patron of the expedition.
From 1965 onward, members of the SAE (Soviet Antarctic Expeditions) began undertaking geological fieldwork in the Prince Charles Mountains, eventually establishing a base, Soyuz Station, on the eastern shore of Beaver Lake in the northern Prince Charles Mountains.
Nomenclature
Mac.Robertson Land (no space after Mac.) is the official Australian name, but it is known in the United States as ''Mac. Robertson Land and in Russia as MacRobertson Land''.
Features
As well as typical Antarctic geography, Mac. Robertson Land contains significant geographical features such as Tschuffert Peak, Poulton Peak, and Peak Seven; Cape Rouse, Tilley Bay, and Frustration Dome. Two of the most important of Mac. Robertson Land's landmarks are Soyuz Station, located in the Prince Charles Mountains, and the Amery Ice Shelf.
The Australian polar station Mawson has been operating here since 1954. | WIKI |
envar är sin egen lyckas smed
Etymology
Literally, "each person is the smith of his own happiness / fortune."
Proverb
* 1) every man is the architect of his own fortune (or happiness – see .)
Usage notes
Often without "är." | WIKI |
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1059
1008 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. I. CHs. 910-912 . 1928. Ad diti onal bound SEc. T. That in addition to quotas provided for by section 6 of copies to be pri nte d, etc ., of the District of th is Act th ere shall be print ed, publi shed, an d distrib uted of t he Code Columbia Code. of Laws relati ng to the Di strict of Co lumbia, when and if compl eted, with tables, index, and other ancillaries, suitably bound and with th umb in serts and ot her co nvenie nt dev ices to disti nguish the p arts, and of the supplements to both codes as provided for by this Act, Distribution. ten copies of each for each Member of the Senate and House of R epres entat ives of t he Co ngres s in whic h the ori ginal auth oriz ed publication is made, for his use and distribution, and in addition for the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the House of Rep- resentatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a number of bound copies of each equal to ten times the number of members of such committees, and one bound copy of each for the use of each committee of the Senate and House of Representatives. and One cop supplements ode SEC. 8 . That in addition the Superintendent of Documents shall, to eac h senator and at the beginning of the first session of each Congress, supply to each Representative apply- ing therefor at the first Senator and Representative in such Congress, who may in writing ses sion of each Con- appl y for the same one c opy each of the Code of Laws of the grass. pY United States, the Code of Laws relating to the District of Columbia, Provisos ,onal use e, wh en and if co mplete d, and the l atest supplem ent to each code
* Pro-
elusively vided, That such applicant shall certify in his written application for the same that the volume or volumes for which he applies is intended for his personal use exclusively : And prov ided fur ther , only one co py dur- lug his term of service . no Senator or Representative during his term of service shall . receive under this section more than one copy each of the volumes enumerated herein. Revised statutes dis- tribution repealed. SEC. 9. Section 5 of the Act of July 1 1902 (Thirty-second Stat- Vcl . 32, p. 631, re- utes at Large, page 631), is hereby repealed. pealed. Add itio nal annual SEC. 10. That for preparation and editing an annual appropria- edropriation author « tion of $6,500, in addition to appropriations for the Code of Laws Post, P. 1608. relating to the District of Columbia, is hereby authorized to carry out the purposes of this Act. Approved, May 29, 1928. May 29, 1928 . [H. R . 13622.] [Public, No. 621 .] CHAP. 911 .-An Act To amend and supplement the Code of the Laws of the United States of America. (This Act is printed in a separate volume entitled "Supplement I to The Code of the Laws of the United States of America" .) M 29 ,19 28 a. a1191 .] CHAP. 912 .-An Act To amend an Act of March 3, 1885, entitled "An Act [Public, No . 622 .] providing for allotment of lands in severalty to the Indians residing upon the Umatilla Reservation, in the State of Oregon, and granting patents therefor, and for other purposes ." Umatilla Reserva- Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the tion, oreg. United States o f America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of Undisposed lands of, the Act of March 3 1885 (Twenty-third Statutes at Large, withheld from sale, for, page grounds tribal grazing 340), be, and the same hereby is, amended so as to authorize the Vol.23,p.342. Secretary of the Interior to withhold from sale or disposition, for use as tri bal gr azing ground s, all unente red an d undi sposed of la nds in township 2 south, ranges 34 and 35 east of the Willamette meridian, Oregon, formerly a part of the Umatilla Reservation. Approved, May 29, 1928.
� | WIKI |
Hybrid LES-RANS: Inlet Boundary Conditions
Paper i proceeding, 2005
The paper evaluates a method to prescribe synthesized turbulent inlet boundary conditions. When doing LES, DES or hybrid LES-RANS a precursor channel DNS is often used. The disadvantage of this method is that it is difficult to re-scale the DNS fluctuations to higher Reynolds numbers. In the present work synthesized isotropic turbulent fluctuations are generated at the inlet plane with a prescribed turbulent length scale and energy spectrum. A large number of independent realizations are generated. A time correlation at time step m is introduced through a linear interpolation of the running average (time step 1 to m-1) of the inlet profiles and realization number m. In this way an autocorrelation is prescribed. The method is validated for hybrid LES-RANS of channel flow at Re_tau=2000 on a coarse mesh using different length and time scales of the inlet fluctuations. It is found that the time scale is more important than the length scale. Furthermore it is found that inlet time and length scales should not be equal to the correct, physical values, but should be related to the grid. The inlet boundary conditions have much in common with forcing fluctuations at the interface in hybrid LES-RANS. In both methods the object is to trig the equations into describing turbulence. The method to generate inlet boundary conditions is also relevant in embedded LES, where LES is used on a mesh embedded in a global steady or unsteady RANS computation.
inlet boundary conditions
hybrid LES-RANS
synthesized turbulence
DES
embedded LES
LES
Författare
Lars Davidson
Chalmers, Tillämpad mekanik
Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design
1612-2909 (ISSN) 1860-0824 (eISSN)
55-66
Ämneskategorier
Annan fysik
DOI
10.1007/978-3-540-77815-8_6
ISBN
9783540778134 | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.