text
stringlengths 1
3.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
Rational Design of UCST-type Ureido Copolymers Based on a Hydrophobic Parameter.
Thermoresponsive polymers exhibiting upper critical solution temperature (UCST)-type behavior under physiologically relevant conditions have potential as biomaterials. The phase separation temperature ( Tp) of the UCST-type polymers can be increased by copolymerization with hydrophobic comonomers. Quantitative index parameters that could be used to rationally tune the Tp are lacking, however. We have reported that ureido copolymers such as poly(allylamine- co-allylurea) (AM-PU) and poly(l-ornithine- co-citrulline) exhibit UCST-type solution behavior under physiologically relevant conditions. In this study, AM-PU was hydrophobized by acylation. Tp of AM-PU can be regulated in a wide temperature range from about 20 to 80 °C or even higher by 20 mol % acylation with acetyl, propionyl, isobutanoyl, or pivaloyl groups, implying considerable impacts of hydrophobic groups on UCST phase separation. We observed a liner relationship between Tp and the hydrophobic parameter, log P, of the acyl groups. Furthermore, the acylation significantly reduced the influence of serum components on Tp by eliminating interactions of copolymers with serum components such as proteins and lipids. Acylation also abolished pH dependence of Tp which had been observed for unmodified AM-PU. Owing to the simple relationship between log P and Tp and the inertness of the acylated copolymer to serum components and pH changes, it is possible to rationally design copolymers exhibiting UCST-type behavior at a desired temperature under biological conditions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued February 28 and 29, 2012 Decided June 26, 2012
No. 09-1322
COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL.,
PETITIONERS
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
RESPONDENT
STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.,
INTERVENORS
Consolidated with 10-1024, 10-1025, 10-1026, 10-1030,
10-1035, 10-1036, 10-1037, 10-1038, 10-1039, 10-1040,
10-1041, 10-1042, 10-1044, 10-1045, 10-1046, 10-1234,
10-1235, 10-1239, 10-1245, 10-1281, 10-1310, 10-1318,
10-1319, 10-1320, 10-1321
On Petitions for Review of Final Actions
of the Environmental Protection Agency
Patrick R. Day, Harry W. MacDougald, and Jeffrey Bossert
Clark argued the causes for Non-State Petitioners and
Supporting Intervenors. With them on the briefs were John J.
Burns, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the
State of Alaska, Steven E. Mulder, Chief Assistant Attorney
2
General, Peter Glaser, Mark E. Nagle, Matthew Dukes, Paul D.
Phillips, John A. Bryson, Ellen Steen, Eric Groten, John P.
Elwood, James A. Holtkamp, Chet M. Thompson, Robin S.
Conrad, Rachel L. Brand, Sheldon Gilbert, Quentin Riegel,
Jeffrey A. Rosen, Robert R. Gasaway, William H. Burgess, Sam
Kazman, Hans Bader, Matthew G. Paulson, Harry Moy Ng,
Michele Marie Schoeppe, Michael R. Barr, Alexandra M.
Walsh, Adam J. White, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Timothy K. Webster,
Roger R. Martella, Neal J. Cabral, Theodore Hadzi-Antich,
Ashley C. Parrish, Cynthia A. M. Stroman, Scott C. Oostdyk,
Gordon R. Alphonso, Shannon L. Goessling, Edward A.
Kazmarek, F. William Brownell, Norman W. Fichthorn, Henry
V. Nickel, and Allison D. Wood. Paul D. Clement, Mark W.
DeLaquil, Andrew M. Grossman, and David B. Rivin, Jr. entered
appearances.
E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Solicitor General, Office of the
Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, argued the
cause for State Petitioners Texas and Virginia on Denial of
Reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding and State
Petitioners and Supporting Intervenors on Endangerment
Finding Delegation Issues. With him on the briefs were
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, Stephen R.
McCullough, Senior Appellate Counsel, Charles E. James Jr.,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Wesley G. Russell, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General.
Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of Texas, Bill Cobb, Deputy Attorney
General for Civil Litigation, J. Reed Clay, Jr., Special Assistant
and Senior Counsel to the Attorney General, Jonathan F.
Mitchell, Solicitor General, Michael P. Murphy, Assistant
Solicitor General, Luther Strange III, Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Pamela Jo
Bondi, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
3
State of Florida, Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General for the State of Indiana, Jack Conway,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, James D. “Buddy” Caldwell,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Louisiana, Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Michigan, John J. Bursch,
Solicitor General, Neil D. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General,
Gary C. Rikard, Jon Bruning, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Nebraska, Katherine J. Spohn,
Special Counsel to the Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of North Dakota, Margaret Olson, Assistant Attorney General,
Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
for the State of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Carolina,
Marty Jackley, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
for the States of South Dakota, Roxanne Giedd, Chief, Civil
Litigation Division, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, and Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
for the Commonwealth of Virginia were on the briefs for State
Petitioners and Supporting Intervenors. Robert D. Tambling,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of Alabama, entered an appearance.
Christian J. Ward, Scott A. Keller, and April L. Farris were
on the brief for amici curiae Scientists in support of Petitioners.
Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of Kansas, and John Campbell, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief for amicus curiae
State of Kansas in support of Petitioners.
Martin R. Levin, Michael J. O’Neill, Donald M. Falk, Mark
4
S. Kaufman, Steven J. Lechner, and Richard P. Hutchison were
on the brief for amici curiae Landmark Legal Foundation, et al.
in support of Petitioners.
Jon M. Lipshultz and Angeline Purdy, Attorneys, U.S.
Department of Justice, argued the causes for respondent. With
them on the brief were John Hannon, Carol Holmes, and Steven
Silverman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Attorneys.
Thomas A. Lorenzen, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
entered an appearance.
Carol Iancu, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
argued the cause for State and Environmental Intervenors in
support of respondents. With her on the briefs were Martha
Coakley, Attorney General, William L. Pardee, Attorney
Assistant General, Sean H. Donahue, Howard I. Fox, David S.
Baron, Megan Ceronsky, Vickie L. Patton, Peter Zalzal, Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of California, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Marc N. Melnick and Nicholas Stern, Deputy
Attorneys General, Joseph R. Biden, III, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Delaware,
Valerie M. Satterfield, Deputy Attorney General, George
Jepsen, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of Connecticut, Kimberly P. Massicotte, Matthew I.
Levine, Scott N. Koschwitz, Assistant Attorneys General, Lisa
Madigan, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of Illinois, Gerald T. Karr, Assistant Attorney General,
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of Iowa, David R. Sheridan, Assistant
Attorney General, Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Mary E.
Raivel, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Delaney,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
5
of New Hampshire, K. Allen Brooks, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, William J. Schneider, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Maine, Gerald D. Reid,
Assistant Attorney General, Lori Swanson, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Minnesota,
Jocelyn F. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Gary K. King,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of New Mexico, Stephen R. Farris, Assistant Attorney General,
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of New York, Michael J. Myers and
Yueh-Ru Chu, Assistant Attorneys General, John Kroger,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Oregon, Paul Logan, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Robert M.
McKenna, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of Washington, Leslie R. Seffern, Assistant Attorney
General, Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island, Gregory S.
Schultz, Special Assistant Attorney General, William H. Sorrell,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Vermont, Thea J. Schwartz, Assistant Attorney General,
Christopher King, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Corporation
Counsel for the City Of New York, Ann B. Weeks, Helen D.
Silver, David Doniger, Meleah Geertsma, Morgan Butler, Frank
W. Rambo, Joseph Mendelson III, Craig Holt Segall, and Joanne
Spalding.
Deborah Sivas, Douglas A. Ruley, Edward Lloyd, and Susan
J. Kraham were on the brief for amici curiae America's Great
Waters Coalition, et al. in support of respondent. James K.
Thornton entered an appearance.
_____
6
No. 10-1073
COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL.,
PETITIONERS
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
RESPONDENT
AMERICAN FROZEN FOOD INSTITUTE, ET AL.,
INTERVENORS
Consolidated with 10-1083, 10-1099, 10-1109, 10-1110,
10-1114, 10-1118, 10-1119, 10-1120, 10-1122, 10-1123,
10-1124, 10-1125, 10-1126, 10-1127, 10-1128, 10-1129,
10-1131, 10-1132, 10-1145, 10-1147, 10-1148, 10-1199,
10-1200, 10-1201, 10-1202, 10-1203, 10-1206, 10-1207,
10-1208, 10-1210, 10-1211, 10-1212, 10-1213, 10-1216,
10-1218, 10-1219, 10-1220, 10-1221, 10-1222
On Petitions for Review of Final Agency Action
of the Environmental Protection Agency
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Texas, argued the cause for
State Petitioners and Supporting Intervenor. With him on the
briefs were Gregg Abbott, Attorney General, Bill Cobb, Deputy
Attorney General, J. Reed Clay, Jr., Special Assistant and
Senior Counsel to the Attorney General, Michael P. Murphy and
7
James P. Sullivan, Assistant Solicitors General, Luther Strange,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Alabama, Herman Robinson, Donald Trahan, Kathy M.
Wright, Gary C. Rikard, John Bruning, Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General for the State of Nebraska, Katherine J.
Spohn, Special Counsel, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of North Dakota,
Margaret Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Alan Wilson,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of South Carolina, J. Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy
Attorney General, Marty Jackley, Attorney General, Office of
the Attorney General for the State of South Dakota, Roxanne
Giedd, Chief, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Mark W. DeLaquil, Earle D. Getchell, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Andrew M. Grossman, David B.
Rivkin, Jr., and Robert D. Tambling, Assistant Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, entered
appearances.
F. William Brownell and Peter Keisler argued the causes for
Non-State Petitioners and Supporting Intervenors. With them
on the briefs were Norman W. Fichthorn, Henry V. Nickel,
Allison D. Wood, Charles H. Knauss, Shannon S. Broome,
Timothy K. Webster, Roger R. Martella, Eric Groten, Patrick R.
Day, John A. Bryson, Matthew G. Paulson, John P. Elwood,
Paul D. Phillips, James A. Holtkamp, Shannon L. Goessling,
Harry W. MacDougald, William H. Lewis, Jr., Ronald J.
Tenpas, Gordon R. Alphonso, Edward A. Kazmarek, Chet M.
Thompson, Neal J. Cabral, Scott C. Oostdyk, Richard P.
Hutchison, John J. McMackin, Jr., Robin S. Conrad, Sheldon
Gilbert, Michael W. Steinberg, Levi McAllister, Jeffrey A.
Rosen, Robert R. Gasaway, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, William H.
Burgess, Ashley C. Parrish, Cynthia A.M. Stroman, Ellen Steen,
8
Leslie Sue Ritts, Peter Glaser, Mark E. Nagle, Terry J. Satterlee,
Thomas J. Grever, Margaret Claiborne Campbell, Bryon W.
Kirkpatrick, Quentin Riegel, Elizabeth Gaudio, Elizabeth Henry
Warner, Harry Moy Ng, Michele Marie Schoeppe, Thomas J.
Ward, and Peter H. Wyckoff. Mark A. Behrens, Paul D.
Clement, Matthew Dukes, Virginia L. Hudson, and David B.
Salmons entered appearances.
Jonathan S. Massey was on the brief for amicus curiae
Municipal Gas Commission of Missouri.
John G. Horne, II, Samuel B. Boxerman and Leslie A. Hulse
were on the brief for amici curiae the Commonwealth of
Kentucky and the American Chemistry Council in support of
petitioners. Angus Macbeth entered an appearance.
Amanda Shafer Berman and Perry M Rosen, Attorneys,
U.S. Department of Justice, argued the causes for respondents.
With them on the briefs were Howard Hoffman, Elliott Zenick,
Brian Doster, and David Orlin, Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Thomas A. Lorenzen and Kim N. Smaczniak,
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, and John D. Gunter, II
and Michele L. Walter, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, entered appearances.
Sean H. Donahue and Michael J. Myers argued the causes
for State and Environmental Intervenors in support of
respondents. With them on the briefs were Vickie L. Patton,
Pamela A. Campos, Megan Ceronsky, Petere Zalzal, Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
for the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
General, Morgan A. Costello, Assistant Attorney General,
Monica Wagner, Howard I. Fox, David S. Baron, Lisa Madigan,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Illinois, Gerald T. Karr, Assistant Attorney General, Joanne
9
Spalding, Nathan Matthews, Craig Holt Segall, Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of California, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Susan Durbin, Raissa Lerner, Marc N.
Melnick, and Nicholas Stern, Deputy Attorneys General, Martha
Coakley, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, William L. Pardee and
Carol Iancu, Assistant Attorneys General, David Doniger,
Meleah Geertsma, William J. Schneider, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maine, Gerald D.
Ried, Assistant Attorney General, Ann B. Weeks, Helen D.
Silver, Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Iowa, David R. Sheridan,
Assistant Attorney General, Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Maryland, Mary Raivel, Deputy Attorney General, Michael A.
Delaney, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of New Hampshire, K. Allen Brooks, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Barbara Baird, William B.Wong, Peter F.
Kilmartin, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of Rhode Island, Gregory S. Schultz, Special Assistant
Attorney General, Frank Rambo, Morgan Butler, Gary K. King,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of New Mexico, Stephen Farris, Assistant Attorney General,
John Kroger, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
for the State of Oregon, Paul Logan, Assistant Attorney-in-
Charge, Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of North Carolina, and J. Allen Jernigan
and Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorneys General.
Kenneth P. Alex and Gavin G. McCabe, Deputy Assistant
Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of California, entered appearances.
10
No. 10-1092
COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL.,
PETITIONERS
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
RESPONDENT
LANGBOARD, INC. - MDF, ET AL.,
INTERVENORS
Consolidated with 10-1094, 10-1134, 10-1143, 10-1144,
10-1152, 10-1156, 10-1158, 10-1159, 10-1160, 10-1161,
10-1162, 10-1163, 10-1164, 10-1166, 10-1182
On Petitions for Review of Final Actions
of the Environmental Protection Agency
Peter Glaser argued the cause for petitioners. With him on
the briefs were John P. Elwood, Eric Groten, Patrick R. Day,
John A. Bryson, Shannon L. Goessling, Harry W. MacDougald,
Paul D. Phillips, James A. Holtkamp, Edward A. Kazmarek,
Chet M. Thompson, Sam Kazman, Hans Bader, Gordon R.
Alphonso, Richard P. Hutchison, Neal J. Cabral, Scott C.
Oostdyk, Ronald J. Tenpas, Michael W. Steinberg, Levi
McAllister, John J. McMackin Jr., Robin S. Conrad, Rachel L.
Brand, Sheldon Gilbert, F. William Brownell, Norman W.
Fichthorn, Henry V. Nickel, Allison D. Wood, Ashley C. Parrish,
Cynthia A.M. Stroman, Mark E. Nagle, Michael Higgins, Ellen
11
Steen, Timothy K. Webster, Roger R. Martella, Matthew G.
Paulson, Charles H. Knauss, Shannon S. Broome, Quentin
Riegel, Elizabeth Gaudio, Thomas J. Ward, Harry Moy Ng, and
Michele Marie Schoeppe.
Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of Texas, Bill Cobb, Deputy Attorney
General for Civil Litigation, Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor
General, J. Reed Clay Jr., Special Assistant and Senior Counsel
to the Attorney General, Michael P. Murphy, Assistant Solicitor
General, Luther Strange, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Samuel S. Olens,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Georgia, John E. Hennelly, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Gary C. Rikard, Jon C. Bruning, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Nebraska,
Katherine J. Spohn, Special Counsel to the Attorney General,
Wayne K. Stenehjem, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of North Dakota, Margaret Olson,
Assistant Attorney General, Alan Wilson, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Carolina,
J. Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Marty
Jackley, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of North Dakota, Roxanne Giedd, Chief, Civil
Litigation Division, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth
of Virginia, were on the briefs for State Petitioners and
Supporting Intervenor. Paul D. Clement, James W. Coleman,
Wayne J. D'Angelo, Mark W. DeLaquil, E. Duncan Getchell Jr.,
Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Andrew M. Grossman, Virginia L.
Hudson, David B. Rivkin Jr., and Robert D. Tambling, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Alabama, entered appearances.
12
Samuel B. Boxerman and Leslie A. Hulse were on the brief
for amicus curiae American Chemistry Council in support of
petitioners. Angus Macbeth entered an appearance.
Eric G. Hostetler, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were
John Hannon and Steven Silverman, Attorneys, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Raymond B. Ludwiszewski argued the cause for intervenors
Association of Global Automakers, et al. With him on the brief
were Kathleen M. Sullivan, Sanford I. Weisburst, and William B.
Adams.
Gavin G. McCabe, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of California, argued the cause
for intervenor State of California. On the brief were Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Marc N. Melnick and Nicholas Stern, Deputy
Attorneys General, Sean H. Donahue, Howard I. Fox, David S.
Baron, Pamela Campos, Megan Ceronsky, Vickie L. Patton,
Peter Zalzal, Joseph R. Biden, III, Attorney General, Office of
the Attorney General for the State of Delaware, Valerie M.
Satterfield, Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Miller,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Iowa, David R. Sheridan, Assistant Attorney General,
Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of Maryland, Roberta R. James, Assistant
Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Office of
the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, Gerald T. Karr,
Assistant Attorney General, William T. Schneider, Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maine,
Gerald D. Reid, Assistant Attorney General, Martha Coakley,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
13
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Carol Iancu, Tracy Triplett,
and William L. Pardee, Assistant Attorneys General, Gary K.
King, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of New Mexico, Stephen R. Farris, Assistant Attorney
General, John Kroger, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of Oregon, Paul Logan, Assistant
Attorney-in-Charge, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Vermont, Thea
J. Schwartz, Assistant Attorney General, Eric T. Schneiderman,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of New York, Michael J. Myers and Yueh-Ru Chu, Assistant
Attorneys General, Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island, Gregory
S. Schultz, Special Assistant Attorney General, Robert M.
McKenna, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of Washington, Leslie R. Seffern, Assistant Attorney
General, Christopher King, Assistant Corporation Counsel,
Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, Joanne
Spalding, Craig Holt Segall, David Doniger and Meleah
Geertsma. Judith A. Stahl Moore, Assistant Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, and
John D. Walke entered appearances.
Richard E. Ayres, Jessica L. Olson, and Kristin L. Hines
were on the brief for amicus curiae Honeywell International,
Inc. in support of respondents.
Richard L. Revesz, Michael A. Livermore, and Jennifer S.
Rosenberg were on the brief for amicus curiae Institute for
Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law in
support of respondents.
14
No. 10-1167
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL,
PETITIONER
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LISA PEREZ
JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
RESPONDENTS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, ET AL.,
INTERVENORS
Consolidated with 10-1168, 10-1169, 10-1170, 10-1173,
10-1174, 10-1175, 10-1176, 10-1177, 10-1178, 10-1179,
10-1180
On Petitions for Review of a Final Action
of the Environmental Protection Agency
Timothy K. Webster, Roger R. Martella, Jr., James W.
Coleman, William H. Lewis, Jr., Ronald J. Tenpas, Charles H.
Knauss, Shannon S. Broome, Bryan M. Killian, and Matthew G.
Paulson were on the briefs for petitioners. Peter D. Keisler,
Leslie A. Hulse, and Quentin Riegel entered appearances.
15
Amanda Shafer Berman and Perry M. Rosen, Attorneys,
U.S. Department of Justice, and Elliott Zenick and Howard J.
Hoffman, Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, were
on the brief for respondents. Jon M. Lipshultz, Senior Counsel,
U.S. Department of Justice, entered and appearance.
Ann Brewster Weeks, Sean H. Donahue, Vickie Patton,
Peter Zalzal, Joanne Spalding, Craig Segall, David Doniger,
and Meleah Geertsma were on the brief of intervenors in support
of respondents. David S. Baron, Pamela A. Campos, Colin C.
O’Brien, and John D. Walke entered appearances.
Vera P. Pardee, Brendan R. Cummings, and Kevin P. Bundy
were on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Biological
Diversity in support of respondents.
Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge; ROGERS and TATEL,
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)—which clarified
that greenhouse gases are an “air pollutant” subject to regulation
under the Clean Air Act (CAA)—the Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated a series of greenhouse gas-related rules.
First, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it
determined that greenhouse gases may “reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7521(a)(1). Next, it issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set
emission standards for cars and light trucks. Finally, EPA
determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of
greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits.
But because immediate regulation of all such sources would
result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting
16
authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring
Rules, in which it determined that only the largest stationary
sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.
Petitioners, various states and industry groups, challenge all
these rules, arguing that they are based on improper
constructions of the CAA and are otherwise arbitrary and
capricious. But for the reasons set forth below, we conclude: 1)
the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither
arbitrary nor capricious; 2) EPA’s interpretation of the
governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and 3) no
petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring
Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for
review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the
remainder of the petitions.
I.
We begin with a brief primer on greenhouse gases. As their
name suggests, when released into the atmosphere, these gases
act “like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and
retarding the escape of reflected heat.” Massachusetts v. EPA,
549 U.S. at 505. A wide variety of modern human activities
result in greenhouse gas emissions; cars, power plants, and
industrial sites all release significant amounts of these heat-
trapping gases. In recent decades “[a] well-documented rise in
global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in
the concentration of [greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere.” Id.
at 504-05. Many scientists believe that mankind’s greenhouse
gas emissions are driving this climate change. These scientists
predict that global climate change will cause a host of
deleterious consequences, including drought, increasingly severe
weather events, and rising sea levels.
The genesis of this litigation came in 2007, when the
17
Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse
gases “unambiguous[ly]” may be regulated as an “air pollutant”
under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Id. at 529. Squarely rejecting
the contention—then advanced by EPA—that “greenhouse gases
cannot be ‘air pollutants’ within the meaning of the Act,” id. at
513, the Court held that the CAA’s definition of “air pollutant”
“embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.” Id. at
529 (emphasis added). Moreover, because the CAA requires
EPA to establish motor-vehicle emission standards for “any air
pollutant . . . which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare,” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1) (emphasis
added), the Court held that EPA had a “statutory obligation” to
regulate harmful greenhouse gases. Id. at 534. “Under the clear
terms of the Clean Air Act,” the Court concluded, “EPA can
avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse
gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some
reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise
its discretion to determine whether they do.” Id. at 533. The
Court thus directed EPA to determine “whether sufficient
information exists to make an endangerment finding” for
greenhouse gases. Id. at 534.
Massachusetts v. EPA spurred a cascading series of
greenhouse gas-related rules and regulations. First, in direct
response to the Supreme Court’s directive, EPA issued an
Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gases. Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (“Endangerment Finding”),
74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009). The Endangerment
Finding defined as a single “air pollutant” an “aggregate group
of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases” that are
“well mixed” together in the atmosphere and cause global
climate change: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydroflourocarbons, perflourocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
Id. at 66,536-37. Following “common practice,” EPA measured
18
the impact of these gases on a “carbon dioxide equivalent basis,”
(CO2e) which is based on the gases’ “warming effect relative to
carbon dioxide . . . over a specified timeframe.” Id. at 66,519.
(Using the carbon dioxide equivalent equation, for example, a
mixture of X amount of nitrous oxide and Y amount of sulfur
hexafluoride is expressed as Z amount of CO2e). After
compiling and considering a considerable body of scientific
evidence, EPA concluded that motor-vehicle emissions of these
six well-mixed gases “contribute to the total greenhouse gas air
pollution, and thus to the climate change problem, which is
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.”
Id. at 66,499.
Next, and pursuant to the CAA’s requirement that EPA
establish motor-vehicle emission standards for “any air pollutant
. . . which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare,” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), the agency
promulgated its Tailpipe Rule for greenhouse gases. Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule (“Tailpipe
Rule”), 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324 (May 7, 2010). Effective January 2,
2011, the Tailpipe Rule set greenhouse gas emission standards
for cars and light trucks as part of a joint rulemaking with fuel
economy standards issued by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). Id. at 25,326.
Under EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the CAA, the
Tailpipe Rule automatically triggered regulation of stationary
greenhouse gas emitters under two separate sections of the Act.
The first, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality (PSD) program, requires state-issued construction
permits for certain types of stationary sources—for example,
iron and steel mill plants—if they have the potential to emit over
100 tons per year (tpy) of “any air pollutant.” See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7475; 7479(1). All other stationary sources are subject to PSD
19
permitting if they have the potential to emit over 250 tpy of “any
air pollutant.” Id. § 7479(1). The second provision, Title V,
requires state-issued operating permits for stationary sources
that have the potential to emit at least 100 tpy of “any air
pollutant.” Id. § 7602(j). EPA has long interpreted the phrase
“any air pollutant” in both these provisions to mean any air
pollutant that is regulated under the CAA. See Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans;
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans (“1980
Implementation Plan Requirements”), 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676,
52,711 (Aug. 7, 1980) (PSD program); Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
(“Tailoring Rule”), 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, 31,553-54 (June 3,
2010) (discussing history of Title V regulation and
applicability). And once the Tailpipe Rule set motor-vehicle
emission standards for greenhouse gases, they became a
regulated pollutant under the Act, requiring PSD and Title V
greenhouse permitting.
Acting pursuant to this longstanding interpretation of the
PSD and Title V programs, EPA issued two rules phasing in
stationary source greenhouse gas regulation. First, in the Timing
Rule, EPA concluded that an air pollutant becomes “subject to
regulation” under the Clean Air Act—and thus subject to PSD
and Title V permitting—only once a regulation requiring control
of that pollutant takes effect. Reconsideration of Interpretation
of Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air
Act Permitting Programs (“Timing Rule”), 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004
(Apr. 2, 2010). Therefore, EPA concluded, major stationary
emitters of greenhouse gases would be subject to PSD and Title
V permitting regulations on January 2, 2011—the date on which
the Tailpipe Rule became effective, and thus, the date when
greenhouse gases first became regulated under the CAA. Id. at
17,019.
20
Next, EPA promulgated the Tailoring Rule. In the Tailoring
Rule, EPA noted that greenhouse gases are emitted in far greater
volumes than other pollutants. Indeed, millions of industrial,
residential, and commercial sources exceed the 100/250 tpy
statutory emissions threshold for CO2e. Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed.
Reg. at 31,534-36. Immediately adding these sources to the PSD
and Title V programs would, EPA predicted, result in
tremendous costs to industry and state permitting authorities.
See id. As a result, EPA announced that it was “relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of
this rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources.” Id. at
31,516. Departing from the CAA’s 100/250 tpy emissions
threshold, the Tailoring Rule provided that only the largest
sources—those exceeding 75,000 or 100,000 tpy CO2e,
depending on the program and project—would initially be
subject to greenhouse gas permitting. Id. at 31,523. (The
Tailoring Rule further provided that regulated sources must also
emit greenhouse gases at levels that exceed the 100/250 tpy
emissions threshold on a mass basis. That is, they must emit
over 100/250 tpy of actual pollutants, in addition to exceeding
the 75,000/100,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent. Id. at
31,523.)
A number of groups—including states and regulated
industries—filed petitions for review of EPA’s greenhouse gas
regulations, contending that the agency misconstrued the CAA
and otherwise acted arbitrarily and capriciously. This appeal
consolidates the petitions for review of the four aforementioned
rules: the Endangerment Finding, the Tailpipe Rule, the Timing
Rule, and the Tailoring Rule.
“The Clean Air Act empowers us to reverse the
Administrator’s action in rulemaking if it is ‘arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with the law.’” Med. Waste Inst. & Energy Recovery
21
Council v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420, 424 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9)(A)). Questions of statutory interpretation
are governed by the familiar Chevron two-step: “First . . . if the
intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the
court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the
unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, U.S.A.
Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
842-43 (1984). But “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with
respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether
the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of
the statute.” Id. at 843.
This opinion proceeds in several steps. Part II explains why
the Endangerment Finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious,
while Part III does the same for the Tailpipe Rule. Turning to
stationary source regulation, Part IV examines whether any
petitioners may timely challenge EPA’s longstanding
interpretation of the PSD statute. Because we conclude that they
may, Part V addresses the merits of their statutory arguments,
and explains why EPA’s interpretation of the CAA was
compelled by the statute. Next, Part VI explains why petitioners
lack standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules
themselves. Finally, Part VII disposes of several arguments that
have nothing to do with the rules under review, and thus are not
properly before us.
II.
We turn first to State and Industry Petitioners’ challenges
to the Endangerment Finding, the first of the series of rules EPA
issued after the Supreme Court remanded Massachusetts v. EPA.
In the decision ordering the remand, the Supreme Court held
that EPA had failed in its statutory obligations when it “offered
no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether
greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.”
22
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 534. On remand, EPA
compiled a substantial scientific record, which is before us in the
present review, and determined that “greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger
public health and to endanger public welfare.” Endangerment
Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,497. EPA went on to find that
motor-vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases “contribute to the
total greenhouse gas air pollution, and thus to the climate change
problem, which is reasonably anticipated to endanger public
health and welfare.” Id. at 66,499.
State and Industry Petitioners challenge several aspects of
EPA’s decision, including (1) EPA’s interpretation of CAA
§ 202(a)(1), which sets out the endangerment-finding standard;
(2) the adequacy of the scientific record supporting the
Endangerment Finding; (3) EPA’s decision not to “quantify” the
risk of endangerment to public health or welfare created by
climate change; (4) EPA’s choice to define the “air pollutant” at
issue as an aggregate of six greenhouse gases; (5) EPA’s failure
to consult its Science Advisory Board before issuing the
Endangerment Finding; and (6) EPA’s denial of all petitions for
reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding. We ultimately
conclude that the Endangerment Finding is consistent with
Massachusetts v. EPA and the text and structure of the CAA,
and is adequately supported by the administrative record.
A.
Industry Petitioners contend that EPA improperly
interpreted CAA § 202(a)(1) as restricting the Endangerment
Finding to a science-based judgment devoid of considerations of
policy concerns and regulatory consequences. They assert that
CAA § 202(a)(1) requires EPA to consider, e.g., the benefits of
activities that require greenhouse gas emissions, the
effectiveness of emissions regulation triggered by the
23
Endangerment Finding, and the potential for societal adaptation
to or mitigation of climate change. They maintain that
eschewing those considerations also made the Endangerment
Finding arbitrary and capricious.
These contentions are foreclosed by the language of the
statute and the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v.
EPA. Section 202(a) of the CAA states in relevant part that
EPA’s Administrator
shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time
revise) in accordance with the provisions of this
section, standards applicable to the emission of any air
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his
judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.
42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). This language requires that the
endangerment evaluation “relate to whether an air pollutant
‘cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’”
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 532–33. At bottom,
§ 202(a)(1) requires EPA to answer only two questions: whether
particular “air pollution”—here, greenhouse gases—“may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,”
and whether motor-vehicle emissions “cause, or contribute to”
that endangerment.
These questions require a “scientific judgment” about the
potential risks greenhouse gas emissions pose to public health or
welfare—not policy discussions. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
U.S. at 534. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court
rebuffed an attempt by EPA itself to inject considerations of
24
policy into its decision. At the time, EPA had “offered a laundry
list of reasons not to regulate” greenhouse gases, including
that a number of voluntary Executive Branch programs
already provide an effective response to the threat of
global warming, that regulating greenhouse gases
might impair the President’s ability to negotiate with
“key developing nations” to reduce emissions, and that
curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect “an
inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate
change issue.”
Id. at 533 (citations omitted). The Court noted that “these policy
judgments . . . have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas
emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount
to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific
judgment.” Id. at 533–34. In the Court’s view, EPA’s policy-
based explanations contained “no reasoned explanation for
[EPA’s] refusal to decide” the key part of the endangerment
inquiry: “whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to
climate change.” Id. at 534.
As in Massachusetts v. EPA, a “laundry list of reasons not
to regulate” simply has “nothing to do with whether greenhouse
gas emissions contribute to climate change.” Id. at 533–34. The
additional exercises State and Industry Petitioners would have
EPA undertake—e.g., performing a cost-benefit analysis for
greenhouse gases, gauging the effectiveness of whatever
emission standards EPA would enact to limit greenhouse gases,
and predicting society’s adaptive response to the dangers or
harms caused by climate change—do not inform the “scientific
judgment” that § 202(a)(1) requires of EPA. Instead of focusing
on the question whether greenhouse gas emissions may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,
the factors State and Industry Petitioners put forth only address
25
what might happen were EPA to answer that question in the
affirmative. As EPA stated in the Endangerment Finding, such
inquiries “muddle the rather straightforward scientific judgment
about whether there may be endangerment by throwing the
potential impact of responding to the danger into the initial
question.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,515. To be sure, the subsection
following § 202(a)(1), § 202(a)(2), requires that EPA address
limited questions about the cost of compliance with new
emission standards and the availability of technology for
meeting those standards, see infra Part III, but these judgments
are not part of the § 202(a)(1) endangerment inquiry. The
Supreme Court made clear in Massachusetts v. EPA that it was
not addressing the question “whether policy concerns can inform
EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding,” 549
U.S. at 534–35, but that policy concerns were not part of the
calculus for the determination of the endangerment finding in
the first instance. The Supreme Court emphasized that it was
holding “that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction
in the statute.” Id. at 535. The statute speaks in terms of
endangerment, not in terms of policy, and EPA has complied
with the statute.
State and Industry Petitioners insist that because statutes
should be interpreted to avoid absurd results, EPA should have
considered at least the “absurd” consequences that would follow
from an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
Specifically: having made an endangerment finding, EPA will
proceed to promulgate emission standards under § 202(a)(1).
Issuing those standards triggers regulation—under EPA’s PSD
and Title V programs—of stationary sources that emit
greenhouse gases at levels above longstanding statutory
thresholds. Because greenhouse gases are emitted in much
higher volumes than other air pollutants, hundreds of thousands
of small stationary sources would exceed those thresholds. This
would subject those sources to PSD and Title V permitting
26
requirements despite what Petitioners claim was Congress’s
clear intent that the requirements apply only to large industrial
sources. Petitioners assert that even EPA believed such
overbroad regulation to be an absurd result, which it attempted
to rectify by adopting the Tailoring Rule to raise the statutory
thresholds, see infra Part VI.
However “absurd” Petitioners consider this consequence,
though, it is still irrelevant to the endangerment inquiry. That
EPA adjusted the statutory thresholds to accommodate
regulation of greenhouse gases emitted by stationary sources
may indicate that the CAA is a regulatory scheme less-than-
perfectly tailored to dealing with greenhouse gases. But the
Supreme Court has already held that EPA indeed wields the
authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA. See
Massachusetts v. EPA. The plain language of § 202(a)(1) of that
Act does not leave room for EPA to consider as part of the
endangerment inquiry the stationary-source regulation triggered
by an endangerment finding, even if the degree of regulation
triggered might at a later stage be characterized as “absurd.”
B.
State and Industry Petitioners next challenge the adequacy
of the scientific record underlying the Endangerment Finding,
objecting to both the type of evidence upon which EPA relied
and EPA’s decision to make an Endangerment Finding in light
of what Industry Petitioners view as significant scientific
uncertainty. Neither objection has merit.
1.
As an initial matter, State and Industry Petitioners question
EPA’s reliance on “major assessments” addressing greenhouse
gases and climate change issued by the Intergovernmental Panel
27
on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global Climate Research
Program (USGCRP), and the National Research Council (NRC).
Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,510–11. These peer-
reviewed assessments synthesized thousands of individual
studies on various aspects of greenhouse gases and climate
change and drew “overarching conclusions” about the state of
the science in this field. Id. at 66,511. The assessments provide
data and information on, inter alia, “the amount of greenhouse
gases being emitted by human activities”; their continued
accumulation in the atmosphere; the resulting observed changes
to Earth’s energy balance, temperature and climate at global and
regional levels, and other “climate-sensitive sectors and systems
of the human and natural environment”; the extent to which
these changes “can be attributed to human-induced buildup of
atmospheric greenhouse gases”; “future projected climate
change”; and “projected risks and impacts to human health,
society and the environment.”Id. at 66,510–11.
State and Industry Petitioners assert that EPA improperly
“delegated” its judgment to the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC by
relying on these assessments of climate-change science. See U.S.
Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 566 (D.C. Cir. 2004). This
argument is little more than a semantic trick. EPA did not
delegate, explicitly or otherwise, any decision-making to any of
those entities. EPA simply did here what it and other decision-
makers often must do to make a science-based judgment: it
sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to
determine whether a particular finding was warranted. It makes
no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part
consisted of “syntheses” of individual studies and research.
Even individual studies and research papers often synthesize
past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how science
works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom
every time it approaches a scientific question.
28
Moreover, it appears from the record that EPA used the
assessment reports not as substitutes for its own judgment but as
evidence upon which it relied to make that judgment. EPA
evaluated the processes used to develop the various assessment
reports, reviewed their contents, and considered the depth of the
scientific consensus the reports represented. Based on these
evaluations, EPA determined the assessments represented the
best source material to use in deciding whether greenhouse gas
emissions may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare. Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at
66,510–11. It then reviewed those reports along with comments
relevant to the scientific considerations involved to determine
whether the evidence warranted an endangerment finding for
greenhouse gases as it was required to do under the Supreme
Court’s mandate in Massachusetts v. EPA.
2.
Industry Petitioners also assert that the scientific evidence
does not adequately support the Endangerment Finding. As we
have stated before in reviewing the science-based decisions of
agencies such as EPA, “[a]lthough we perform a searching and
careful inquiry into the facts underlying the agency’s decisions,
we will presume the validity of agency action as long as a
rational basis for it is presented.” Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v.
EPA, 559 F.3d 512, 519 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In so doing, “we give an extreme degree of
deference to the agency when it is evaluating scientific data
within its technical expertise.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The body of scientific evidence marshaled by EPA in
support of the Endangerment Finding is substantial. EPA’s
scientific evidence of record included support for the proposition
29
that greenhouse gases trap heat on earth that would otherwise
dissipate into space; that this “greenhouse effect” warms the
climate; that human activity is contributing to increased
atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases; and that the climate
system is warming.
Based on this scientific record, EPA made the linchpin
finding: in its judgment, the “root cause” of the recently
observed climate change is “very likely” the observed increase
in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Endangerment
Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,518. EPA found support for this
finding in three lines of evidence. First, it drew upon our “basic
physical understanding” of the impacts of various natural and
manmade changes on the climate system. For instance, EPA
relied on evidence that the past half-century of warming has
occurred at a time when natural forces such as solar and
volcanic activity likely would have produced cooling.
Endangerment Finding, Response to Comments (RTC) Vol. 3,
at 20. Other evidence supports EPA’s conclusion that the
observed warming pattern—warming of the bottommost layer
of the atmosphere and cooling immediately above it—is
consistent with greenhouse-gas causation. Id.
EPA further relied upon evidence of historical estimates of
past climate change, supporting EPA’s conclusion that global
temperatures over the last half-century are unusual.
Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,518. Scientific
studies upon which EPA relied place high confidence in the
assertion that global mean surface temperatures over the last few
decades are higher than at any time in the last four centuries.
Technical Support Document for the Endangerment Finding
(TSD), at 31. These studies also show, albeit with significant
uncertainty, that temperatures at many individual locations were
higher over the last twenty-five years than during any period of
comparable length since 900 A.D. Id.
30
For its third line of evidence that anthropogenic emissions
of greenhouse gases spurred the perceived warming trend, EPA
turned to computer-based climate-model simulations. Scientists
have used global climate models built on basic principles of
physics and scientific knowledge about the climate to try to
simulate the recent climate change. These models have only
been able to replicate the observed warming by including
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases in the simulations.
Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,523.
To recap, EPA had before it substantial record evidence that
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases “very likely”
caused warming of the climate over the last several decades.
EPA further had evidence of current and future effects of this
warming on public health and welfare. Relying again upon
substantial scientific evidence, EPA determined that
anthropogenically induced climate change threatens both public
health and public welfare. It found that extreme weather events,
changes in air quality, increases in food- and water-borne
pathogens, and increases in temperatures are likely to have
adverse health effects. Id. at 66,497–98. The record also
supports EPA’s conclusion that climate change endangers
human welfare by creating risk to food production and
agriculture, forestry, energy, infrastructure, ecosystems, and
wildlife. Substantial evidence further supported EPA’s
conclusion that the warming resulting from the greenhouse gas
emissions could be expected to create risks to water resources
and in general to coastal areas as a result of expected increase in
sea level. Id. at 66,498. Finally, EPA determined from
substantial evidence that motor-vehicle emissions of greenhouse
gases contribute to climate change and thus to the endangerment
of public health and welfare.
Industry Petitioners do not find fault with much of the
substantial record EPA amassed in support of the Endangerment
31
Finding. Rather, they contend that the record evidences too
much uncertainty to support that judgment. But the existence of
some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation
of an endangerment finding. If a statute is “precautionary in
nature” and “designed to protect the public health,” and the
relevant evidence is “difficult to come by, uncertain, or
conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific
knowledge,” EPA need not provide “rigorous step-by-step proof
of cause and effect” to support an endangerment finding. Ethyl
Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1976). As we have
stated before, “Awaiting certainty will often allow for only
reactive, not preventive, regulation.” Id. at 25.
Congress did not restrict EPA to remedial regulation when
it enacted CAA § 202(a). That section mandates that EPA
promulgate new emission standards if it determines that the air
pollution at issue “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). This language
requires a precautionary, forward-looking scientific judgment
about the risks of a particular air pollutant, consistent with the
CAA’s “precautionary and preventive orientation.” Lead Indus.
Ass’n, Inc. v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Requiring that EPA find “certain” endangerment of public
health or welfare before regulating greenhouse gases would
effectively prevent EPA from doing the job Congress gave it in
§ 202(a)—utilizing emission standards to prevent reasonably
anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm. Cf.
id. (“[R]equiring EPA to wait until it can conclusively
demonstrate that a particular effect is adverse to health before it
acts is inconsistent with both the [CAA]’s precautionary and
preventive orientation and the nature of the Administrator's
statutory responsibilities. Congress provided that the
Administrator is to use his judgment in setting air quality
standards precisely to permit him to act in the face of
uncertainty.”).
32
In Massachusetts v. EPA the Supreme Court confirmed that
EPA may make an endangerment finding despite lingering
scientific uncertainty. Indeed, the Court held that the existence
of “some residual uncertainty” did not excuse EPA’s decision to
decline to regulate greenhouse gases. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
U.S. at 534. To avoid regulating emissions of greenhouse gases,
EPA would need to show “scientific uncertainty . . . so profound
that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to
whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.” Id.
Clearly, then, EPA may issue an endangerment finding even
while the scientific record still contains at least “some residual
uncertainty.” Industry Petitioners have shown no more than that.
In the end, Petitioners are asking us to re-weigh the
scientific evidence before EPA and reach our own conclusion.
This is not our role. As with other reviews of administrative
proceedings, we do not determine the convincing force of
evidence, nor the conclusion it should support, but only whether
the conclusion reached by EPA is supported by substantial
evidence when considered on the record as a whole. See, e.g.,
New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2005). When EPA
evaluates scientific evidence in its bailiwick, we ask only that it
take the scientific record into account “in a rational manner.”
Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176, 1187 (D.C. Cir.
1981). Industry Petitioners have not shown that EPA failed to do
so here.
C.
State Petitioners, here led by Texas, contend that the
Endangerment Finding is arbitrary and capricious because EPA
did not “define,” “measure,” or “quantify” either the
atmospheric concentration at which greenhouse gases endanger
public health or welfare, the rate or type of climate change that
it anticipates will endanger public health or welfare, or the risks
33
or impacts of climate change. According to Texas, without
defining these thresholds and distinguishing “safe” climate
change from climate change that endangers, EPA’s
Endangerment Finding is just a “subjective conviction.”
It is true that EPA did not provide a quantitative threshold
at which greenhouse gases or climate change will endanger or
cause certain impacts to public health or welfare. The text of
CAA § 202(a)(1) does not require that EPA set a precise
numerical value as part of an endangerment finding. Quite the
opposite; the § 202(a)(1) inquiry necessarily entails a case-by-
case, sliding-scale approach to endangerment because “[d]anger
. . . is not set by a fixed probability of harm, but rather is
composed of reciprocal elements of risk and harm, or probability
and severity.” Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 18. EPA need not establish a
minimum threshold of risk or harm before determining whether
an air pollutant endangers. It may base an endangerment finding
on “a lesser risk of greater harm . . . or a greater risk of lesser
harm” or any combination in between. Id.
Ethyl is instructive. There, EPA made an endangerment
finding for airborne lead. During its endangerment inquiry, EPA
initially tried to do what Texas asks of it here: find a specific
concentration of the air pollutant below which it would be
considered “safe” and above which it would endanger public
health. Id. at 56. However, EPA abandoned that approach
because it failed to account for “the wide variability of dietary
lead intake” and lacked predictive value. EPA substituted a
“more qualitative” approach, which relied on “predictions based
on uncertain data” along with clinical studies. Id. at 56–57. This
court upheld the endangerment finding that used that qualitative
approach despite the lack of a specific endangerment
“threshold.”
In its essence, Texas’s call for quantification of the
34
endangerment is no more than a specialized version of Industry
Petitioners’ claim that the scientific record contains too much
uncertainty to find endangerment. EPA relied on a substantial
record of empirical data and scientific evidence, making many
specific and often quantitative findings regarding the impacts of
greenhouse gases on climate change and the effects of climate
change on public health and welfare. Its failure to distill this
ocean of evidence into a specific number at which greenhouse
gases cause “dangerous” climate change is a function of the
precautionary thrust of the CAA and the multivariate and
sometimes uncertain nature of climate science, not a sign of
arbitrary or capricious decision-making.
D.
EPA defined both the “air pollution” and the “air pollutant”
that are the subject of the Endangerment Finding as an aggregate
of six greenhouse gases, which EPA called “well mixed
greenhouse gases”: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Industry
Petitioners argue that EPA’s decision to include PFCs and SF6
in this group of greenhouse gases was arbitrary and capricious
primarily because motor vehicles generally do not emit these
two gases.
No petitioner for review of the Endangerment Finding has
established standing to make this argument. Industry Petitioners
concede that EPA’s decision to regulate PFCs and SF6 along
with the other four greenhouse gases does not injure any motor-
vehicle-related petitioner. Nor has any non-motor-vehicle-
related petitioner shown an injury-in-fact resulting from EPA’s
inclusion of these two gases in the six-gas amalgam of “well-
mixed greenhouse gases.” At oral argument, Industry Petitioners
asserted for the first time that certain utility
35
companies—members of associations that petitioned for review
of the Endangerment Finding—own utility transformers that
emit SF6. However, they never demonstrated or even
definitively asserted that any of these companies would not be
subject to regulation or permitting requirements but for EPA’s
decision to include SF6 as part of the “well-mixed greenhouse
gases” that are the subject of the Endangerment Finding. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898–900 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(requiring that a petitioner seeking review of agency action
demonstrate standing by affidavit or other evidence if standing
is not “self-evident” from the administrative record). Absent a
petitioner with standing to challenge EPA’s inclusion of PFCs
and SF6 in the “air pollution” at issue, this court lacks
jurisdiction to address the merits of Industry Petitioners’
contention.
E.
EPA did not submit the Endangerment Finding for review
by its Science Advisory Board (SAB). Industry Petitioners claim
that EPA’s failure to do so violates its mandate to “make
available” to the SAB “any proposed criteria document,
standard, limitation, or regulation under the Clean Air Act” at
the time it provides the same “to any other Federal agency for
formal review and comment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4365(c)(1); see Am.
Petroleum Inst., 665 F.2d at 1188.
To begin with, it is not clear that EPA provided the
Endangerment Finding “to any other Federal agency for formal
review and comment,” which triggers this duty to submit a
regulation to the SAB. EPA only submitted a draft of the
Endangerment Finding to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs pursuant to Executive Order 12,866. EPA
contends that this was merely an informal review process, not
“formal review and comment”—at least when compared with a
36
statutory review-and-comment requirement in which other
agencies are given the opportunity to provide written comments
about the impacts of a proposed regulation on the reviewing
agency’s universe of responsibility. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C.
§ 32902(j). Industry Petitioners failed to respond to this
contention.
In any event, even if EPA violated its mandate by failing to
submit the Endangerment Finding to the SAB, Industry
Petitioners have not shown that this error was “of such central
relevance to the rule that there is a substantial likelihood that the
rule would have been significantly changed if such errors had
not been made.” 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(8); see Am. Petroleum
Inst., 665 F.2d at 1188–89 (applying this standard to EPA’s
failure to submit an ozone standard to the SAB).
F.
Lastly, State Petitioners maintain that EPA erred by
denying all ten petitions for reconsideration of the
Endangerment Finding. Those petitions asserted that internal e-
mails and documents released from the University of East
Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU)—a contributor to one of
the global temperature records and to the IPCC’s assessment
report—undermined the scientific evidence supporting the
Endangerment Finding by calling into question whether the
IPCC scientists adhered to “best science practices.” EPA’s
Denial of the Petitions To Reconsider the Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (“Reconsideration Denial”),
75 Fed. Reg. 49,556, 49,556–57 (Aug. 13, 2010). The petitions
pointed to factual mistakes in the IPCC’s assessment report
37
resulting from the use of non-peer-reviewed studies and several
scientific studies postdating the Endangerment Finding as
evidence that the Endangerment Finding was flawed. Id.
On August 13, 2010, EPA issued a denial of the petitions
for reconsideration accompanied by a 360-page response to
petitions (RTP). Id. at 49,556. It determined that the petitions
did not provide substantial support for the argument that the
Endangerment Finding should be revised. According to EPA,
the petitioners’ claims based on the CRU documents were
exaggerated, contradicted by other evidence, and not a material
or reliable basis for questioning the credibility of the body of
science at issue; two of the factual inaccuracies alleged in the
petitions were in fact mistakes, but both were “tangential and
minor” and did not change the key IPCC conclusions; and the
new scientific studies raised by some petitions were either
already considered by EPA, misinterpreted or misrepresented by
petitioners, or put forth without acknowledging other new
studies. Id. at 49,557–58.
1.
EPA is required to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration of a rule if a party raising an objection to the
rule
can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within such time
or if the grounds for such objection arose after the
period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). For the purpose of determining
whether to commence reconsideration of a rule, EPA considers
38
an objection to be of “central relevance to the outcome” of that
rule “if it provides substantial support for the argument that the
regulation should be revised.” Reconsideration Denial, 75 Fed.
Reg. at 49,561.
State Petitioners have not provided substantial support for
their argument that the Endangerment Finding should be
revised. State Petitioners point out that some studies the IPCC
referenced in its assessment were not peer-reviewed, but they
ignore the fact that (1) the IPCC assessment relied on around
18,000 studies that were peer-reviewed, and (2) the IPCC’s
report development procedures expressly permitted the inclusion
in the assessment of some non-peer-reviewed studies (“gray”
literature).
Moreover, as EPA determined, the limited inaccurate
information developed from the gray literature does not appear
sufficient to undermine the substantial overall evidentiary
support for the Endangerment Finding. State Petitioners have
not, as they assert, uncovered a “pattern” of flawed science.
Only two of the errors they point out seem to be errors at all, and
EPA relied on neither in making the Endangerment Finding.
First, as State Petitioners assert, the IPCC misstated the
percentage of the Netherlands that is below sea level, a statistic
that was used for background information. However, the IPCC
corrected the error, and EPA concluded that the error was
“minor and had no impact,” and the Endangerment Finding did
not refer to the statistic in any way. Id. at 49,576–77. Second,
the IPCC acknowledged misstating the rate at which Himalayan
glaciers are receding. EPA also did not rely on that projection in
the Endangerment Finding. Id. at 49,577.
State Petitioners also contend that a new study contradicts
EPA’s reliance on a projection of more violent storms in the
future as a result of climate change, but the study they cite only
39
concerns past trends, not projected future storms. The record
shows that EPA considered the new studies on storm trends and
concluded that the studies were consistent with the
Endangerment Finding. In sum, State Petitioners have failed to
show that these isolated “errors” provide substantial support for
their argument to overturn the Endangerment Finding.
2.
State Petitioners’ further argument that EPA erred in
denying reconsideration fails as well. These Petitioners claim
EPA erred by failing to provide notice and comment before
denying the petitions for reconsideration because EPA’s
inclusion of a 360-page RTP amounted to a revision of the
Endangerment Finding, and revision of a rule requires notice
and comment. The RTP, however, appears to be exactly what
EPA called it—a response to the petitions for reconsideration,
not a revision of the Endangerment Finding itself. EPA certainly
may deny petitions for reconsideration of a rule and provide an
explanation for that denial, including by providing support for
that decision, without triggering a new round of notice and
comment for the rule.
III.
State and Industry Petitioners contend that in promulgating
the Tailpipe Rule, EPA relied on an improper interpretation of
CAA § 202(a)(1), and was arbitrary and capricious in failing to
justify and consider the cost impacts of its conclusion that the
Rule triggers stationary-source regulation under the PSD and
Title V provisions. They do not challenge the substantive
standards of the Rule and focus principally on EPA’s failure to
consider the cost of stationary-source permitting requirements
triggered by the Rule. Positing an absurd-consequences
scenario, Petitioners maintain that if EPA had considered these
40
costs it “would have been forced” to exclude carbon dioxide
from the scope of the emission standards, to decline to issue
greenhouse gas emission standards at all, or “to interpret the
statute so as not to automatically trigger stationary source
regulation.” Industry Tailpipe Br. 17; see also Industry Tailpipe
Reply Br. 8–9. Both the plain text of Section 202(a) and
precedent refute Petitioners’ contentions.
A.
Section 202(a)(1) provides:
The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe . . .
standards applicable to the emission of any air
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his
judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.
42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). By employing the verb “shall,”
Congress vested a non-discretionary duty in EPA. See Sierra
Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848, 856 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The plain
text of Section 202(a)(1) thus refutes Industry Petitioners’
contention that EPA had discretion to defer issuance of motor-
vehicle emission standards on the basis of stationary-source
costs. Neither the adjacent text nor the statutory context
otherwise condition this clear “language of command,” id.
(citation omitted). Having made the Endangerment Finding
pursuant to CAA § 202(a), 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a), EPA lacked
discretion to defer promulgation of the Tailpipe Rule on the
basis of its trigger of stationary-source permitting requirements
under the PSD program and Title V.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA
41
compels this interpretation of Section 202(a)(1). “If EPA makes
a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the
[a]gency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from
new motor vehicles.” 549 U.S. at 533. “Under the clear terms
of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only
if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to
climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as
to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine
whether they do.” Id. (emphasis added). In the Endangerment
Finding, EPA determined that motor-vehicle emissions
contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that, in turn, endanger
the public health and welfare; the agency therefore was in no
position to “avoid taking further action,” id., by deferring
promulgation of the Tailpipe Rule. Given the non-discretionary
duty in Section 202(a)(1) and the limited flexibility available
under Section 202(a)(2), which this court has held relates only
to the motor-vehicle industry, see infra Part III.C, EPA had no
statutory basis on which it could “ground [any] reasons for”
further inaction, Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 535.
The plain text of Section 202(a)(1) also negates Industry
Petitioners’ contention that EPA had discretion to defer the
Tailpipe Rule on the basis of NHTSA’s authority to regulate fuel
economy. The Supreme Court dismissed a near-identical
argument in Massachusetts v. EPA, rejecting the suggestion that
EPA could decline to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions because
the Department of Transportation (DOT) had independent
authority to set fuel-efficiency standards. Id. at 531–32. “[T]hat
DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its
environmental responsibilities,” because EPA’s duty to
promulgate emission standards derives from “a statutory
obligation wholly independent of DOT’s mandate to promote
energy efficiency.” Id. at 532. Just as EPA lacks authority to
refuse to regulate on the grounds of NHTSA’s regulatory
authority, EPA cannot defer regulation on that basis. A
42
comparison of the relevant statutes bolsters this conclusion.
Compare 49 U.S.C. § 32902(f) (“When deciding maximum
feasible average fuel economy . . . , the Secretary of
Transportation shall consider . . . the effect of other motor
vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy . . . .”),
with 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a) (including no such direction). Nor,
applying the same reasoning, was EPA required to treat
NHTSA’s proposed regulations as establishing the baseline for
the Tailpipe Rule. Furthermore, the Tailpipe Rule provides
benefits above and beyond those resulting from NHTSA’s fuel-
economy standards. See, e.g., Tailpipe Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at
25,490 (Table III.F.1-2), 25,636 (Table IV.G.1-4). Petitioners’
related contentions regarding the PSD permitting triggers are
addressed in Part V.
B.
Turning to the APA, Industry Petitioners contend, relying
on Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705
F.2d 506, 525 (D.C. Cir. 1983), and Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541
F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976), that EPA failed both to justify the
Tailpipe Rule in terms of the risk identified in the Endangerment
Finding and to show that the proposed standards “would
meaningfully mitigate the alleged endangerment,” Industry
Tailpipe Br. 35. Instead, they maintain that EPA “separated
these two integral steps,” id. at 11, and “concluded that it had no
obligation to show . . . ‘the resulting emissions control strategy
or strategies will have some significant degree of harm reduction
or effectiveness in addressing the endangerment,’” id. at 11–12
(quoting Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,508). These
contentions fail.
Petitioners’ reliance on Small Refiner, 705 F.2d at 525, is
misplaced; the court there laid out guidelines for assessing
43
EPA’s discretion to set numerical standards and Petitioners do
not challenge the substance of the emission standards. In Ethyl,
541 F.2d at 7, the court assessed the scope of EPA’s authority,
under CAA § 211(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6c(c)(1) (1970)
(currently codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 7545(c)(1)), to
regulate lead particulate in motor-vehicle emissions. The court
rejected the argument that the regulations had to “be premised
upon factual proof of actual harm,” Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 12, and
instead deferred to EPA’s reasonable interpretation that
regulations could be based on a “significant risk of harm,” id. at
13. Nothing in Ethyl implied that EPA’s authority to regulate
was conditioned on evidence of a particular level of mitigation;
only a showing of significant contribution was required. EPA
made such a determination in the Endangerment Finding,
concluding that vehicle emissions are a significant contributor
to domestic greenhouse gas emissions. See, e.g., Endangerment
Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,499. Further, in the preamble to the
Tailpipe Rule itself, EPA found that the emission standards
would result in meaningful mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, EPA estimated that the Rule would
result in a reduction of about 960 million metric tons of CO2e
emissions over the lifetime of the model year 2012–2016
vehicles affected by the new standards. See Tailpipe Rule, 75
Fed. Reg. at 25,488–90. Other precedent is likewise unhelpful
to Petitioners: in Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA,
217 F.3d 861, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2000), “nothing in the record”
indicated that the challenged regulatory program would “directly
or indirectly, further the Clean Air Act’s environmental goals,”
whereas here the record is fulsome, see supra Part II.
C.
Petitioners also invoke Section 202(a)(2) as support for
their contention that EPA must consider stationary-source costs
in the Tailpipe Rule. Section 202(a)(2) provides:
44
Any regulation prescribed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection . . . shall take effect after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period.
42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2). State Petitioners maintain the reference
to compliance costs encompasses those experienced by
stationary sources under the PSD program, while Industry
Petitioners maintain stationary-source costs are a relevant factor
in EPA’s Section 202(a)(1) rulemaking. This court, however,
has held that the Section 202(a)(2) reference to compliance costs
encompasses only the cost to the motor-vehicle industry to come
into compliance with the new emission standards, and does not
mandate consideration of costs to other entities not directly
subject to the proposed standards. See Motor & Equip. Mfrs.
Ass’n, Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
D.
Petitioners’ remaining challenges to the Tailpipe Rule fail
as well. In Part II, the court rejects the contention that the
Tailpipe Rule fails due to flaws in the underlying Endangerment
Finding. The record also refutes Industry Petitioners’ suggestion
that EPA “employed a shell game to avoid,” Industry Tailpipe
Reply Br. 9 (capitalization removed), responding to comments
regarding stationary-source costs. Industry Tailpipe Br. 19–20;
see also Industry Tailpipe Reply Br. 14–15. EPA adequately
responded to “significant comments,” 42 U.S.C. §
7607(d)(6)(B). See, e.g., Tailpipe Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at
25,401–02; Tailpipe Rule, Response to Comments at 7-65 to 7-
69. And, assuming other statutory mandates provide a basis for
judicial review, see Industry Tailpipe Br. 21–22 (listing
mandates); see, e.g., Small Refiner, 705 F.2d at 537–39, the
45
record shows EPA’s compliance, see Tailpipe Rule, 75 Fed.
Reg. at 25,539–42, and that EPA was not arbitrary and
capricious by not considering stationary-source costs in its
analyses. See, e.g., Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 689 (D.C.
Cir. 2000); Mid-Tex Elec. Coop., Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327,
341–42 (D.C. Cir. 1985). EPA’s economic impact assessment
conducted pursuant to CAA § 317, 42 U.S.C. § 7617, does not
provide grounds for granting the petitions because Petitioners’
contentions that EPA, “[i]n defiance of these requirements, . . .
refused to estimate or even consider the costs of the [Tailpipe
Rule] for stationary sources,” Industry Tailpipe Br. 22, are no
more than another attempt to avoid the plain text of Section
202(a). See also 42 U.S.C. § 7617(e).
IV.
We turn next to the stationary source regulations. As noted
supra in Part I, EPA’s interpretation of the CAA requires PSD
and Title V permits for stationary sources whose potential
emissions exceed statutory thresholds for any regulated
pollutant—including greenhouse gases. Industry Petitioners now
challenge EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the scope of the
permitting requirements for construction and modification of
major emitting facilities under CAA Sections 165(a) and 169(1),
42 U.S.C. §§ 7475(a) & 7479(1) (“the PSD permitting
triggers”). EPA maintains that this challenge is untimely
because its interpretation of the PSD permitting triggers was set
forth in its 1978, 1980, and 2002 Rules.
In 1978, EPA defined “major stationary source” as a source
that emits major amounts of “any air pollutant regulated under
the [CAA].” Part 51–Requirements for Preparation, Adoption,
and Submittal of Implementation Plans; Prevention of
Significant Air Quality Deterioration (“1978 Implementation
Plan Requirements”), 43 Fed. Reg. 26,380, 26,382 (June 19,
46
1978). Industry petitioners’ challenge to the 1978 Rule in
Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
reflected their understanding that EPA would apply the PSD
permitting program to both pollutants regulated pursuant to
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and other
regulated pollutants. See Br. for Industry Pet’rs on Regulation of
Pollutants other than Sulfur Dioxide and Particulates, No. 78-
1006 (and consolidated cases) (Dec. 19, 1978) at 10, 12. In the
1980 Rule, EPA highlighted that to be subject to PSD review, a
“source need only emit any pollutant in major amounts (i.e., the
amounts specified in [CAA § 169(1)]) and be located in an area
designated attainment or unclassifiable for that or any other
pollutant.” 1980 Implementation Plan Requirements, 45 Fed.
Reg. at 52,711 (emphasis in original). EPA explained that “any
pollutant” meant “both criteria pollutants, for which national
ambient air quality standards have been promulgated, and non-
criteria pollutants subject to regulation under the Act.” Id. The
same explanation of EPA’s interpretation appeared in the 2002
Rule. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review, 67 Fed. Reg. 80,186,
80,239-40, 80,264 (Dec. 31, 2002).
CAA Section 307(b)(1) provides that a petition for review
of any promulgated nationally applicable regulations:
“shall be filed within sixty days from the date notice of
such promulgation . . . appears in the Federal Register,
except that if such petition is based solely on grounds
arising after such sixtieth day, then any petition for review
. . . shall be filed within sixty days after such grounds
arise.”
42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). The exception encompasses the
occurrence of an event that ripens a claim. See Chamber of
Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192, 208 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 2011);
47
Am. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass’n v. EPA, 588 F.3d 1109, 1113
(D.C. Cir. 2009). EPA acknowledges this precedent, but
maintains that the “new grounds” exception is narrow and
inapplicable because Industry Petitioners’ challenge to EPA’s
interpretation of the PSD permitting triggers is based on legal
arguments that were available during the normal judicial review
periods for the 1978, 1980, and 2002 Rules, and the “new
ground” on which they now rely is a factual development,
namely the regulation of greenhouse gases by the Tailpipe Rule.
This is correct so far as it goes, but fails to demonstrate that
Industry Petitioners’ challenge is untimely.
Industry Petitioners point out that two petitioners—the
National Association of Home Builders ( NAHB ) and National
Oilseed Processors Association ( NOPA ) – have newly ripened
claims as a result of the Tailpipe Rule, which had the effect of
expanding the PSD program to never-regulated sources:
• NAHB’s members construct single family homes,
apartment buildings, and commercial buildings. According
to the Vice President of Legal Affairs, prior to the Tailpipe
Rule, no member of NAHB was a major source of any
regulated pollutant, and thus no member was ever required
to obtain a PSD permit. Decl. of Thomas J. Ward, Vice
President of Legal Affairs for NAHB, ¶ 6 (May 10, 2011).
Since the Tailpipe Rule rendered greenhouse gases a
regulated pollutant, it is now certain that NAHB members
that engage in construction projects that emit greenhouse
gases in major amounts will have to obtain PSD permits
sometime in the future. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8. Indeed, EPA
estimated that 6,397 multifamily buildings and 515 single
family homes would trigger PSD review annually absent
the Tailoring Rule. See Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule;
Proposed Rule (“Proposed Tailoring Rule”), 74 Fed. Reg.
48
55,292, 55,338 (Oct. 27, 2009).
• NOPA’s members are large companies that monthly
produce millions of tons of vegetable meals and over a
billion pounds of oils from oilseeds, such as soybeans. See,
e.g., NOPA, January 2012 Statistical Report (Feb. 14, 2012)
available at www.nopa.org; NOPA, February 2012
Statistical Report (Mar. 14, 2012), available at
www.nopa.org. According to the Executive Vice President
of Regulatory Affairs, NOPA members operate facilities
that are major sources of criteria pollutants and, for this
reason, are subject to PSD review. Decl. of David C. Ailor,
Executive Vice President of Regulatory Affairs of NOPA,
¶ 8 (May 10, 2011). Prior to promulgation of the Tailpipe
Rule, no member’s facility had triggered PSD review by
virtue of emissions of a non-criteria pollutant. Id. Now that
greenhouse gases are a regulated non-criteria pollutant,
many NOPA members will have to obtain PSD permits as
result of their facilities’ emissions of a non-criteria
pollutant. Id. at ¶¶ 9,10. For some NOPA members this time
is not far off because renovations to their facilities will
result in greenhouse gas emissions above the significance
thresholds set by the Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,567.
Id. at ¶ 9.
Industry Petitioners thus maintain that because NAHB and
NOPA filed their petitions on July 6, 2010, within 60 days of the
promulgation of the Tailpipe Rule in the Federal Register on
May 7, 2010, their challenges are timely.
“Ripeness, while often spoken of as a justiciability doctrine
distinct from standing, in fact shares the constitutional
requirement of standing that an injury in fact be certainly
impending.” Nat’l Treasury Emp. Union v. United States, 101
F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996). During an initial review
49
period, although purely legal claims may be justiciable and,
thus, prudentially ripe, a party without an immediate or
threatened injury lacks a constitutionally ripe claim. See
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. ICC, 672 F.2d 146, 149 (D.C. Cir.
1982). EPA’s position would conflate the constitutional and
prudential considerations. Constitutional ripeness exists where
a challenge “involve[s], at least in part, the existence of a live
‘Case or Controversy.’” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl.
Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 81 (1978). Prudential considerations
embodied in the ripeness doctrine relate to “the fitness of the
issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of
withholding court consideration.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387
U.S. 136, 149 (1967); see Duke Power, 438 U.S. at 81. Standing
to challenge agency action exists where a petitioner can
demonstrate an “injury in fact” that is fairly traceable to the
challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision. Reytblatt v. NRC, 105 F.3d 715, 721 (D.C. Cir.
1997) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
560–61 (1992)).
Had NAHB and NOPA challenged EPA’s interpretation of
the PSD permitting triggers in 1978, 1980, or 2002, as EPA
suggests, the court would have lacked jurisdiction under Article
III of the Constitution because their alleged injuries were only
speculative. See, e.g., Occidental Permian Ltd. v. FERC, 673
F.3d 1024, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co.,
672 F.2d at 149. At that time, NAHB and NOPA could have
shown only the possibility that their members would be injured
if EPA were someday to determine that greenhouse gases were
a pollutant that endangers human health and welfare and to
adopt a rule regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of
stationary sources. EPA does not challenge the assertions in the
NAHB and NOPA declarations, which establish no such rule
was promulgated prior to the Tailpipe Rule.
50
The NAHB and NOPA challenges ceased to be speculative
when EPA promulgated the Tailpipe Rule regulating greenhouse
gases and their challenges ripened because of the “substantial
probability” of injury to them. See Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co.,
672 F.2d at 149. Although, as EPA notes, other Industry
Petitioners’ challenges to EPA’s interpretation of the PSD
permitting triggers ripened decades earlier, this court has
assured petitioners with unripe claims that “they will not be
foreclosed from judicial review when the appropriate time
comes,” Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F.3d
455, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and that they “need not fear
preclusion by reason of the 60-day stipulation [barring judicial
review],” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 672 F.2d at 149–50. EPA
expresses concern that allowing NAHB and NOPA to litigate
their newly ripened claims will have far-reaching implications
for finality of agency actions, but “the ripeness doctrine reflects
a judgment that the disadvantages of a premature review that
may prove too abstract or unnecessary ordinarily outweigh the
additional costs of – even repetitive – . . . litigation.” Ohio
Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 735 (1998).
Some limitations inhere in doctrines such as stare decisis or the
law-of-the-circuit doctrine, see LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d
1389, 1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Because petitioners NAHB and NOPA’s challenges to
EPA’s PSD permitting triggers are newly ripened upon
promulgation of the Tailpipe Rule and they filed petitions for
review within sixty days thereof, their challenge to EPA’s
interpretation of the PSD permitting triggers is timely.
V.
Having established that Industry Petitioners’ challenges to
the PSD permitting triggers are both timely and ripe, we turn to
the merits of their claims.
51
A.
CAA Title I, Part C—entitled “Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality” (PSD)—largely focuses on the
maintenance of national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Under the PSD program, EPA designates specific
pollutants as “NAAQS pollutants” and sets national ambient air
quality standards for those pollutants—requiring, for example,
that the concentration of a given NAAQS pollutant may not
exceed more than a certain number of parts per billion in the
ambient air. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 7407. Thus far, EPA has
designated six NAAQS pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide.
None of these NAAQS pollutants is one of the six well-mixed
greenhouse gases defined as an “air pollutant” in the
Endangerment Finding. See Environmental Protection Agency,
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at
http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (last visited May 3, 2012);
Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,536-37.
Acting upon information submitted by states, EPA then
determines whether each region of the country is in “attainment”
or “nonattainment” with the promulgated air quality standard for
each NAAQS pollutant, or, alternatively, whether a region is
“unclassifiable” for that pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A).
An area in attainment for a NAAQS pollutant is “any area . . .
that meets the . . . ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.”
Id. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii). By contrast, an area in nonattainment for
a NAAQS pollutant is “any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet) the national . . . ambient air quality standard for the
pollutant.” Id. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(i). Finally, an unclassifiable area
is any area that “cannot be classified on the basis of available
information as meeting or not meeting the . . . ambient air
quality standard for the pollutant.” Id. § 7407(d)(1)(A)(iii).
52
The PSD program applies to those areas of the United States
designated as in “attainment” or “unclassifiable” for any
NAAQS pollutant, see id. § 7471, and requires permits for major
emitting facilities embarking on construction or modification
projects in those regions. Id. § 7475(a). A separate part of Title
I of the CAA, Part D, governs the construction and modification
of sources in nonattainment regions. See id. §§ 7501, 7502. It
bears emphasis that attainment classifications are pollutant-
specific: depending on the levels of each NAAQS pollutant in
an area, a region can be designated as in attainment for NAAQS
pollutant A, but in nonattainment for NAAQS pollutant B. If a
major emitting facility in such a region wishes to undertake a
construction or modification project, both Part C and Part D’s
substantive requirements apply—that is, the source must obtain
a general PSD permit and must also abide by Part D’s more
stringent, pollutant-specific requirements for any NAAQS
pollutants for which the area is in nonattainment. See 1980
Implementation Plan Requirements, 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,711-12
(“where a source emits in major amounts a pollutant for which
the area in which the source would locate is designated
nonattainment, Part D NSR rather than Part C PSD review
should apply to those pollutants.”) (emphasis added).
The key substantive provision in the PSD program is CAA
Section 165(a), which establishes permitting requirements for
“major emitting facilities” located in attainment or unclassifiable
regions. In relevant part, section 165(a) provides that “[n]o
major emitting facility . . . may be constructed in any area to
which this part applies unless” the facility obtains a PSD permit.
42 U.S.C. § 7475(a). To obtain a PSD permit, a covered source
must, among other things, install the “best available control
technology [BACT] for each pollutant subject to regulation
under [the CAA]”—regardless of whether that pollutant is a
NAAQS pollutant. Id. § 7475(a)(4). Since the Tailpipe Rule
became effective, EPA has regulated automotive greenhouse gas
53
emissions under Title II of the Act. Thus, greenhouse gases are
now a “pollutant subject to regulation under” the Act, and, as
required by the statute itself, any “major emitting facility”
covered by the PSD program must install BACT for greenhouse
gases. See id.
The dispute in this case centers largely on the scope of the
PSD program—specifically, which stationary sources count as
“major emitting facilities” subject to regulation. CAA Section
169(1) defines “major emitting facility,” for the purposes of the
PSD program, as a stationary source “which emit[s], or [has] the
potential to emit” either 100 tons per year (tpy) or 250 tpy of
“any air pollutant.” 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1) (emphasis added). As
discussed supra in Part I, whether the 100 or 250 tpy threshold
applies depends on the type of source. Certain listed categories
of sources—for example, iron and steel mill plants—qualify as
“major emitting facilities” if they have the potential to emit over
100 tons per year of “any air pollutant.” Id. All other stationary
sources are “major emitting facilities” if they have the potential
to emit over 250 tons per year of “any air pollutant.” Id.
As mentioned above, since 1978 EPA has interpreted
the phrase “any air pollutant” in the definition of “major
emitting facility” as “any air pollutant regulated under the
CAA.” See 1978 Implementation Plan Requirements, 43 Fed.
Reg. at 26,388, 26,403; supra Part IV. Thus, because the PSD
program covers “major emitting facilities” in “any area to which
this part applies,” 42 U.S.C. § 7475, EPA requires PSD permits
for stationary sources that 1) are located in an area designated as
attainment or unclassifiable for any NAAQS pollutant, and 2)
emit 100/250 tpy of any regulated air pollutant, regardless of
whether that pollutant is itself a NAAQS pollutant. See 1980
Implementation Plan Requirements, 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,710-11.
Consequently, once the Tailpipe Rule took effect and made
54
greenhouse gases a regulated pollutant under Title II of the Act,
the PSD program automatically applied to facilities emitting
over 100/250 tpy of greenhouse gases. But because immediate
regulation of greenhouse gas-emitting sources exceeding the
100/250 tpy benchmark would result in “overwhelming
permitting burdens that would . . . fall on permitting authorities
and sources,” Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,516, EPA’s
Tailoring Rule provided that, for now, sources are subject to
PSD permitting requirements only if they have the potential to
emit over 100,000 tpy of greenhouse gases (for a construction
project) or 75,000 tpy (for a modification project). Id. at 31,523;
see also infra, Part VI.
According to EPA, its longstanding interpretation of the
phrase “any air pollutant”—“any air pollutant regulated under
the CAA”—is compelled by the statute. See id. at 31,517.
Disputing this point, Industry Petitioners argue that the phrase
is capable of a far more circumscribed meaning and that EPA
could have—and should have—avoided extending the PSD
permitting program to major greenhouse gas emitters. For the
reasons discussed below, we agree with EPA that its
longstanding interpretation of the PSD permitting trigger is
statutorily compelled. Thus, as EPA argues, it “must give effect
to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,” Chevron,
467 U.S. at 843, which here requires PSD coverage for major
emitters of any regulated air pollutant.
We begin our analysis, as we must, with the statute’s plain
language. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842 (“First, always, is the
question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise
question at issue.”). CAA Section 169(1) requires PSD permits
for stationary sources emitting major amounts of “any air
pollutant.” 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1) (emphasis added). On its face,
“the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning, that is, ‘one or some
indiscriminately of whatever kind,’ ” United States v. Gonzales,
55
520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) (quoting WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 97 (1976)). Greenhouse gases are
indisputably an “air pollutant.” See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
U.S. at 528–29. Congress’s use of the broad, indiscriminate
modifier “any” thus strongly suggests that the phrase “any air
pollutant” encompasses greenhouse gases.
This plain-language reading of the statute is buttressed by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. There
the Court determined that CAA’s overarching definition of “air
pollutant” in Section 302(g)—which applies to all provisions of
the Act, including the PSD program—unambiguously includes
greenhouse gases. Noting that “[t]he Clean Air Act’s sweeping
definition of ‘air pollutant’ includes ‘any air pollution agent or
combination of such agents . . . . which is emitted into or
otherwise enters the ambient air,” the Court held that “the
definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,
and underscores that intent through repeated use of the word
‘any.’” Id. at 529 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g)) (second and
third emphases added). Crucially for purposes of the issue
before us, the Court concluded that “[t]he statute is
unambiguous.” Id.
Thus, we are faced with a statutory term—“air
pollutant”—that the Supreme Court has determined
unambiguously encompasses greenhouse gases. This phrase is
preceded by the expansive term “any,” a word the Court held
“underscores” Congress’s intent to include “all” air pollutants
“of whatever stripe.” See id. Absent some compelling reason to
think otherwise, “ ‘any’ . . . means any,” Ford v. Mabus, 629
F.3d 198, 206 (D.C. Cir. 2010), and Petitioners have given us no
reason to construe that word narrowly here. To the contrary:
given both the statute’s plain language and the Supreme Court’s
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, we have little trouble
concluding that the phrase “any air pollutant” includes all
56
regulated air pollutants, including greenhouse gases.
In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that EPA’s
definition of “any air pollutant” slightly narrows the literal
statutory definition, which nowhere requires that “any air
pollutant” be a regulated pollutant. See 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1). But
this does not make the statutory language ambiguous. Indeed,
“any regulated air pollutant” is the only logical reading of the
statute. The CAA’s universal definition of “air pollutant”—the
one at issue in Massachusetts v. EPA—provides that the term
includes “any physical, chemical, biological [or] radioactive . .
. substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters
the ambient air.” Id. § 7602(g). Of course, nothing in the CAA
requires regulation of a substance simply because it qualifies as
an “air pollutant” under this broad definition. As discussed
supra in Parts II and III, for example, the Act requires EPA to
prescribe motor vehicle “standards applicable to the emission of
any air pollutant” only if that pollutant “cause[s], or
contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Id.
§ 7521(a)(1). But if “any air pollutant” in the definition of
“major emitting facility” was read to encompass both regulated
and nonregulated air pollutants, sources could qualify as major
emitting facilities—and thus be subjected to PSD permitting
requirements—if they emitted 100/250 tpy of a “physical,
chemical, [or] biological” substance EPA had determined was
harmless. It is absurd to think that Congress intended to subject
stationary sources to the PSD permitting requirements due to
emissions of substances that do not “endanger public health or
welfare.” Id. § 7521(a)(1). Thus, “any regulated air pollutant” is,
in this context, the only plausible reading of “any air pollutant.”
We find further support for this definition throughout
the CAA. First, as previously mentioned, the PSD program
provides that all major emitting facilities must install BACT for
57
“each pollutant subject to regulation under [the CAA].” Id.
§ 7475(a)(4). “Each pollutant subject to regulation under” the
Act is, of course, synonymous with “any air pollutant regulated
under the Act.” Thus, EPA’s interpretation of “any air pollutant”
in the definition of “major emitting facilities” harmonizes the
PSD program’s scope (i.e., which pollutants trigger PSD
coverage) with its substantive requirements (i.e., which
pollutants must be controlled to obtain a permit). In other words,
because a covered source must control greenhouse gas
emissions, it makes sense that major emissions of greenhouse
gases would subject that source to the PSD program.
Second, a PSD permittee is required to establish that it
will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of
any (A) maximum allowable increase or maximum
allowable concentration for any pollutant in any area to
which this part applies more than one time per year, (B)
national ambient air quality standard in any air quality
control region, or (C) any other applicable emission
standard or standard of performance under [the CAA].
Id. § 7475(a)(3). Subsections (A) and (B) prohibit a permitted
source from contributing to a concentration of NAAQS
pollutants that exceeds EPA’s standards. By contrast, subsection
(C) has an entirely different focus: it prohibits a permitted
source from causing or contributing to air pollution in excess of
any CAA emission standard. Thus, as EPA notes, “what this
provision establishes is that while the PSD program was
certainly directed towards NAAQS-criteria pollutants, it also
was directed at maintaining air quality for other pollutants
regulated under other provisions.” EPA Timing & Tailoring Br.
101. EPA’s determination that “any air pollutant” means “any
air pollutant regulated under the Act”—encompassing the
greenhouse gases regulated under Title II—is entirely consistent
58
with this focus.
Finally, Congress made perfectly clear that the PSD
program was meant to protect against precisely the types of
harms caused by greenhouse gases. The PSD provision contains
a section entitled “Congressional declaration of purpose,” which
provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he purposes of this part
are . . . to protect public health and welfare from any actual or
potential adverse effect which in the Administrator’s judgment
may reasonably be anticipated to occur from air pollution.” 42
U.S.C. § 7470(1). The CAA further provides that “[a]ll language
referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on . . . weather . . . and climate.” Id. § 7602(h). As
previously noted, EPA in the Endangerment Finding
“marshaled . . . substantial . . . . scientific evidence . . . for the
proposition that greenhouse gases trap heat on earth that would
otherwise dissipate into space [and] that this ‘greenhouse effect’
warms the climate.” Part II, supra at 28–29. It further concluded
that this “anthropogenically induced climate change” was likely
to threaten the public welfare through, among other things,
“extreme weather events.” Id. at 15–16. Thus, one express
purpose of the program is to protect against the harms caused by
greenhouse gases.
In sum, we are faced with a statutory term—“any air
pollutant”—that the Supreme Court has determined is
“expansive,” and “unambiguous[ly]” includes greenhouse gases.
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 529. Moreover, the PSD
program requires covered sources to install control technology
for “each pollutant” regulated under the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7475(a)(4), and to establish that they “will not cause, or
contribute to, air pollution in excess of any . . . emission
standard . . . under [the CAA].” Id. § 7475(a)(3) (emphasis
added). These provisions demonstrate that the PSD program was
intended to control pollutants regulated under every section of
59
the Act. Finally, Congress’s “Declaration of Purpose” expressly
states that the PSD program was meant, in part, to protect
against adverse effects on “weather” and “climate”—precisely
the types of harm caused by greenhouse gases. See id. § 7470(1).
Given all this, we have little trouble concluding that “any air
pollutant” in the definition of “major emitting facility”
unambiguously means “any air pollutant regulated under the
CAA.”
B.
Industry Petitioners offer three alternative interpretations of
the PSD permitting triggers, none of which cast doubt on the
unambiguous nature of the statute.
As a preliminary matter, we note that none of Petitioners’
alternative interpretations applies to Title V. To the contrary, all
of the proposed alternative interpretations are based on the
structure of—and purported Congressional intent behind—the
PSD program. Indeed, Industry Petitioners never argue that their
proposed alternative interpretations are relevant to Title V.
Petitioners have thus forfeited any challenges to EPA’s
greenhouse gas-inclusive interpretation of Title V. See, e.g.,
Nat’l Steel & Shipbuilding Co. v. NLRB, 156 F.3d 1268, 1273
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (petitioners forfeit an argument by failing to
raise it in their opening brief).
Industry Petitioners’ first alternative is simple enough.
Because the PSD program focuses on “the air people breathe in
certain geographically defined . . . areas,” Coalition for
Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 38, Industry
Petitioners contend that the term “pollutant” in the PSD statute
encompasses only air pollutants that, unlike greenhouse gases,
60
“pollute locally.” Id. at 35. Industry Petitioners would thus apply
a greenhouse gas-exclusive interpretation of “pollutant”
throughout the statute’s PSD provision. Under this reading, a
source would qualify as a “major emitting facility” only if it
emits 100/250 tpy of “any air pollutant” except greenhouse
gases. See 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1). Moreover, sources that are
subject to PSD permitting requirements would be required to
install BACT for “each pollutant subject to regulation under [the
CAA]”—except greenhouse gases. Id. § 7475(a)(4).
We can easily dispose of Industry Petitioners’ argument that
the PSD program’s “concerns with local emissions,” Coalition
for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 36, somehow limit
the BACT provision. The statutory text provides, without
qualification, that covered sources must install the “best
available control technology for each pollutant subject to
regulation under [the CAA].” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4) (emphasis
added). Because greenhouse gases are indisputably a pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act, it is crystal clear that PSD
permittees must install BACT for greenhouse gases. “When the
words of a statute are unambiguous . . . judicial inquiry is
complete.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249,
254 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Equally without merit is Industry Petitioners’ argument that
the PSD program’s regional focus requires a greenhouse gas-
exclusive interpretation of “any air pollutant” in the definition
of “major emitting facility.” In support of this contention,
Industry Petitioners note that CAA Section 161 provides that
states’ implementation plans for the PSD program “shall contain
emission limitations and such other measures as may be
necessary . . . to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
in each region.” 42 U.S.C. § 7471 (emphasis added). The term
“air quality,” Industry Petitioners contend, implies a focus on
“the air people breathe,” and the term “in each region” suggests
61
that Congress was concerned about local, not global, effects. See
Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 36.
Moreover, Industry Petitioners note that when Congress enacted
the PSD program in 1977, it did so “against the backdrop of a
known universe of CAA-regulated pollutants.” Id. All these
pollutants, Industry Petitioners argue, “were regulated because
they could cause elevated ground-level concentrations in
ambient air people breathe.” Id. And as Industry Petitioners
point out, EPA itself has concluded that greenhouse gases are
problematic for reasons other than local health and
environmental concerns. In EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for the regulations at issue here, for example, the
agency noted that “[a] significant difference between the major
[greenhouse gases] and most air pollutants regulated under the
CAA is that [greenhouse gases] have much longer atmospheric
lifetimes [and] . . . can remain in the atmosphere for decades to
centuries.” Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the
Clean Air Act (“Greenhouse Gas Advance Notice”), 73 Fed.
Reg. 44,354, 44,400–01 (July 30, 2008). Moreover, “unlike
traditional air pollutants,” greenhouse gases “become well
mixed throughout the global atmosphere so that the long-term
distribution of [greenhouse gas] concentrations is not dependant
on local emission sources.” Id. Thus, Industry Petitioners
conclude, greenhouse gases are problematic for reasons entirely
distinct from the local concerns that provided the basis for the
PSD program. Given this, the phrase “any air pollutant” cannot
be applied to greenhouse gases in the context of the regionally-
focused PSD program.
As an initial matter, we note that the Supreme Court
rejected a very similar argument in Massachusetts v. EPA.
There, EPA attempted to distinguish between greenhouse gases
and other air pollution agents “because greenhouse gases
permeate the world’s atmosphere rather than a limited area near
the earth’s surface.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 529
62
n.26. The Court held that this was “a plainly unreasonable
reading of a sweeping statutory provision designed to capture
‘any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted
into or otherwise enters the ambient air,” id. (quoting 42 U.S.C.
§ 7602(g)), thus rejecting the dissent’s view that “EPA’s
exclusion of greenhouse gases . . . is entitled to deference.” Id.
As the Court noted, the purported distinction between
greenhouse gases and “traditional” air pollutants “finds no
support in the text of the statute, which uses the phrase ‘the
ambient air’ without distinguishing between atmospheric
layers.” Id. Massachusetts v. EPA thus forecloses Industry
Petitioners’ argument that because greenhouse gases do not
“cause elevated ground-level concentrations in ambient air
people breathe,” Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing &
Tailoring Br. 36, EPA should have adopted a greenhouse gas-
exclusive interpretation of “any air pollutant.”
We also have little trouble disposing of Industry Petitioners’
argument that the PSD program is specifically focused solely on
localized air pollution. True, as Industry Petitioners note, one
part of the PSD program requires states to “prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in each region.” 42 U.S.C. § 7471
(emphasis added). But while localized air quality is obviously
one concern of the PSD program, a comprehensive reading of
the statute shows it was also meant to address a much broader
range of harms. As an initial matter, the PSD provision’s
“Congressional declaration of purpose” section expansively
provides that the program is intended “to protect public health
and welfare from any actual or potential adverse effect . . . from
air pollution.” Id. § 7470(1) (emphasis added). Nothing in this
section limits the PSD program to adverse effects on local air
quality; to the contrary, the word “any” here gives this clause an
“expansive meaning” which we see “no reason to contravene.”
New York, 443 F.3d at 885 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the CAA expressly provides that effects on “welfare”
63
means “effects on . . . weather . . . and climate.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 7602(h). It seems quite clear to us, then, that the PSD program
was intended to protect against precisely the types of harms
caused by greenhouse gases. This broad understanding of the
PSD program’s scope is buttressed by the fact that the program
requires covered sources to control “each pollutant subject to
regulation under [the CAA],” and further requires sources to
comply with “any . . . emission standard” under the CAA. Id. §§
7475(a)(3); (a)(4) (emphasis added). These substantive
requirements amount to further evidence that Congress wanted
the PSD program to cover all regulated pollutants, regardless of
the type of harm those pollutants cause.
In light of the PSD program’s broad scope of regulation and
the express purposes of the program, we conclude—consistent
with the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA—that Industry
Petitioners’ greenhouse gas-exclusive interpretation of
“pollutant” is “a plainly unreasonable reading” of the statute.
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 529 n.26.
2.
For their second alternative interpretation, Industry
Petitioners argue that the PSD program’s definition of “major
emitting facility” establishes a “pollutant-specific situs
requirement.” Am. Chemistry Council Br. 33. Under this
reading of the statute, a stationary source is subject to PSD
permitting requirements only if “(1) a source has major
emissions of a NAAQS criteria pollutant and (2) the source is
located in an area attaining that pollutant’s” air quality standard.
Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 23.
Thus, for example, a source would be subject to the PSD
permitting requirements if it 1) emits over 100/250 tpy of sulfur
dioxide (a NAAQS criteria pollutant), and 2) is located in an
area that is in “attainment,” or is “unclassifiable,” for sulfur
64
dioxide. But under this approach, a stationary source could
never be subject to the PSD program solely because of its
greenhouse gas emissions. After all, Industry Petitioners
observe, EPA declined to make greenhouse gases a NAAQS
criteria pollutant. Instead, EPA regulated greenhouse gases only
under Title II of the Act, dealing with motor vehicle emissions.
Because “no major source of [greenhouse gases] can be located
in an area attaining the nonexistent [air quality standard] for
[greenhouse gases],” id. at 24, Industry Petitioners point out that
their reading of the statute would bring no new stationary
sources under the PSD program’s ambit—alleviating any
“absurd results” caused by excessive permitting requirements,
id. at 25.
Industry Petitioners emphasize that, unlike their first
proposed alternative, nothing in this approach would “wholly
exempt [greenhouse gases] from PSD.” Coalition for
Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Reply Br. 20. Although
a pollutant-specific situs requirement would limit the number of
sources subject to the PSD program, nothing in this proposed
reading of the statute would alter the substantive requirements
for PSD permits, including the requirement that all regulated
sources install BACT “for each pollutant subject to regulation
under [the CAA].” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4). So, for example,
under this interpretation, a hypothetical stationary source
emitting more than 100/250 tpy of sulfur dioxide and located in
an area designated as “in attainment” for sulfur dioxide, must
still install BACT for “each pollutant subject to regulation”
under the Act, including greenhouse gases. Their key point,
though, is that sources emitting only major amounts of
greenhouse gases—but not major amounts of a NAAQS criteria
pollutant—would escape PSD permitting requirements.
Industry Petitioners’ argument in support of this
interpretation proceeds in several steps. First, they argue that the
65
term “any air pollutant,” though “capacious and flexible by
itself,” “is a chameleon term” when placed in certain contexts.
Am. Chemistry Council Br. 38. Indeed, Industry Petitioners note
that EPA has already narrowed the literal meaning of the term
“any air pollutant” here. After all, and as discussed supra,
although the statutory term “air pollutant” includes “any
physical [or] chemical . . . substance or matter,” 42 U.S.C.
§ 7602(g), EPA has long maintained that the term “any air
pollutant” in the definition of “major emitting facility”
encompasses only air pollutants regulated under the Act.
Moreover, Industry Petitioners point out that when interpreting
CAA Part C, Subpart 2, entitled “Visibility Protection,” EPA
determined that the term “any pollutant” in the definition of
“major stationary source” meant “any visibility-impairing
pollutant.” See Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing &
Tailoring Br. 34 (emphasis added). The statute’s definition of
“major stationary source” in the visibility-protection subpart is
quite similar to the definition of “major emitting facility” in the
PSD subpart: for the purposes of the visibility program, a “major
stationary source” is defined as a “stationary source[ ] with the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 7491(g)(7)); compare 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1) (“major emitting
facility” for the purposes of the PSD program is a source which
“emit[s], or [has] the potential to emit,” either 100 or 250 tons
per year “of any air pollutant”). These narrowed interpretations,
Industry Petitioners argue, prove that the seemingly capacious
term “any air pollutant” is, notwithstanding that the Supreme
Court called this term “expansive” and “sweeping,”
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 529 nn.25–26, capable of a
far more circumscribed meaning.
According to Industry Petitioners, EPA should have adopted
that more circumscribed meaning by interpreting “any air
pollutant” as establishing a pollutant-specific situs requirement.
As Industry Petitioners point out, the PSD program requires
66
permits for “major emitting facilit[ies] . . . in any area to which
this part applies,” 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1), and defines “major
emitting facilities” as stationary sources emitting 100/250 tpy of
“any air pollutant.” Id. § 7475(a). In this context, Industry
Petitioners contend, the phrases “any air pollutant” and “in any
area to which this part applies” must be read in concert. And,
Industry Petitioners argue, these phrases “together mean” that a
source is subject to PSD permitting requirements only if it emits
major amounts of “any [NAAQS] air pollutant whose NAAQS
an area is attaining.” Am. Chemistry Council Br. 33.
In support of this supposedly holistic interpretation of the
statute, Industry Petitioners cite CAA § 163(b), a different
section of the PSD provision in which the phrase “any air
pollutant” and “any area to which this part applies” are used in
conjunction with one another. Unlike § 165(a), which sets
permitting requirements for sources covered by the PSD
program, § 163 provides guidelines for areas designated as “in
attainment” under the program. Specifically, § 163(b) limits the
“maximum allowable increase in concentrations of” airborne
NAAQS pollutants that may occur in an attainment area before
that area’s “attainment” status is jeopardized. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7473(b)(1). Subsections (1) through (3) of § 163(b)—not
directly relevant here—set limits on the maximum allowable
increases for two specific NAAQS pollutants, sulfur dioxide and
particulate matter. Subsection (4) is a catchall provision, which
limits the maximum allowable increases for all other NAAQS
pollutants. It is in subsection (4) that Industry Petitioners find
what they believe is their payoff: the terms “any air pollutant”
and “any area to which this part applies” in conjunction with one
another. Section 163(b)(4) provides:
The maximum allowable concentration of any air pollutant
in any area to which this part applies shall not exceed a
concentration for such pollutant for each period of exposure
67
equal to—
(A) the concentration permitted under the national
secondary ambient air quality standard, or
(B) the concentration permitted under the national
primary ambient air quality standard,
whichever concentration is lowest for such pollutant for
such period of exposure.
42 U.S.C. § 7473(b)(4) (emphasis added). As Industry
Petitioners correctly point out, in this context the phrase “any air
pollutant” must mean “any NAAQS pollutant,” and “in any area
to which this part applies” must mean “any area that is in
attainment for that NAAQS pollutant.” After all, the statute
states that the “maximum allowable concentration of any air
pollutant . . . shall not exceed” either the primary or secondary
national ambient air quality standards. But, as Industry
Petitioners observe, national ambient air standards exist only for
NAAQS pollutants, so even if “any air pollutant” in CAA
§ 163(b)(4) was read to include non-NAAQS pollutants, the
phrase, in context, would have no practical effect for those
pollutants. Moreover, “any area to which this part applies” must
mean “any area that is in attainment for that NAAQS pollutant,”
because if an area was in nonattainment for a particular
pollutant, Part D—rather than the PSD program—would govern
emissions limits for that specific pollutant. See id. § 7501(2)
(“[t]he term ‘nonattainment area’ means, for any air pollutant,
an area which is designated ‘nonattainment’ with respect to that
pollutant”); § 7502(c) (setting out required “Nonattainment plan
provisions”). Finally, Industry Petitioners correctly note that a
pollutant-specific reading of the phrase “air pollutant” must also
apply to CAA § 165(a)(3)(A), which prohibits PSD permittees
from “caus[ing], or contribut[ing] to, air pollution in excess of
any . . . maximum allowable concentration for any air pollutant
in any area to which this part applies more than one time per
year.” Id. § 7475(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). This clause, as
68
Industry Petitioners point out, piggybacks off the NAAQS
pollutant-specific definition of “maximum allowable
concentration” in § 163(b)(4), prophylactically restricting PSD
permittees from endangering an area’s attainment status. See
Am. Chemistry Council Br. 32 (describing the interplay between
the two provisions as “Section 163(b)(4) (and Section
165(a)(3)(A), which implements it) . . .”).
Based on all of this, Industry Petitioners conclude that
because the phrase “any air pollutant in any area to which this
part applies” in § 163(b)(4) means “any NAAQS pollutant in
any area in attainment for that NAAQS pollutant,” an identical
reading must apply to the definition of “major emitting facility.”
As a result, a stationary source may be subject to the PSD
program only if it emits 100/250 tpy of any NAAQS pollutant
and is located in an area designated as in attainment for that
NAAQS pollutant. We are unpersuaded.
Although we agree that the term “any air pollutant” is, in
some contexts, capable of narrower interpretations, we see
nothing in the definition of “major emitting facility” that would
allow EPA to adopt a NAAQS pollutant-specific reading of that
phrase. The contrast with the visibility program is instructive.
There, EPA determined that “any pollutant” in the definition of
“major stationary source” meant “any visibility-impairing
pollutant.” See 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Y, § II.A. But as EPA
notes, the entire visibility program, codified in CAA Part C,
Subpart 2, deals with visibility-impairing pollutants, as reflected
in that subpart’s title: “Visibility Protection.” See 42 U.S.C.
prec. § 7491. From this, “it naturally follows that EPA’s
regulations under that section should address ‘visibility-
impairing pollutants.’ ” EPA Timing & Tailoring Br. 99 n.19.
No similar guidance can be garnered from Part C, Subpart 1,
which contains the phrase “any air pollutant” at issue here.
Dealing with far more than NAAQS pollutants, Part C, Subpart
69
1 requires, for example, covered sources to install BACT for
“each pollutant subject to regulation under [the CAA].” 42
U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4). Indeed, Subpart 1 is simply—and
expansively—entitled “Clean Air.” Id. prec. § 7470. Moreover,
Congress designed the PSD program broadly to protect against
“adverse effect[s]” on “public health and welfare,” Id.
§ 7470(1), including effects on global problems like weather and
climate. Id. § 7602(h).
Furthermore, the phrases “any air pollutant” and “in any
area to which this part applies” are used differently in Section
163(b)(4) and in the PSD program’s definition of “major
emitting facility.” The presumption that “[a] term appearing in
several places in a statutory text is generally read the same way
each time it appears,” Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135,
143 (1994), “readily yields whenever there is such variation in
the connection in which the words are used as reasonably to
warrant the conclusion that they were employed in different
parts of the act with different intent,” Atl. Cleans & Dryers, Inc.
v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1933). Here, the focus and
structure of § 163(b)(4) is entirely distinct from the PSD
permitting trigger. Section 163(b)(4) provides that “[t]he
maximum allowable concentration of any air pollutant in any
area to which this part applies shall not exceed a [particular]
concentration.” 42 U.S.C. § 7473(b)(4). By contrast, § 165(a)
provides that “[n]o major emitting facility . . . may be
constructed in any area to which this part applies” unless certain
conditions are met, id. § 7475(a), and § 169(1) defines “major
emitting facility” as any stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit threshold amounts of “any air pollutant,” id. §
7479(1). The differences between these two provisions are
manifest. In § 163(b)(4), the phrases “any air pollutant” and “in
any area to which this part applies” appear next to one another,
and it is the concentration of the pollutant in an area that
matters. In the PSD permitting trigger, the phrases appear in
70
different subsections and it is the location of the facility that
matters. Section 163(b)(4) thus does nothing to undermine the
unambiguous meaning of “any air pollutant” in the definition of
“major emitting facility.”
Industry Petitioners’ pollutant-specific reading of “any air
pollutant” is further undermined by contrasting Part C of the Act
(the PSD program) with Part D (which regulates areas in
nonattainment). Unlike Part C, Part D is expressly pollutant-
specific, providing that “[t]he term ‘nonattainment area’ means,
for any air pollutant, an area which is designated
‘nonattainment’ with respect to that pollutant.” Id. § 7501(2)
(emphasis added). Congress thus clearly knew how to
promulgate a narrow, pollutant-specific definition of “any air
pollutant.” That it did so in Part D but not in Part C strongly
suggests that the phrase “any air pollutant” in Part C was meant
to be construed broadly. Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S.
200, 208 (1993) (“[W]here Congress includes particular
language in one section of a statute but omits it in another . . . ,
it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and
purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”) (quoting
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983)).
A final point: Industry Petitioners observe that every area
in the country has always been in attainment for at least one
NAAQS criteria pollutant. See Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at
31,561. Thus, pursuant to EPA’s pollutant-indifferent reading of
§ 165(a), under which a major emitting facility must abide by
PSD requirements so long as it is located in an attainment area
for any NAAQS pollutant, every facility in the United States has
always been in an “area to which this part applies.”
Consequently, Industry Petitioners argue, “[i]f EPA’s
interpretation were right, Congress simply could have left out
the phrase ‘in any area to which this part applies’” in the PSD
permitting trigger. Am. Chemistry Council Br. 36. But
71
“Congress does not enact ‘stillborn’ laws,” id. (quoting Sosa v.
Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 714 (2004)), and interpretations
that render statutory language superfluous are disfavored. Am.
Chemistry Council Reply Br. 19. The fact that the PSD program
has applied nationwide since its inception, Industry Petitioners
conclude, thus militates against EPA’s pollutant-indifferent
approach.
This argument fails at its premise, for Industry Petitioners
confuse a lack of practical import with a lack of meaning. To
say that the phrase “in any area to which this part applies” is
currently without practical import is quite different than showing
that the phrase means nothing. Indeed, under different
circumstances, the phrase would have a significant effect. If,
hypothetically, one area of the country was designated as
“nonattainment” for every NAAQS pollutant, the phrase “in any
area to which this part applies” would limit PSD coverage, as
covered sources in that area would be subject only to Part D
requirements. In fact, Environmental Intervenors point out that
when Congress drafted the PSD permitting triggers “the
prospect that some areas could be in nonattainment for all
NAAQS was not far-fetched.” Sierra Club Historic Reg. Br. 23.
“In the years leading up to 1977, EPA air quality data identified
a number of areas that failed to meet all five of the then-current
[air quality standards] for which EPA had gathered data.” Id.
Accordingly, “in any area to which this part applies” is a
meaningful phrase under EPA’s pollutant-indifferent
interpretation of the PSD permitting triggers: it provides that
sources need not obtain PSD permits if they are located in areas
designated “nonattainment” for all six NAAQS pollutants.
In short, although we agree with Industry Petitioners that
phrases like “any air pollutant” are, in certain contexts, capable
of a more limited meaning, they have failed to identify any
reasons that the phrase should be read narrowly here. Nor do we
72
know of one. We thus conclude that EPA’s 34-year-old
interpretation of the PSD permitting triggers is statutorily
compelled: a source must obtain a permit if it emits major
amounts of any regulated pollutant and is located in an area that
is in attainment or unclassifiable for any NAAQS pollutant.
3.
We can quickly dispose of Industry Petitioners’ third
alternative interpretation, namely, that in order to regulate new
pollutants through the PSD program, EPA was required to go
through the process prescribed by CAA § 166. Section 166
provides specific steps that EPA must take when designating
new “pollutants for which national ambient air quality
standards” apply. 42 U.S.C. § 7476(a). Here, Industry
Petitioners argue, EPA unlawfully failed to follow the steps laid
out in Section 166, including a required study of the pollutant
and a one-year delay before the effective date of regulations,
before adding greenhouse gases “to the PSD [c]onstellation.”
Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 41.
This argument fails on its face. By its terms, § 166 applies
only to new “pollutants for which national ambient air quality
standards” apply, 42 U.S.C. § 7476(a) (emphasis added), i.e.,
NAAQS criteria pollutants for which regions may be classified
as in “attainment,” “non-attainment,” or “unclassifiable.” And
EPA never classified greenhouse gases as a NAAQS criteria
pollutant. Instead, it simply determined that under § 165, major
emitters of greenhouse gases are subject to the PSD program and
all covered sources must install BACT for greenhouse gases.
Contrary to Industry Petitioners’ arguments, then, § 166 has no
bearing on this addition of greenhouse gases into “the PSD
[c]onstellation.” Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing &
Tailoring Br. 41. Indeed, we rejected a nearly identical argument
in Alabama Power, holding that there is “no implied or apparent
73
conflict between sections 165 and 166; nor . . . must the
requirements of section 165 be ‘subsumed’ with those of section
166.” Alabama Power, 636 F.2d at 406. Stating what should
have been obvious from the text of the statute, we concluded:
“[S]ection 166 has a different focus from section 165.” Id.
Thus, because EPA has never classified greenhouse gases
as a NAAQS criteria pollutant, the § 166 requirements are
entirely inapplicable here. This section of the CAA has
absolutely no bearing on our conclusion that EPA’s
interpretation of the PSD permitting trigger is compelled by the
statute itself.
VI.
Having concluded that the CAA requires PSD and Title V
permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases, we turn to
Petitioners’ challenges to the Tailoring and Timing Rules
themselves.
As an initial matter, we note that Petitioners fail to make
any real arguments against the Timing Rule. To be sure, at one
point State Petitioners contend that the Timing Rule constitutes
an attempt “to extend the PSD and Title V permitting
requirements to greenhouse-gas emissions,” State Pet’rs’ Timing
& Tailoring Br. 67. This is plainly incorrect. As discussed in the
previous section, greenhouse gases are regulated under PSD and
Title V pursuant to automatic operation of the CAA. All the
Timing Rule did was delay the applicability of these programs,
providing that major emitters of greenhouse gases would be
subject to PSD and Title V permitting requirements only once
the Tailpipe Rule actually took effect on January 2, 2011. See
Timing Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 17,017-19. Despite this,
Petitioners confusingly urge us to vacate “[t]he Tailoring and
Timing Rules,” e.g. State Pet’rs’ Timing & Tailoring Br. 24
74
(emphasis added), although it is unclear what practical effect
vacature of the Timing Rule would have. Nonetheless, given this
phrasing of their argument, and given our conclusion that
Petitioners lack Article III standing to challenge both rules, we
shall, where appropriate, discuss the Timing Rule in conjunction
with the Tailoring Rule.
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA announced that it was “relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of
this rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources.” Tailoring
Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,516. Although the PSD statute requires
permits for sources with the potential to emit 100/250 tpy of
“any air pollutant,” 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1), EPA noted that
immediate application of that threshold to greenhouse gas-
emitting sources would cause permit applications to jump from
280 per year to over 81,000 per year. Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed.
Reg. at 31,554. Many of these applications would come from
commercial and residential sources, which would “each incur,
on average, almost $60,000 in PSD permitting expenses.” Id. at
31,556. Similarly, if the Title V 100 tpy threshold applied
immediately to greenhouse gases, sources needing operating
permits would jump from 14,700 per year to 6.1 million per
year. Id. at 31,562. “The great majority of these sources would
be small commercial and residential sources” which “would
incur, on average, expenses of $23,175.” Id. And were
permitting authorities required to hire the 230,000 full-time
employees necessary to address these permit applications,
“authorities would face over $21 billion in additional permitting
costs each year due to [greenhouse gases], compared to the
current program cost of $62 million each year.” Id. at 31,563.
Thus, instead of immediately requiring permits for all
sources exceeding the 100/250 tpy emissions threshold, EPA
decided to “phas[e] in the applicability of these programs to
[greenhouse gas] sources, starting with the largest [greenhouse
75
gas] emitters.” Id. at 31,514. The Tailoring Rule established the
first two steps in this phased-in process. During Step One, only
sources that were “subject to PSD requirements for their
conventional pollutants anyway” (i.e., those sources that
exceeded the statutory emissions threshold for non-greenhouse
gas pollutants) were required to install BACT for their
greenhouse gas emissions. Id. at 31,567. Step Two, which took
effect on July 1, 2011, also requires PSD permits for sources
with the potential to emit over 100,000 tpy CO2e after a
proposed construction project, or 75,000 tpy CO2e after a
proposed modification project. Id. at 31,523. Step Two further
requires Title V permits for sources which have the potential to
emit over 100,000 tpy CO2e. Id. at 31,516. EPA has since
proposed—but has yet to finalize—a “Step Three,” which would
maintain the current thresholds while the agency evaluates the
possibility of regulating smaller sources. See EPA’s 28(j) Letter
1-2, February 27, 2012.
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA justified its phased-in approach
on three interrelated grounds, each of which rests on a distinct
doctrine of administrative law. First, EPA concluded “the costs
to sources and administrative burdens . . . that would result from
[immediate] application of the PSD and title V programs . . .at
the statutory levels . . . should be considered ‘absurd results,’”
which Congress never intended. Id. at 31,517; see Am. Water
Works Ass’n v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
(“[W]here a literal reading of a statutory term would lead to
absurd results, the term simply has no meaning . . and is the
proper subject of construction by EPA and the courts.”). Thus,
under the “absurd results” doctrine, EPA concluded that the PSD
and Title V programs “should not [immediately] be read to
apply to all [greenhouse gas] sources at or above the 100/250
tpy threshold.” Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,554. Second,
emphasizing that immediate regulation at the 100/250 tpy
threshold would cause tremendous administrative burden, EPA
76
justified its deviation from this threshold on the basis of the
“administrative necessity” doctrine. Id. at 31,576; see Envtl. Def.
Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 636 F.2d 1267, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“[A]n
agency may depart from the requirements of a regulatory statute
. . . to cope with the administrative impossibility of applying the
commands of the substantive statute.”). Finally, asserting that
there exists a judicial doctrine that allows agencies to implement
regulatory programs in a piecemeal fashion, EPA stated that the
Tailoring Rule was justified pursuant to this “one-step-at-a-
time” doctrine. Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,578; see
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 524 (“Agencies, like
legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one
fell regulatory swoop.”).
Petitioners—particularly State Petitioners—argue that none
of these doctrines permit EPA to “depart unilaterally from the
[CAA’s] permitting thresholds and replace them with numbers
of its own choosing.” State Pet’rs’ Timing & Tailoring Br. 29.
Admitting the “lamentable policy consequences of adhering to
the unambiguous numerical thresholds in the Clean Air Act,”
State Petitioners rather colorfully argue that EPA’s attempts to
alleviate those burdens “establish only that EPA is acting as a
benevolent dictator rather than a tyrant.” Id. at 26. And because
EPA exceeded the boundaries of its lawful authority, Petitioners
urge us to vacate the Tailoring Rule.
Before we may address the merits of these claims, however,
we must determine whether we have jurisdiction. “No
principle,” the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, “is
more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of
government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court
jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Raines v. Byrd,
521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The doctrine of standing “is an essential and unchanging part of
the case-or-controversy requirement.” Lujan v. Defenders of
77
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To establish standing, a
petitioner must have suffered an “injury in fact” that is 1)
“concrete and particularized . . . [and] actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical,” 2) was caused by the conduct
complained of, and 3) is “likely, as opposed to merely
speculative [to] be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at
560–61 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Petitioners fall far short of these “irreducible constitutional
. . . elements” of standing, id. at 560. Simply put, Petitioners
have failed to establish that the Timing and Tailoring Rules
caused them “injury in fact,” much less injury that could be
redressed by the Rules’ vacatur. Industry Petitioners contend
that they are injured because they are subject to regulation of
greenhouse gases, Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing &
Tailoring Br. 14. State Petitioners claim injury because they own
some regulated sources and because they now carry a heavier
administrative burden. State Pet’rs’ Timing & Tailoring Br.
22–23. But as discussed above, see supra Part V, the CAA
mandates PSD and Title V coverage for major emitters of
greenhouse gases. Thus, Industry Petitioners were regulated and
State Petitioners required to issue permits not because of
anything EPA did in the Timing and Tailoring Rules, but by
automatic operation of the statute. Given this, neither the Timing
nor Tailoring Rules caused the injury Petitioners allege: having
to comply with PSD and Title V for greenhouse gases.
Indeed, the Timing and Tailoring Rules actually mitigate
Petitioners’ purported injuries. Without the Timing Rule,
Petitioners may well have been subject to PSD and Title V for
greenhouse gases before January 2, 2011. Without the Tailoring
Rule, an even greater number of industry and state-owned
sources would be subject to PSD and Title V, and state
authorities would be overwhelmed with millions of additional
permit applications. Thus, Petitioners have failed to “show that,
78
absent the government’s allegedly unlawful actions, there is a
substantial probability that they would not be injured and that,
if the court affords the relief requested, the injury will be
removed.” Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192, 201
(D.C. Cir. 2011) (quotations and alterations omitted). Far from
it. If anything, vacature of the Tailoring Rule would
significantly exacerbate Petitioners’ injuries.
Attempting to remedy this obvious jurisdictional defect,
State Petitioners present two alternative theories, neither of
which comes close to meeting the “irreducible
constitutional . . . elements” of standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
First, State Petitioners counterintuitively suggest that they
actually want EPA to immediately “appl[y] the 100/250 tpy
permitting thresholds to greenhouse-gas emissions.” State
Pet’rs’ Timing & Tailoring Reply Br. 15. Admitting that
vacature of the Tailoring Rule would result in astronomical costs
and unleash chaos on permitting authorities, State Petitioners
predict that Congress will be forced to enact “corrective
legislation” to relieve the overwhelming permitting burdens on
permitting authorities and sources, thus mitigating their
purported injuries. Id.
This theory fails. To establish standing, plaintiffs must
demonstrate that it is “likely, as opposed to merely speculative,
that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision,” Lujan,
504 U.S. at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted), but here,
State Petitioners simply hypothesize that Congress will enact
“corrective legislation.” State Pet’rs’ Timing & Tailoring Reply
Br. 15. We have serious doubts as to whether, for standing
purposes, it is ever “likely” that Congress will enact legislation
at all. After all, a proposed bill must make it through committees
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and garner
a majority of votes in both chambers—overcoming, perhaps, a
filibuster in the Senate. If passed, the bill must then be signed
79
into law by the President, or go back to Congress so that it may
attempt to override his veto. As a generation of schoolchildren
knows, “by that time, it’s very unlikely that [a bill will] become
a law. It’s not easy to become a law.” Schoolhouse Rock, I’m
Just a Bill, at 2:41, available at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7266360872513258
185# (last visited June 1, 2012).
And even if the astronomical costs associated with a
100/250 tpy permitting threshold make some Congressional
action likely, State Petitioners are still unable to show that it is
“likely, as opposed to merely speculative,” Lujan, 504 U.S. at
561, that Congress will redress their injury. State Petitioners
apparently assume that if the 100/250 tpy permitting threshold
was immediately applied to greenhouse gases, Congress would
exempt those pollutants from the PSD and Title V programs
entirely. But this is just one of many forms “corrective
legislation” could take. For example, were we to vacate the
Tailoring Rule, Congress could decide to readopt its key
provisions in the PSD and Title V statutes. Or it could set PSD
and Title V permitting thresholds at 25,000 tpy for greenhouse
gases—higher than the 100/250 tpy threshold, but lower (and
thus more costly to Petitioners) than the thresholds promulgated
in the Tailoring Rule. Or it could do something else entirely. All
of this is guesswork, which is precisely the point: State
Petitioners’ faith that Congress will alleviate their injury is
inherently speculative.
State Petitioners’ second alternative theory of standing fares
no better. In their reply brief, they contend that even if vacating
the Timing or Tailoring Rules would indeed exacerbate their
costs and administrative burdens (the purported injuries they
claimed in their opening brief), “then State Petitioners can
establish Article III standing under Massachusetts by asserting
injuries caused by EPA’s failure to regulate sooner.” State
80
Pet’rs’ Timing & Tailoring Reply Br. 5. Essentially, State
Petitioners’ reply brief contends that, contrary to the position
taken in the opening brief, they want more regulation, not less,
and that they wanted regulation sooner rather than later. And
because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had standing to
seek regulation of greenhouse gases in Massachusetts v. EPA,
State Petitioners argue that they now have standing to seek more
regulation of greenhouse gases as well.
This argument is completely without merit. As an initial
matter, we are aware of no authority which permits a party to
assert an entirely new injury (and thus, an entirely new theory of
standing) in its reply brief. Quite to the contrary, we have held
that, where standing is not self-evident, “[i]n its opening brief,
the petitioner should . . . include . . . a concise recitation of the
basis upon which it claims standing.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292
F.3d 895, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added); see also D.C.
Cir. R. 28(a)(7) (“[i]n cases involving direct review in this court
of administrative actions, the brief of the appellant or petitioner
must set forth the basis for the claim of standing.”); American
Library Ass’n v. FCC, 401 F.3d 489, 493–94 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
(discussing limitations on this principle). After all, “it is often
the case . . . that some of the relevant facts are known only to the
petitioner, to the exclusion of both the respondent and the
court.” Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 901. If “the petitioner does not
submit evidence of those facts with its opening brief,” the
respondent is “left to flail at the unknown in an attempt to prove
the negative.” Id. This principle is particularly important here,
for State Petitioners’ asserted fear of global warming stands in
stark contrast to the position they took throughout this litigation.
In an earlier brief, for example, they characterized the
Endangerment Finding as “a subjective conviction” State Pet’rs’
Endangerment Br. 19, “supported by highly uncertain climate
forecasts,” id. at 18, and “offer[ing] no criteria for determining
a harmful, as opposed to a safe, climate,” id. at 17. Given this,
81
EPA could not possibly have anticipated that State Petitioners,
abruptly donning what they themselves call “an
environmentalist hat,” State Pet’rs’ Timing & Tailoring Reply
Br. 4, would assert that global warming causes them concrete
and particularized harm.
In any event, State Petitioners fail to cite any record
evidence to suggest that they are adversely affected by global
climate change. This is in stark contrast to the evidence put
forward in Massachusetts v. EPA, where the Commonwealth
submitted unchallenged affidavits and declarations showing that
1) rising sea tides due to global warming had “already begun to
swallow Massachusetts’ coastal land,” and 2) “[t]he severity of
that injury will only increase over the course of the next
century.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 522–23. These
specific, factual submissions were key to the standing analysis
in Massachusetts v. EPA: the Court held that “petitioners’
submissions as they pertain to Massachusetts have satisfied the
most demanding standards of the adversarial process.” Id. at 521
(emphasis added). It is true, as State Petitioners emphasize, that
the Supreme Court held that states are “entitled to special
solicitude in our standing analysis.” Id. at 522. But nothing in
the Court’s opinion remotely suggests that states are somehow
exempt from the burden of establishing a concrete and
particularized injury in fact. State Petitioners, like Industry
Petitioners, failed to do so here. We shall thus dismiss all
challenges to the Timing and Tailoring Rules for lack of
jurisdiction.
VII.
Following promulgation of the Timing and Tailoring Rules,
EPA issued a series of rules ordering states to revise their PSD
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to accommodate greenhouse
gas regulation. See Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits
82
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy and SIP Call, 75 Fed. Reg. 53,892 (Sept. 2, 2010),
75 Fed. Reg. 77,698 (Dec. 13, 2010); Action to Ensure Authority
to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation
Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases, 75 Fed. Reg.
81,874 (Dec. 29, 2010). Industry Petitioners present several
challenges to these SIP-related rules. But our review in this case
is limited to four EPA decisions: the Endangerment Finding, the
Tailpipe Rule, and the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus lack
jurisdiction over the SIP-related rules. Moreover, challenges to
these rules are currently pending in at least two separate cases
before this court. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No.
11-1037 (consolidating various challenges); Texas v. EPA, No.
10-1425 (challenge brought by Texas). We decline Industry
Petitioners’ invitation to rule on the merits of cases which are
properly before different panels.
VIII.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss all petitions for
review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the
remainder of the petitions.
So ordered.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "FreeLaw"
}
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was exposed for her blatant push to include abortion funding in the emergency coronavirus bill.
Senior White House officials alleged that the California Democrat attempted to get “several” provisions added to the bipartisan plan while in negotiations with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, according to The Daily Caller.
While the liberal media skewed the narrative by claiming House Republicans were to blame for the delay in the coronavirus economic stimulus plan because of demands to “include Hyde amendment language,” it was actually Pelosi who was pushing for a mandate for up to $1 billion to reimburse claims made by laboratories.
“A new mandatory funding stream that does not have Hyde protections would be unprecedented,” a White House official told the Daily Caller, referring to the amendment which blocks federal funding to clinics that perform abortions.
Notice how this is framed. “GOP demands to include Hyde amendment language.” In reality, GOP demands Pelosi and Democrats don’t be ghouls and try to sneak in abortion funds to sneak around Hyde Amendment. Holy shit our media sucks. https://t.co/Lo1Pv9JcfT — Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) March 12, 2020
The provision was described as a “slush fund” by one White House official speaking to the news site while another reportedly asked “what the Hyde Amendment and abortion have to do with protecting Americans from coronavirus,” which was echoed by MSNBC’s Joy Reid.
Wow… @kasie just reported that Republicans’ objections to the House Democrats’ emergency coronavirus bill include issues related to abortion. What does that have to do with COVID19…? — Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) March 12, 2020
“You should ask Nancy Pelosi why she decided to play politics and strong arm abortion funding into the coronavirus bill,” the Daily Caller’s Greg Price tweeted in response.
Others also slammed the attempts to sneak in the provisions while the media spun a false narrative about the GOP opposition to the bill.
As if the baby murder didn’t make it obvious enough, YOU GUYS ARE SO EVIL. Pelosi tries to sneak in $1B of our tax dollars to fund abortion. If y’all really cared about people dying of coronavirus, nothing about abortion would be included. https://t.co/eoOapiJ4cL — Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) March 12, 2020
Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko gave an update on the negotiations while calling out Pelosi’s strategy.
Speaker Pelosi dropped a totally partisan coronavirus bill at the eleventh hour and snuck in provisions that have nothing to do with #COVIDー19. We all care about fighting this disease, preventing its spread, & protecting Americans. We must put politics aside and work together. pic.twitter.com/I2pJK6D5Ev — Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (@RepDLesko) March 12, 2020
While President Trump promised to sign any stimulus bill that Congress approved, Republicans and the White House openly opposed the House proposal and called for more time to address questionable issues.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called for a new draft over the next 24-48 hours, and tweeted a video montage showing his remarks against Pelosi’s petulant outburst at her weekly press conference.
We owe it to the American people to get this right, and I am confident that if we come together as adults, we can act responsibly in the next 48 hours. But a “my way or the highway” approach is not the right way to handle a serious health epidemic. pic.twitter.com/bDWd0G8ug0 — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 12, 2020
“We don’t need 48 hours, we need to just make a decision to help families right now… I’m not sticking around because they don’t want to agree to language,” the congresswoman said defiantly in response to a question about whether House Democrats would put off a recess if a compromise on the coronavirus response bill is not reached in the next 24-48 hours.
Lawmakers called out the Democrat leader and exposed the bill which Rep. Steve Scalise said was “full of liberal fantasies that have nothing to do” with the coronavirus crisis.
Pelosi wasted the whole week behind closed doors drafting a partisan bill full of liberal fantasies that have nothing to do w/ Coronavirus. Republicans are ready to work w/ Dems on SERIOUS solutions. Now is not the time for politics. Pelosi needs to stop the games & work w/ us. — Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) March 12, 2020
Donald Trump Jr. reacted in a tweet accusing Democrats of “trying to create an abortion slush fund.”
This pretty much sums everything up: @realDonaldTrump is moving quickly to protect Americans from coronavirus and its economic impact… Democrats are spending their time trying to create an abortion slush fund! https://t.co/oFSxOLDBQj — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 12, 2020
Others also expressed their frustration over the political games.
What does it say about the radical Democratic Party that Pelosi would bring up a bill to limit the President’s ability to control disease carriers from coming into the United States in the middle of a pandemic. How many Americans is Pelosi willing to sacrifice to her ideology. — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 12, 2020
Can you believe Pelosi is loading the Coronavirus bill down with pork? — Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) March 12, 2020
Pelosi wanted to sneak in a billion dollars in funding for abortion programs through the coronavirus stimulus package. Don’t ever tell me the Democrats aren’t politicizing this situation. https://t.co/uuaqmzshfj — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 12, 2020
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
312 B.R. 258 (2004)
In re AXISTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Novo Networks Global Services, Inc., Novo Networks International Services, Inc., e.Volve Technology Group, Inc., Novo Networks Operating Corp. Novo Networks Metro Services, Inc., Debtors.
Novo Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff,
v.
Forval, Defendant.
Bankruptcy No. 01-10005(JBR). Adversary No. 03-53996(PBL).
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware.
July 26, 2004.
*259 Jeffrey M. Schlerf, Gary F. Seitz, The Bayard Firm, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey R. Waxman, Cozen O'Connor, Chase Manhattan Centre, Wilmington, DE, Michael McLaughlin, Wasserman, Jurista & Stolz, P.C., Millburn, NJ, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
PAUL B. LINDSEY, Bankruptcy Judge.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, successor to various rights and duties of Debtors under their confirmed Chapter 11 Plan,[1] brought this adversary proceeding by filing its complaint on June 27, 2003, seeking to avoid and recover certain transfers of property and prepetition *260 setoffs pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 553 and 550.[2] Defendant filed its answer, essentially denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting certain affirmative defenses. After court-ordered mediation was unsuccessful, a pre-trial conference was held and a scheduling order was entered to govern further pre-trial proceedings.
On April 22, 2004, Plaintiff filed its motion for leave to amend its complaint. On May 12, 2004, Defendant filed its response, objecting to the relief sought by Plaintiff.
A hearing was held before this Court on July 15, 2004, at the conclusion of which the Court took the contested matter of Plaintiffs motion and Defendant's response under advisement.
THE ISSUES
In its original complaint Plaintiffs sought: (i) to avoid an alleged preferential transfer in the amount of $24,714.15; (ii) to avoid four (4) allegedly preferential setoffs in the total amount of $477,286.63; and (iii) to recover the amount of the avoided transfer and setoffs, a total of $502,000.78.
In its proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff retains the original allegations with regard to the transfer, setoffs and the recovery thereof. Plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint two additional counts seeking alternative relief. First, Plaintiff seeks the turnover of amounts due and owing under outstanding pre-petition invoices issued by Debtors to Defendant in the total amount of $137,375.96. In a separate count, Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to a post-petition letter agreement purporting to resolve pre-petition business transactions between the parties that was not approved by the Bankruptcy Court, a transfer of property of the bankruptcy estate was effected in the amount of "around $128,000."[3] It is asserted that such transfer was in violation of the automatic stay provisions of § 362, that the transfer was void, and that Plaintiff is entitled to avoid and recover the value of such transfer pursuant to §§ 362 and 549. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint by seeking judgment against Defendant in the amount of "$628,000 as near as can presently be determined," with pre-judgment interest and costs.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint under the authority of Rule 15, Fed. R.Civ.P., made applicable to this adversary proceeding by Rule 7015, Fed. R. Bankr.P. Under Rule 15, leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).
Plaintiff asserts that there is a general presumption in favor of allowing amendment, citing Boileau v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 730 F.2d 929, 938 (3d Cir.1984). It is also urged that the standard to be applied in ruling on a Rule 15(a) motion to amend has been set out by the Supreme Court and routinely applied in the Third Circuit and in this court, as follows:
In the absence of any apparent or declared reasonsuch as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, *261 undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.the leave sought, should, as the rules require, be "freely given." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Heyl & Patterson Intern., Inc. v. F.D. Rich Housing, 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018, 102 S.Ct. 1714, 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 405, 408 (D.Del.1987).
Plaintiff contends that none of the bases for denial of a motion to amend is present here and that leave to amend should be granted in order to "allow all claims against [Defendant] to be heard on the merits."(Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, ¶ 21)
Defendant objects to Plaintiffs motion, primarily asserting undue delay. Defendant recites numerous attempts to obtain documentation from Plaintiff concerning the offsets described in the complaint and notes that a copy of the February 25, 2002 letter agreement referred to above was provided to Plaintiff in a letter dated October 1, 2003. Defendant contends that the filing of the motion for leave to amend more than ten months after the filing of the complaint, six months after the February 25, 2002 letter agreement was first provided to Plaintiff, two months after the unsuccessful conclusion of mediation, and after the commencement of discovery, constituted undue delay. Alternatively, Defendant asserts that amendment of the complaint to avoid transfers pursuant to § 549 should not be allowed because such an amendment would be futile as the statute of limitations for filing an action under § 549 has expired.[4]
Plaintiff requests that the amendment to the complaint relate back to the date of the original filing of the complaint,[5] effectively avoiding the application of the § 549(d) statute of limitations. Plaintiff contends that Rule 15(c)(2) is applicable. It is clear, however, that the outstanding, unpaid prepetition invoices of Debtors to Defendant and the February 25, 2002 letter agreement were entirely separate from the single specific transfer and the four specified setoff transactions described in the original complaint. Thus, relation back under Rule 15(c)(2) is not appropriate.
At the hearing on the motion, Plaintiff contended, and Defendant appeared to concede, that as to Plaintiffs proposed § 362 claim, no statute of limitations is applicable, and that Plaintiff therefore could simply file a separate adversary proceeding to assert that claim if it is not permitted to amend its complaint herein.
It is this Court's view that the delay in this case in seeking leave to amend has not been "undue" and that no bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of Plaintiff has been established. Furthermore, the Defendant has not established that it will be unduly prejudiced by the allowance of the amendment. In fact, the only prejudice asserted by Defendant was the possible need for additional discovery. However, discovery is not complete in this case, so any additional discovery should not be burdensome *262 and it does not appear likely that significant additional discovery will be necessary. In these circumstances, this Court is governed by the teaching of Rule 15(a), that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires."
However, this Court agrees with Defendant's contention that amendments should not be permitted to assert a § 549 post petition claim. Any such amendment would be futile, since the filing of the post petition claim under § 549 was barred by § 549(d) after February 25, 2004, two years after the date of the transfer sought to be avoided. The Court has previously noted that the new claims contained in the amended complaint did not arise out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, and that therefore the amendment of the complaint should not relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. Thus, any § 549 claim asserted in the amended complaint would be vulnerable to a motion to dismiss and the amendment would be futile.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion of Plaintiff Novo Liquidating Trust for Leave to Amend the Complaint be, and the same is hereby granted, provided, however, that the amendment of the complaint shall not assert any claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 549.
NOTES
[1] AxisTel Communication, Inc., Novo Networks Global Services, Inc., Novo Networks International Services, Inc., e.Volve Technology Group, Inc., and Novo Networks Operating Corp. filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 30, 2001. Novo Networks Metro Services, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for relief on September 14, 2001. The cases were jointly administered and a joint Chapter 11 Plan was confirmed on March 14, 2002, to be effective on April 3, 2002.
[2] References to statutory provisions by section number alone, unless otherwise specified, will be to provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
[3] The agreement in question, attached to the amended complaint, was entered into on February 25, 2002. In it, $128,091.69 of Defendant's pre-petition invoices and other disputed items were netted against $137,375.96 of outstanding pre-petition invoices issued by Debtors to Defendant, resulting in the apparent payment by Defendant to Debtors of the balance, $9,284.27.
[4] Section 549(d) provides that an action to avoid a transfer under that section may not be commenced after the earlier of two years after the date of the transfer sought to be avoided, or the time the case is closed or dismissed.
[5] An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when, inter alia, the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "FreeLaw"
}
|
/*
* File : TrackerWebPageRequestImpl.java
* Created : 08-Dec-2003
* By : parg
*
* Azureus - a Java Bittorrent client
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details ( see the LICENSE file ).
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
*/
package org.gudy.azureus2.pluginsimpl.local.tracker;
/**
* @author parg
*
*/
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.net.InetSocketAddress;
import java.net.URL;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import org.gudy.azureus2.plugins.tracker.*;
import org.gudy.azureus2.plugins.tracker.web.*;
public class
TrackerWebPageRequestImpl
implements TrackerWebPageRequest
{
private Tracker tracker;
private TrackerWebContext context;
private InetSocketAddress client_address;
private String user;
private String url;
private URL absolute_url;
private String header;
private InputStream is;
protected
TrackerWebPageRequestImpl(
Tracker _tracker,
TrackerWebContext _context,
InetSocketAddress _client_address,
String _user,
String _url,
URL _absolute_url,
String _header,
InputStream _is )
{
tracker = _tracker;
context = _context;
client_address = _client_address;
user = _user;
url = _url;
absolute_url = _absolute_url;
header = _header;
is = _is;
}
public Tracker
getTracker()
{
return( tracker );
}
public TrackerWebContext
getContext()
{
return( context );
}
public String
getURL()
{
return( url );
}
public URL
getAbsoluteURL()
{
return( absolute_url );
}
public String
getClientAddress()
{
return( client_address.getAddress().getHostAddress());
}
public InetSocketAddress
getClientAddress2()
{
return( client_address );
}
public String
getUser()
{
return( user );
}
public InputStream
getInputStream()
{
return( is );
}
public String
getHeader()
{
return( header );
}
public Map
getHeaders()
{
Map headers = new HashMap();
String[] header_parts = header.split("\r\n");
headers.put("status", header_parts[0].trim());
for (int i = 1;i<header_parts.length;i++) {
String[] key_value = header_parts[i].split(":",2);
headers.put(key_value[0].trim().toLowerCase(), key_value[1].trim());
}
return headers;
}
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Plant regeneration by organogenesis in Vitis rootstock species.
A procedure for the regeneration of Vitis rootstocks plantlets by organogenesis from foliar tissues is described. Leaves from mature plants grown in growth chambers or from plantlets grown in tubes were wounded with a scalpel and cultured on a modified Murashige and Skoog liquid medium containing different concentrations of benzyl-aminopurine. The presence of benzyl-aminopurine is required for shoot formation. The age of the source explant, the composition of the culture medium and the culture temperature are important parameters of the regeneration process.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
Danilo Dolci
Danilo Dolci (June 28, 1924 – December 30, 1997) was an Italian social activist, sociologist, popular educator and poet. He is best known for his opposition to poverty, social exclusion and the Mafia on Sicily, and is considered to be one of the protagonists of the non-violence movement in Italy. He became known as the "Gandhi of Sicily".
In the 1950s and 1960s, Dolci published a series of books (notably, in their English translations, To Feed the Hungry, 1955, and Waste, 1960) that stunned the outside world with their emotional force and the detail with which he depicted the desperate conditions of the Sicilian countryside and the power of the Mafia. Dolci became a kind of cult hero in the United States and Northern Europe; he was idolised, in particular by idealistic youngsters, and support committees were formed to raise funds for his projects.
In 1958 he was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize, despite being an explicit non-Communist. He was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which in 1947 received the Nobel Peace Prize along with the British Friends Service Council, now called Quaker Peace and Social Witness, on behalf of all Quakers worldwide. Among those who publicly voiced support for his efforts were Carlo Levi, Erich Fromm, Bertrand Russell, Jean Piaget, Aldous Huxley, Jean-Paul Sartre and Ernst Bloch. In Sicily, Leonardo Sciascia advocated many of his ideas. In the United States his proto-Christian idealism was absurdly confused with Communism. He was also a recipient of the 1989 Jamnalal Bajaj International Award of the Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation of India.
Early years
Danilo Dolci was born in the Karstic town of Sežana (now in Slovenia), at the time part of the Italian border region known as Julian March. His father was an agnostic Sicilian railway official, while his mother, Meli Kokelj, was a deeply Catholic local Slovene woman. The young Danilo grew up in Mussolini’s fascist state. As a teenager Dolci saw Italy enter into World War II. He worried his family by tearing down any Fascist war posters he came across.
"I had never heard the phrase 'conscientious objector'," Dolci later said, "and I had no idea there were such persons in the world, but I felt strongly that it was wrong to kill people and I was determined never to do so." He tried to escape from the authorities who suspected him of tearing down the posters, but he was caught while trying to reach Rome and ended up in jail for a short time. He refused to enlist in the army of the Republic of Salò, Mussolini's puppet state after the Allied invasion in 1943.
Dolci was inspired by the work of the Catholic priest Don Zeno Saltini (it) who had opened an orphanage for 3,000 abandoned children after World War II. It was housed in a former concentration camp at Fossoli near Modena in Emilia Romagna, and was called Nomadelphia (it): a place where fraternity is law. In 1950 Dolci quit his very promising architecture and engineering studies in Switzerland at the age of twenty-five, gave up his middle class standard of living and went to work with the poor and unfortunate. Dolci set up a similar commune called Ceffarello.
Don Zeno was being harassed by officials who felt he was a Communist, and even the Vatican turned against Don Zeno, calling him the "mad priest." The authorities decided to put the orphans into asylums and close down both Nomadelphia and Ceffarello. Dolci had to sit by and watch as government forces took off with many of the commune's children, and had to gather up all his energy in the building of a new Nomadelphia. By 1952, he was ready to move on and work elsewhere.
In Sicily
In 1952 Dolci decided to head for "the poorest place I had ever known" — the squalid fishing village of Trappeto in western Sicily about 30 km west of Palermo. During a previous visit to Sicily's Greek archaeological sites he had become acutely aware of the squalid rural poverty. Towns without electricity, running water or sewers, peopled by impoverished citizens barely surviving on the edge of starvation, largely illiterate and unemployed, suspicious of the state and ignored by their Church.
"Coming from the North, I knew I was totally ignorant," Dolci wrote later. "Looking all around me, I saw no streets, just mud and dust... I started working with masons and peasants, who kindly, gently, taught me their trades. That way my spectacles were no longer a barrier. Every day, all day, as the handle of hoe or shovel burned the blisters deeper, I learned more than any book could teach me about this people's struggle to exist..."
In Trappeto Dolci started an orphanage, helped by Vincenzina Mangano, the widow of a fisherman and trade unionist whom he rescued from penury and whose five children he adopted as his own. Later, he moved uphill to nearby Partinico, where he tried to organise landless peasants into co-operatives. Dolci started using hunger strikes, sit-down protests and non-violent demonstrations as methods to force the regional and national government to make improvements in the poverty stricken areas of the island. Eventually, he became known as the "Gandhi of Sicily", as a French journalist had dubbed him.
Peaceful protest
Throughout his career in Sicily, Dolci used methods of peaceful protest, with one of his most famous hunger strike being in November 1955, when he fasted for a week in Partinico to draw attention to the misery and violence in the area and to promote the building of a dam over the Iato River, which roared down in the winter rains and dried up in the nine arid months, that could provide irrigation for the entire valley.
One technique that he innovated was the "strike in reverse" (working without pay), which initiated unauthorized public works projects for the poor. This earned him his first notoriety in 1956, when he gathered some 150 unemployed men to mend a public road. The police called it obstruction; his helpers walked away; he lay down on the road and was arrested. Skilfully, he drummed up publicity. Famous lawyers such as Piero Calamandrei offered to defend him for free. Famous writers, such as Ignazio Silone, Alberto Moravia, Carlo Levi, among others, protested. The Palermo court acquitted Dolci and his two dozen co-defendants of resisting and insulting the police, but sentenced them to 50 days' imprisonment (time they had already served) and a 20,000 lire (US$32) fine for "having invaded ground that belonged to the government." On his release he resumed the campaign for the dam on the Iato river and work would eventually start in February 1963.
Subsequently, he started a campaign for a dam in the Belice river, to avoid the valley from becoming a wasteland and providing jobs to stop the emigration of workers. Dolci proclaimed a week of mourning and with 30 associates conducted a hunger strike in the town square of Roccamena in March 1965. He then led a delegation from mayors of 19 towns in the valley to Rome to plead for the dam, parading to Parliament carrying banners protesting that "the Belice valley is dying". In January 1968, the area was hit by an earthquake which destroyed much of the Belice valley. Dolci actively assisted victims and months after the disaster he announced demonstrations and hunger strikes to demand immediate help for homeless families living in tents. Funds for relief and reconstruction were siphoned off by greedy administrators, and "Belice" has since become an Italian by-word for political corruption.
Antimafia
Dolci became aware of the stranglehold of the Mafia upon the poor in Sicily. He did not attack the Mafia at first but he did come up against them at once challenging their monopoly of water supply with the project of the Iato River dam. Initially, his actions resulted in threats by the Mafia and disapproval of the authorities; later he became too well known in Italy and abroad to be dealt with without too much adverse publicity.
He began his crusade against the Mafia by claiming that government officials were receiving help in their elections from Cosa Nostra. Rather than making his accusations only in Sicily, he traveled to Rome to participate before the Antimafia Commission, which was established in 1963, to ensure that his worries about the Mafia in Sicily were heard. His willingness to stand up to the Mafia in his quest to improve the living conditions of Sicilians helped him to gain the confidence of the locals.
Throughout 1963 and 1964, Dolci and his assistant Franco Alasia had been gathering evidence on the links between the Mafia and politicians for the Commission. At a press conference in September 1965, they presented dozen of testimonies of people who had supposedly seen Bernardo Mattarella (father of the current President of Italy, Sergio Mattarella) and Calogero Volpe meeting with leading mafiosi. Mattarella and Volpe sued Dolci and Alasia for libel.
Tried for libel
In the ensuing two-year trial, dozens of witnesses were heard and many documents were considered. When the Court refused to allow new evidence from witnesses, Dolci and Alasia decided that the trial was a travesty. They announced that under these circumstances they would no longer attempt to defend themselves. The remainder of the trial, therefore, took place with Dolci and Alasia absent from the courtroom. Dolci responded by broadcasting his opinions over a private radio station, which was promptly closed.
On June 21, 1967, the Court of Rome determined that Mattarella had offered reliable evidence of his opposition to the Mafia in the entire course of his political career. The statements collected by the defendants – Dolci and his assistant Alasia – were considered nothing more than "deplorable gossip, malicious rumour or even simple lies." The Court was of the opinion that Mattarella "never had relations with the Mafia environment." The results of the investigation were published in 1966 in the book Chi gioca solo (The Man Who Plays Alone).
Dolci made an application for an amnesty, but was sentenced to two years imprisonment for libel along with heavy fines. Alasia received a sentence of one and a half year. They never served the verdict, because of a pardon. It would have been too scandalous to send Dolci to prison and the sentence was cancelled. Mattarella had won the trial but lost a cabinet post in the new government of Aldo Moro. In appeal the sentences were confirmed in 1973. "To each his own responsibility before today's public opinion and tomorrow's history," Dolci commented the sentence.
Popular educator
In the vein of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Dolci believed that conflicts in society were inevitable, but that any attempt to resolve conflicts by violence or other coercive means would eventually backfire. In the short run violent solutions might offer an advantage; in the long run, however, all positions depending on such dominative means would collapse in renewed violence.
Dolci became convinced that education was the key to social progress. With the money he received for the Lenin Peace Prize in 1958, he founded the Centro studi e iniziative per la piena occupazione (Center of Research and Initiatives for Full Employment) in Partinico, the village in the Palermo hinterland that had become his home, and other towns on the island. In his community work Dolci "sought concrete methods of pedagogy and conflict resolution that would pave the way for a fully democratic and non-violent society."
The centre was one of the most important examples of community development in Italy and especially in the south since World War II. It became both a form of self-organisation of local communities and a training school for a generation of socially and politically committed young people, who found their cohesion as a group and attempted to construct a process of social aggregation through the methods and instruments of active non-violence.
Dolci used the Socratic method, a dialectic method of inquiry, and "popular self-analysis" for empowerment of communities. His pedagogical methods emphasized social awareness and cultural interaction, and won him a worldwide standing. His ideas were taken up by a small but passionate group of supporters that took his methods across Sicily and into mainland Italy.
Controversy
Dolci’s life and actions stirred ample controversy. He annoyed the authorities, who often actively worked against him. Some of the locals that opposed the Iato river dam were not pleased to see the valleys flooded, and gardens and olive trees ruined. The contractors of the works eventually were either in the Mafia or their middlemen. Dolci was often short of, and careless with, money. He was helped out from time to time, predominantly by English families whose fortunes had been made with the sweet Marsala wine manufactured in Sicily.
In 1964, Palermo archbishop Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini publicly denounced Dolci and Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, author of The Leopard, as well as the Mafia, for "defaming" all Sicilians. Ruffini’s allegations and their approval by Pope Paul VI could be interpreted as a kind of endorsement for his liquidation and increased concerns for Dolci’s safety.
In 1968 Dolci was accused of embezzling funds sent from abroad to help the victims of the earthquake which destroyed much of the Belice valley, though the charges were never substantiated. At the same time, some of his followers left to set up their own educational centres accusing him of excessive authoritarianism. Some of Dolci's later initiatives were less successful than others, often bordering on the intangible. His centre sought to produce evidence against a secret NATO submarine base around Maddalena island off Sardinia on the basis that such an installation required Italian approval and control which in this case was apparently granted covertly to the United States Navy.
The smears succeeded in pushing Dolci out of the spotlight in Italy. The last 20 years of his life he disappeared from public view, although he continued to be revered abroad, winning prizes for his poetry, and working as a guest lecturer at universities.
Death and legacy
Dolci has been proposed for the Nobel Peace Prize, denounced by the Cardinal Archbishop of Palermo; he has won the support of many Communists and some Jesuits, been threatened by the Mafia, and been prosecuted for obscenity by the Italian government for his book Inchiesta a Palermo (Report from Palermo).
Dolci was a great writer. His books are remarkable accounts of the society he surveys, and their accuracy and insight have helped to give a realistic basis to any schemes for improvement. Above all he has given a voice to the abandoned, forgotten, despairing, nameless, suffering people of Sicily. Unforgettably he enabled peasants and fishermen, mothers and prostitutes, street urchins, outlaws and bandits, police and mafiosi to tell their stories.
He refused to answer to anybody and never joined a political party despite several invitations from the Italian Communist Party to run for office. "Reality is very complex," he said. "To understand it, men have tried Christianity, liberalism, Gandhiism, socialism. There is some truth in all solutions. We are all mendicants of truth." In the 1970s he rebelled against the state monopoly on broadcasting and set up his own radio station in Partinico in the face of stiff resistance from the police.
Dolci died on December 30, 1997 in Trappeto, from heart failure. He was survived by the five adopted children he had with his first wife, Vincenzina, and by two children from his second marriage. His death has triggered a curious mixture of reactions. While the chief Antimafia prosecutor in Palermo, Gian Carlo Caselli, said Dolci was one of the people who gave him the keys to do his job, the national press gave him surprisingly short shrift, describing him as a historical curiosity whose work has long since been forgotten.
According to the obituary in The Independent: "If the world now knows anything about the dark, secretive world of the Sicilian Mafia in the first turbulent years after the Second World War, it is largely thanks to Danilo Dolci." The man who in his youth studied architecture became an architect of social change.
For long, he was practically unknown in his native Slovenia. In 2007, however, an exhibition on his life and work was organized in his native town of Sežana. In 2010, a book of his poetry was first translated into Slovene. The same year, a bilingual memorial plaque was placed on his native house, and a local educational organization was named after him. His papers are currently housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University.
Books in English
To Feed the Hungry (1955/1959), London: McGibbon & Kee.
Report from Palermo (1959), New York: The Orion Press, Inc.
Sicilian Lives (1960/1981), New York: Pantheon Books.
Waste (1964), New York: Monthly Review Press
A New World in the Making (1965) Translated by R. Munroe. Monthly Review Press
The Man Who Plays Alone (1968), New York: Random House
Biographies
McNeish, James (1965). Fire Under the Ashes: The Life of Danilo Dolci, London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Mangione, Jerre (1968). A Passion for Sicilians: The World around Danilo Dolci, New York: William Morrow and Co.
References
Sources
Bess, Michael (1993), Realism, utopia, and the mushroom cloud: four activist intellectuals and their strategies for peace, 1945–1989, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Mangione, Jerre (1972/1985). A Passion for Sicilians: The World Around Danilo Dolci, New Brunswick: Transaction Books,
Ragone, Michele (2011). Le parole di Danilo Dolci, Foggia: Edizioni del Rosone,
Servadio, Gaia (1976). Mafioso. A history of the Mafia from its origins to the present day, London: Secker & Warburg
External links
Danilo Dolci nell'accademia del villaggio globale (a cura di Gaetano G. Perlongo)
Danilo Dolci Papers Swarthmore College Peace Collection.
Category:1924 births
Category:1997 deaths
Category:People from Sežana
Category:Italian people of Slovene descent
Category:Italian sociologists
Category:Italian activists
Category:Antimafia
Category:Historians of the Sicilian Mafia
Category:Italian non-fiction writers
Category:Italian male poets
Category:20th-century Italian poets
Category:Nonviolence advocates
Category:Lenin Peace Prize recipients
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
}
|
Q:
Updating user role using asp.net identity
I have the following problem. While using the following code below to change the user's current role i am getting an exception with the message like below:
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public virtual ActionResult Edit(User user, string role)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var oldUser = DB.Users.SingleOrDefault(u => u.Id == user.Id);
var oldRoleId = oldUser.Roles.SingleOrDefault().RoleId;
var oldRoleName = DB.Roles.SingleOrDefault(r => r.Id == oldRoleId).Name;
if (oldRoleName != role)
{
Manager.RemoveFromRole(user.Id, oldRoleName);
Manager.AddToRole(user.Id, role);
}
DB.Entry(user).State = EntityState.Modified;
return RedirectToAction(MVC.User.Index());
}
return View(user);
}
Attaching an entity of type 'Models.Entities.User' failed because another entity of the same type already has the same primary key value. This can happen when using the 'Attach' method or setting the state of an entity to 'Unchanged' or 'Modified' if any entities in the graph have conflicting key values. This may be because some entities are new and have not yet received database-generated key values. In this case use the 'Add' method or the 'Added' entity state to track the graph and then set the state of non-new entities to 'Unchanged' or 'Modified' as appropriate.
Does anybody know a good solution to this problem ?
A:
The problem is that your Manager and DB doesn't use the same DbContext. So when you send an user from the context of your DB to the Manager it will handle it as a "new" one - and then you cant remove it from the role. You have two ways to go here. The easiest is to get the User from your Manager.
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public virtual ActionResult Edit(User user, string role)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
// THIS LINE IS IMPORTANT
var oldUser = Manager.FindById(user.Id);
var oldRoleId = oldUser.Roles.SingleOrDefault().RoleId;
var oldRoleName = DB.Roles.SingleOrDefault(r => r.Id == oldRoleId).Name;
if (oldRoleName != role)
{
Manager.RemoveFromRole(user.Id, oldRoleName);
Manager.AddToRole(user.Id, role);
}
DB.Entry(user).State = EntityState.Modified;
return RedirectToAction(MVC.User.Index());
}
return View(user);
}
The more elegant way is to start using an DI-framework like AutoFac (https://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/MvcIntegration) and set your DbContext as InstancePerApiRequest.
builder.RegisterType<YourDbContext>().As<DbContext>().InstancePerApiRequest();
|
{
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
}
|
The line between state-owned Gazprom and the Russian state is often blurry. The monopoly's primary activity is selling natural gas in Europe at market rates to subsidize energy prices domestically. Several board members wear two hats and also work in government; for example, Dmitri A. Medvedev, the hand-picked successor of President Vladimir V. Putin, is chairman of Gazprom.
You thought that you knew where I was and whenBut it looks like they've been foolin' you again,You thought that you'd got me all staked outBut baby looks like I've been breaking outI'm a dark horseRunning on a dark race courseI'm a blue moonSince I stepped from out of the wombI've been a cool jerkLooking for the sourceI'm a dark horse.You thought you had got me in your gripBaby looks like you was not so smartAnd I became too slippery for youBut let me say that was nothing new.I'm a dark horseI thought that you knew it all alongUntil you started getting me not rightSeems as if you heard a little lateBut I warned you whenWe both were at the starting gateI'm a dark horse
North America as we know it has changed dramatically since November 4, 2008.
First came the election of an unknown; a man only whose globalist elite masters know where he was born and in which direction he will be taking the liberty-loving United States of America.
Less than one month later, the proud Dominion of Canada is being laid siege to by an opposition-led coalition of the left. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, elected with an increased number of seats only six weeks ago, has a date with destiny at 9:30 this morning.
A beleaguered looking Harper, who addressed Canadians last night on television, promised to use "every legal means" to stop the Opposition's move to unseat his minority Conservative government next week. It is his only means to end the threat of this overnight attempt at Government-by-Coalition.
In other words, Harper will be asking the governor general this morning to suspend Parliament until next month--giving him time to come up with the stimulus package, his power-lusting opponents not his electors, say he hasn't delivered quickly enough.
Were it not for this drastic change in power for which nobody voted, it would have been laughable that New Democrat Leader Jack Layton, the man called "the Barack Obama of Canada" by colleagues, had tried unsuccessfully to horn in for his "cut of the television air time pie". (GlobeandMail.com, Dec. 3, 2008).
History is being rewritten before our very eyes by the Socialists of two nations.
Long after we're all gone, what has happened in a short time-span before Christmas 2008 will surely give pause to the historians.
In more temperate times, the historians would be forgiven for mistaking the latest James Bond film Quantum of Solace detailing the work of a moviedom George Soros and Maurice Strong as art imitating real life.
But only in the movies and not in real life do dramatic things happen overnight.
In reality, what has happened here and in the United States was long in the making.
Gradually over time, we elected politicians who cared not for the ecosystem of country Constitutions in comparison to their power lust. Somehow we didn't seem to notice when government no longer worked for us, but us for them.
The average person was kept too busy coming up with the rent or the mortgage, too busy wondering why their children were learning not reading, writing and arithmetic, but how to become effective global citizens.
Politicians elected each term, by and large, got worse and worse until we reached a stage where they came not with altruism and leadership guiding their moral compass, but with teams of lawyers who could trash constitutions no matter how noble or time-honoured.
Along the way, we one day reached the level where civic politicians got to be very high handed. Instead of us being able to tell them to return from federal and international issues to take out the garbage, they told us to take out the garbage, and to put it in an increasing assembly of recycling bins.
The only real "change" politicians made manifest is the one where they no longer choose to hide their true intentions. The rats in the farmers' barns no longer dive for cover in the loft when the farmer comes in.
They stand there boldly ready to attack the farmer and anyone else who questions their self-imposed authority.
It has reached a tipping point where politicians no longer feel a duty to serve the people, but only themselves and each other.
They are just like the "robber barons", the term Wikipedia says that "revived in the 19th century in the United States as a reference to businessman and bankers who dominated their respected industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various anti-competitive or unfair business practices."
One long ago day, Government went out and began funding environmentalists, not true-at-heart ones who conserve the land against urban blight and pollution, but radical environmentalists like Greenpeace, who over time became as rich and powerful as any of the robber barons.
Governments caved into environmentalist demands on eminent domain issues that confiscated land on the glib alibi it was to protect endangered species, never recognizing human beings as endangered species.
Government catered more and more to the environmentalists and the unions that cheered them on until the car industry could no longer manufacture "gas-guzzling SUVs" and was driven along the road to the dead end of bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, our politicians skipped off into a safe zone where they are no longer held accountable, morphing us into a global economy where decisions are made globally. "Think globally, act locally" became the mantra of the moment decades ago. That "safe area" they ran to includes the model of the European Union, whose administrators choose to keep going when members ask them to slow down because they don't understand what they are even voting on.
The little people who matter most watched the protest movement abandon the arena. When it mattered most for them to be there, they had scattered.
In Canada, we face the lies of Government-by-Coalition. In the US, what has been described as "the first Coalition President in 75 years".
Both lie to the people of both nations.
The debut of Barack Obama has nothing to do with the colour of his skin, or even the station in his life. The world is not kind enough to produce political miracles. Obama's decent brother, George Hussein Onyango, struggling in poverty back in Kenya is living proof of that.
"Canada's Barack Obama" Jack Layton offers no true change for Canadians, his long record as a self-serving career politicians proves it.
Beyond both these arrogant activists, we all find out too late that the North American Union is just another term for One World Government.
Socialism, advocated by both Obama and Layton, has sucked the soul out of humanity wherever it was ever attempted, but that's the road North America is now careening down.
Heaven help the people of both betrayed nations.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
With the multiplicity of terrorist attacks perpetrated recently by deviant and fanatic individuals, the General Secretariat of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has noticed a tendency of a section of the media, to interpose the word "Islam" in reporting these incidences.
Who you gonna believe, Tovarich Dhimmi? Your own eyes, or the peaceful, tolerant, compassionate General Secretariat of the OIC?
Sometimes when facing common troubleWhen whole town is screwedWe become actually humanAct like Prometheus wouldSuddenly there is more humorAnd a party tabor stylePeople ringing one another"Yo man, how was your blackout?"Suddenly there is more musicMade with the buckets in the parkGirls are dancing with the flashlightsI got only one guitar!And you see brothers and sistersAll engaged in sport of helpMaking merry out of nothingLike in refugee campOh yeah Oh no, it doesn't have to be soIt is possible any time anywhereEven without any doughOh yeah Oh no, it doesn't have to be soForces of the creative mind are unstoppable!And you think, All right, now peopleThey have finally woked upBut as soon as the trouble overWatch them take another napNobody is making merryOnly trotting scared of bossEverybody's making hurryFor some old forgotten causeBut one thing is surely eternalIt's condition of a manWho don't know where he is goingWho don't know where does he standWho's dream power is corked bottlePut away in dry dark placeWho's youth power is well buriedUnder propaganda wavesWho's dream life is in oppositionWith the life he leads todayWho's beaten down in believingIt just kinda goes this way!Oh no, it doesn't have to be soForces of the creative mind are unstoppable!
A frightening youth movement evolves in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. To the proximate north of the Jewish homeland goosesteps a graduating class of saluting young Muslim men adorned in disarming Boy Scout like uniforms, known as Mahdi Scouts, weaned on the fundamentalist Jew despising hatred of Hizbullah, pictured on the front page of the November 21st edition of the New York Times in an article entitled ‘To Fuel Quest, Hizbullah Harnesses Youth Piety’
The Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation.
I watched him speak yesterday- Dude does not inspire any confidence, that I can tell ya. The voo in his doo is markedly pliable....subservient, nervous... obedient. Not good. Not a leader. We're on our own in this insane world, so prepare yourselves
Chevron In the White HouseThe left will be so conflicted over Jones - since he is so pro-Pali, they should love him....and yet ..... because of the Chevron connection they object.... and here they are STILL missing the deeper points.... idiots.
In light of the Islamophobic and hate-filled programming on WBT 1110 AM’s Jeff Katz show, a boycott is being called for all advertisers that have a financial relationship with Jeff Katz. Since the arrival of Jeff Katz at WBT there seems to be a move to profit off ignorance and hate at the expense of the Muslim Community. We are calling on people of faith, conscience and decency to boycott those that financially support this purveyor of hate. The boycott can be enacted by signing this petition on-line (or paper), and/or calling the businesses and not shopping with the advertisers. This petition is being sponsored by the Islamic Political Party of America (IPPA) and is inspired by the U.N.’s ‘Stop the Hate’ campaign.
Two olive branches buried by a Minoan-era eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera (modern-day Santorini) have enabled precise radiocarbon dating of the catastrophe to 1613 BC, with an error margin of plus or minus 10 years, according to two researchers who presented conclusions of their previously published research during an event on Tuesday at the Danish Archaeological Institute of Athens.
Thothmes I became Pharaoh in Egypt and ruled 22 years. He first invaded Asia.
A little over half of Israel's 215 years in Egypt had passed.
Amram and Jochebed married. (Circa 1589 B.C.)
Miriam was born to Amram and Jochebed. (Circa. 1580 B.C.) Miraim became a prophetess and leader in the Israelite exodus.
Thothmes II became Pharaoh of Egypt and reigned 13 years.
Atlas, the Astronomer, came on the scene. (1588 B.C.)
Aaron was born to Amram and Jochebed. (1574 B. C.) Aaron lived 123 years and fathered four children. It was through Aaron's line that the Levitical priesthood was founded.
Hatasu became Queen of Egypt (daughter of Thothmes) and reigned 20 years. (It is said she wore men's clothing).
Moses was born to Amarm and Jochebed and was adopted into the Egyptian royal court. At the age of 12 he was taken to live with the Egyptian royal family. (Troy, Athens and Thebes were founded during the days of Moses.) (1571 B.C.)
Cecrops, from Egypt, founded Athens. (1556 B.C.)
Thothmes III, The Great, became Pharoah of Egypt and reigned 40 years. As Egypt's greatest conqueror Thothmes III, became known as "The Egyptian Alexander." He adorned Egypt with magnificent temples and works of art and erected the New York Obelisk. "Egypt was at her climax, under Thothmes III. His conquests embraced the then known world of Arabia, Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, Phoenicia, Armenia, Asia Minor, the Isles of the Daniai (probably in the Archipelago), Cyprus, Ethiopia, Libya and Nubia." Dr. Birch.
Scamander founded the kingdom of Troy. Homer immortalized its history. (1546 B.C.)
Joshua, son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, was born. Joshua lived 110 years and became the leader of Israel after Moses' death. (1536 B.C.)
Just weeks after President George W Bush signed the Order creating a new US military command dedicated to Africa, AFRICOM, events on the mineral-rich continent have erupted that suggest a major agenda of the incoming Barack Obama presidency to focus US resources, military and other, on dealing with the Democratic Republic of Congo, the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, the oil-rich Darfur region of southern Sudan and increasingly the Somali "pirate threat" to sea lanes in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
A cobalt bomb, a type of salted bomb, is a nuclear weapon originally proposed by physicist Leó Szilárd, who suggested that it would be capable of destroying all life on Earth. The weapon's tamper would be made of ordinary cobalt metal, which would be transmuted into the radioactive isotope 60Co, producing deadly fallout.
Under investigation is how American surveillance of the area, now under the control of the 82nd Airborne Division, failed to spot villagers entering the testing site with heavy vehicles to dismantle three of the poles, or towers, for scrap, leaving heavy tire tracks in the desert.
One of the cobalt capsules was found by American troops on Oct. 6 lying in the yard of a villager's house in Amiriya, less than 15 feet from the outdoor clay oven the family used to bake bread.
The second capsule was found partly buried about 75 feet from a house in Shamiya, just east of Amiriya and about 10 miles north of the nuclear testing site, in a position where it, too, would have been approached by family members and neighbors. Along with the capsules, parts of the giant testing poles were found, dismantled for scrap metal.
Why is the Department of Defense creating the command? Africa is growing in military, strategic and economic importance in global affairs. However, many nations on the African continent continue to rely on the international community for assistance with security concerns. From the U.S. perspective, it makes strategic sense to help build the capability for African partners, and organizations such as the Africa Standby Force, to take the lead in establishing a secure environment. This security will, in turn, set the groundwork for increased political stability and economic growth.
Every day blood is being spilled in the diamond fields of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and nobody in the international community is even talking about it. In the capital Kinshasa, the government is able to announce, unchallenged, its commitment to an international system aimed at breaking the links between the diamond trade and human rights violations,(2) while in Mbuji-Mayi, the hub of the country's diamond industry, serious abuses directly connected to the diamond trade are occurring on a daily basis, largely unchecked.
So, yesterday I told you that an ADDITIONAL 20K in troops would be stationed IN AMERICA shortly.... and yet no one reacted to that. I found that very interesting. ADDITIONAL because as I have told you many times before, "Urban Warrior" troops were deployed here in October to zero notice.... Here's a piece from CNN's Lou Dobbs Show on it followed by other stuff the video maker found pertinent:
Two years ago, I and others called attention to a dangerous provision slipped into an omnibus appropriation bill. The provision gave the President of the United States the unprecedented power to deploy the U.S. military for domestic duty within the United States as he sees fit.
For years I have warned that great evils often begin with the murder of Jews, and therefore non-Jews who dismiss Jew-hatred (aka anti-Semitism, aka anti-Zionism), will learn too late that Jew- and Israel-haters only begin with Jews but never end with them. When Israeli Jews were almost the only targets of Muslim terrorists, the world dismissed it as a Jewish or Israeli problem. Then it became an American and European and Filipino and Thai and Indonesian and Hindu problem.
The New York Times theorized that Chabad House may have been an "accidental hostage scene." The BBC initially chose to hide the Jewish character of the target by describing it as just "an office building." Al Jazeera refused to show Chabad House as the site of the carnage. Some Western media outlets unsympathetically labeled victims there as "ultra-Orthodox" or "missionaries."
Contrary to these fantasies, the all-too-obvious truth is now being confirmed:
* The Times of India reported that some of the terrorists, claiming to be Malaysian students, rented nearby space in order to scout out Chabad.
* The Indian doctor who conducted the post-mortems related in a shaken voice that: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th [the first day of the attacks] itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed."
* The only captured terrorist, Ajmal Kamal, confessed under interrogation that his fellow murderers were specifically ordered to target the Jews killed at Chabad.
It's not only close India-Israeli ties that the terrorists wanted to destroy. It's likely that Mumbai's age-old history of hospitality to Jews made the Nariman-Chabad House a strategic target.
A Cooperation Framework on an important initiative in the field of health titled "Reaching every mother and baby in the OIC with emergency care" has been signed between the OIC General Secretariat and the USA today on December 1, 2008.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
“The United Nations was, in major part, America’s creation,” declared Susan Rice, President-elect Obama’s nominee as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at a news conference on Monday. This is true if you consider a communist and Soviet agent, U.N. founder Alger Hiss, to be truly “American.” But that is quite a stretch. This kind of gaffe is never highlighted by our media because it is something that is repeated often by those attempting to justify continued U.S. participation in the corrupt United Nations.
Needless to say, Rice never mentioned that the U.N. is the “House that Hiss built.” But that is what it was, and what it remains.
What’s more, it is still infested with anti-American intelligence agents and foreign spies. Rice should read Comrade J, based on interviews with Sergei Tretyakov, the former Russian spymaster based at the U.N. The book describes the United Nations as a major base of espionage operations for Russia in the U.S.
Rice may be reluctant to read the book because of the fact that her Brookings Institution colleague, Strobe Talbott, is named in it as having been “a special unofficial contact” of the Russian intelligence agency, the SVR, when he was Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration. Talbott had been in charge of Russian affairs, and Rice had been Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. They worked closely together, as Talbott concedes.
Michelle Obama is to receive this £20,000 thank you from her husband for her support during the election. The Harmony ring is made of rhodium - the world's most expensive metal --and encrusted with diamonds. It is being hastily made by Italian designer Giovanni Bosco in time for January's inauguration ceremony. Only about 25 tons of rhodium are mined each year, mostly in South Africa, and as a result its price is typically around £5,000 an ounce.
The Flying Camel
Arebel's Diary
BabbaZed Vinyl Cultessa 2012
BabbaZee Repenthouse Pet 1982
Should GOD reward you on your terms then, when you refuse to repent? You must decide, not I... So, tell me what you know... ~ Job 34:33
"You surrender in your own name. Leave me out of it. "
Obey & Endure
No matter how many times I explain to people that I understand that they feel lost and helpless and betrayed by their leaders in the face of the Jihad, that I understand deeply that these are the only people that you perceive to be "standing up to jihad" - no matter how much irrefutable information I give you that many of these so called anti jihadists are just as bad as the jihad itself - You will turn the blind eye out of expedience, out of fear, out of laziness, out of shallowness of moral character, out of stupidity, out of tribal affiliation, out of complacency, out of ignorance, out of vanity, out of hatred.... take your pick. In any event you will chose to stay blind. Let those who have eyes, see:
This Notta Blahhhg Has Been Approved By The Elderbunny Of Zion
TO DONATE VIA PAYPAL CLICK THE ICON BELOW:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
~ Leviticus 20:13
Next time someone tries to shove some Homo Stultus dogma down your throat it would please me very much if you would use the following links to express your disinterest in their Darwingelical Dawkins Da'Wa....
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
835 F.2d 874Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.B.C. EDWARDS; Mary Elizabeth Edwards, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Edgar G. PUFFENBARGER; Lucille G. Puffenbarger, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 87-3704.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 6, 1987.Decided Dec. 11, 1987.
J. Gregory Mooney; Michael McHale Collins (Collins, Crackel & Mooney, on brief), for appellant.
Guy M. Harbet, III (S.D. Roberts Moore; Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore; Peter J. Judah, on brief), for appellee.
Before HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge, DONALD RUSSELL, and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge:
1
* In September 1977 plaintiffs-appellants B.C. and Mary Elizabeth Edwards (Edwards) entered into an oral contract retaining defendants-appellees Edgar and Lucille Puffenbarger (Puffenbarger) to perform construction and renovation on Edwards' Bath County, Virginia property. Under the agreement, Puffenbarger would bill the plaintiffs his actual cost of labor and materials plus a ten-percent profit margin and, in addition, Edwards would pay Puffenbarger "the top wage that [the defendants] paid [their] top paid man. He [Puffenbarger] would get the same amount for the hours he actually worked on [the] job, he would get ten percent of that of his own pay." Edwards v. Puffenbarger, No. 84-1228, slip op. at 4 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 1985).
2
Edwards became increasingly dissatisfied with Puffenbarger's progress, the quality of the workmanship, and the cost of the project and terminated the defendants' performance under the contract in October 1979. Edwards subsequently brought an action against Puffenbarger alleging fraudulent overbilling and "poor workmanship." Puffenbarger denied Edwards' allegations and counterclaimed for slander.
3
In a March 1982 bench trial, Judge Michael held that the Edwards failed to prove the "poor workmanship" or fraud claims. The court also found that the Edwards wrongfully terminated the oral contract. The district court dismissed the slander counterclaim, reasoning that although Puffenbarger was entitled to actual damages, he had failed to prove either malice or the amount of damages. On appeal, this court affirmed the dismissal of the "poor workmanship" claim and of the slander counterclaim. The court, however, reversed in part and remanded the cause, holding that Edwards advanced a viable claim of overbilling under the cost-plus contract. Edwards, slip op. at 10-11. We directed reference of the dispute to a special master for "determination of what amount, if any, the defendants owed the plaintiffs for any overbilling under the oral contract between the parties." Id. at 19.
4
On remand, Judge Michael referred the case to United States Magistrate Glen Conrad to act as special master. The magistrate issued a final report and recommendation, including a final accounting, which concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to $12,870.62. Magistrate Conrad's recommendation was based upon several findings.
5
First, he found that defendants had overbilled plaintiffs at a rate of $2.00 per hour more than Puffenbarger actually paid to his laborers. Thus, of the total labor charges of $58,150, the magistrate found that Edwards had been overcharged in the amount of $14,860.
6
Second, the magistrate found that plaintiffs were improperly billed for employee labor performed on other projects in the amount of $1,758 and, relying on the testimony of some of Puffenbarger's former employees and taking into account entries into the "time book" indicating the time computation for those workers, that defendants improperly billed plaintiffs for thirteen days during which Puffenbarger was actually on vacation. This overcharge amounted to $2,382.
7
Third, noting that Puffenbarger bore the burden of proving "actual costs of labor" in excess of wages paid, the magistrate found that FICA, worker's compensation insurance, and self-employment taxes were actual costs of labor. However, he further concluded that contractor's insurance premiums and overhead were not associated particularly with the Edwards' job, and that defendants had overbilled plaintiffs for such costs in the amount of $4,042.37.
8
Fourth, he found that defendants overbilled plaintiffs for materials in the amount of $6,345.54. Defendants, it seems, had billed for materials in the amount of $53,204.34, but could produce invoices at trial in the amount of $48.919.60. The magistrate rejected arguments by defendants that miscellaneous purchases, as evidenced by various cancelled checks, "clearly pertained" to Edwards' job since "Defendants' assertions [were] premised on nothing more than pure speculation." App. at 903. The magistrate limited adjustments in favor of plaintiffs to those items that the evidence affirmatively established as error or duplication. He reviewed the materials items individually and limited consideration of materials purchases to those actually tendered at trial as opposed to those actually billed to plaintiffs. He further determined that there was no evidence that materials were supplied by Edwards for the job, which would have entitled the Puffenbargers to a ten-percent profit markup, if such materials had been furnished.
9
Fifth, he determined that damages should not be computed by determining plaintiffs' amounts paid less the amount to which defendants were entitled under the contract. The problem, he determined, lay with duplicate payments made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the magistrate concluded that the truly accurate method of calculation was the difference between the total amount defendants should have properly charged for labor, materials, and profit under the contract and the actual amount charged.
10
Last, the magistrate examined our determination of "constructive fraud" of the defendants, and he recommended that prejudgment interest be assessed in favor of plaintiffs. However, he concluded that interest should not be calculated as of the day of termination of the contract in 1979. Rather, he found that there was some bona fide dispute as to labor charges which was not resolved until the first appeal in this case, and he concluded that prejudgment interest should accrue as of the date of our decision, April 25, 1985.
11
The district court, after reviewing the objections to the report, adopted the magistrate's recommendations and final accounting in full. App. at 937-40. Thus, the court awarded $12,870.62 to plaintiffs with prejudgment interest from April 25, 1985 calculated at 9.15% on $9,527.99 of the judgment.
12
Plaintiffs appeal this ruling, claiming that the magistrate and district court were in error in their determination and calculation of amounts overbilled by defendants and due to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also assert that the district court abused its discretion in finding that prejudgment interest was warranted from April 1985 rather than the date of the termination of the contract.
II
13
The scope of review of this court in factual matters is necessarily limited. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 states:
14
Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court.
15
The district court has great latitude under this standard. This court should not reverse those findings of fact when the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, even if this court would have viewed the evidence differently had it been sitting as trier of fact. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985). It is apparent from the record that the district court, through the magistrate, carefully studied all evidence and it addressed the parties' arguments thoroughly. It is further evident that defendants' documentation of the various charges, particularly materials charges, was less than adequate. Therefore, upon review of the record, we find that the district court was not in clear error and we affirm its determination and calculation of the overbilling and overcharges.
III
16
Plaintiffs also challenge the district court's calculation of accrued prejudgment interest from April 25, 1985, the date of our opinion, rather than from October 8, 1979, the date of plaintiffs' termination of the contract with defendants. Defendants argue that the magistrate's finding was correct because the labor charges were in dispute and in the prior appeal, this court was required to go into detailed analysis in order to determine the "actual cost of labor." Defendants refer to the magistrate's report, in which he stated that there was no reason for defendants, prior to that decision, to believe their factual misstatements resulted in an overcharge.
17
Generally, the allowance of prejudgment interest is in the trial court's discretion. Marks v. Sanzo, 231 Va. 350, 345 S.E.2d 263 (1986); see Hewitt v. Hutter, 432 F.Supp. 795 (W.D.Va.1977), aff'd, 568 F.2d 773 (4th Cir.) (unpublished memorandum decision), aff'd after remand, 574 F.2d 182 (4th Cir.1978). Those awards, as acknowledged by the magistrate, are sometimes inappropriate in cases of a bona fide dispute on the merits. The rationale for this is to avoid penalizing a defendant for exercising his right to litigate legal questions arising from a contract. Hewitt, 432 F.Supp. at 800.
18
The purpose of an award of prejudgment interest is to compensate a plaintiff for loss sustained by not receiving the amount to which he was entitled at the time he was entitled to receive it. Marks, 231 Va. at ----, 345 S.E.2d at 267 (citing Employer-Teamsters Jt. Council No. 84, Health & Welfare Fund v. Weatherall Concrete, Inc., 468 F.Supp. 1167, 1171 (S.D.W.Va.1979); see also, e.g., E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Lyles & Lang Constr. Co., 219 F.2d 328 (4th Cir.1955). As noted by Judge Russell in the previous appeal, defendants' overcharges were not merely errors, but "constructive fraud." Plaintiffs had specifically given notice to defendants of labor overcharges in their letter of October 9, 1979. Further, it strains credulity to adopt the rationale of the magistrate and the defendants in characterizing all labor charges as being in dispute and to assert that defendants had no reason to believe their factual misstatments resulted in overcharge. There could be no justification for the Puffenbargers to bill the Edwards for vacation time or for general overhead not specifically related to the Edwards' construction. While some of the double-billing for materials may be explained by plaintiffs' requests for documentation for tax purposes, it was defendants' inadequate record-keeping that caused the materials overbillings.
19
Given that such overcharges were not so certain as to require disposition in the prior appeal, we find the plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest accruing from the date of contract termination, October 8, 1979. Defendants clearly denied plaintiffs their funds in bad faith (i.e., through "constructive fraud"). We therefore reverse the district court insofar as it calculated prejudgment interest from April 25, 1984, the date of this circuit's earlier ruling, and remand with directions that prejudgment interest be calculated from October 8, 1979.
20
We affirm the district court's decision in all other respects.
The judgment of the district court is
21
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "FreeLaw"
}
|
A quel âge philosophe-t-on le mieux ? Pourquoi la jeunesse serait-elle un moment propice à cet exercice ? Et quel est le lien entre les jeunes et beaux garçons dont Socrate s'entoure et la recherche de la vérité ? La réponse aujourd'hui avec le jeune mais sage Fulcran Teisserenc.
Le texte du jour
« Le jeune homme confie toujours le commandement de son âme au plaisir qui surgit soudainement, comme s’il était soumis au destin, jusqu’à ce qu’il en soit rassasié, puis il s’abandonne à un autre, et cela sans en mépriser aucun, mais en les nourrissant de manière égale. (…) Si on se risque à lui dire que certains plaisirs découlent de désirs nobles et bons, alors que d’autres naissent de désirs mauvais, et qu’il faut cultiver et valoriser les premiers, réprimer et dompter les seconds, dans toutes ces circonstances il hoche la tête en signe de dédain. Pour lui, selon ce qu’il prétend, ils sont tous pareils et doivent être considérés de valeur égale. (…) Il passe ses journées à satisfaire sur cette lancée le désir qui fait irruption : aujourd’hui il s’enivre au son des flûtes, demain il se contente de boire de l’eau et se laisse maigrir ; un jour il s’entraîne au gymnase, le lendemain il est lascif et indifférent à tout, et parfois on le voit même donner son temps à ce qu’il croit être la philosophie. Souvent il s’engage dans la vie politique et, se levant sur un coup de tête, il dit et fait ce que le hasard lui dicte. S’il lui arrive d’envier les gens de guerre, le voilà qui s’y implique ; s’agit-il des commerçants, il se précipite dans les affaires. Sa vie ne répond à aucun principe d’ordonnancement, à aucune nécessité ; au contraire, l’existence qu’il mène lui semble mériter le qualificatif d’agréable, libre, bienheureuse, et il vit de cette manière en toute circonstance. »
Platon, République, VIII
Lectures
- Platon, République, VIII, in Œuvres complètes sous la direction de Luc Brisson, (Flammarion, 2008)
- Platon, Gorgias, in Œuvres complètes sous la direction de Luc Brisson (Flammarion, 2008)
Extraits
- Après mai, film d’Olivier Assayas (2012)
- Trois souvenirs de ma jeunesse, film d’Arnaud Desplechin (2015)
Références musicales
- David Helbock Trio, Eros
- Hayashi, One Piece film gold
- Supergrass, Alright
- Steff, Je suis jeune
- Röntgen, Ein cyclus von phantasiestücken
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Automotive design often is the end result of the balancing of a vast array of countervailing factors. Components must be practical but appealing, robust but light weight, and inexpensive to produce but complex in performance. Often consumers perceive a design that fails to fulfill both sides of the coin as deficient. This in turn may result in a costly impact on the designers and manufacturers when such perceptions are translated into lagging sales or damaged reputation. This scenario is played out time and time again in the field of noise and vibration control.
The automotive environment is filled with a vast plurality of components to which motion in the hands of the operator is one of their primary functions. Unfortunately, the automotive environment additionally imparts a wide variety of impact and momentum related forces on these same components during routine operation. The vibrations for the vehicle engine and drivetrain in combination with forces transferred from the road upward through the suspension are all eventually imparted to such movable components. Undue vibrations transferred to these components may lead to premature fatigue and may contribute to noise within the automobile interior. This noise, in turn, can have a significant and lasting impression on the vehicle occupants regarding the perceived quality of the automobile as a whole.
Such is the case with automotive head restraints/headrests. These head restraints are commonly mounted to the automotive seatbacks and are provided a range of vertical adjustment so as to be operator adjustable to both comfort and personal configuration. The head restraint posts, however, when subjected to the vibrations and stresses the automotive environment may tend to produce a rattle or other noise within the seatback. The design approach to date has been to counter such noise generation by increasing the stiffness of the head restraint. This increase in restraint, however, in present designs results in an increase in operation and effort. Thus present designs trade one consumer inconvenience for another. This is unsatisfactory. It would be highly desirable to have a design for an automotive seatback and head restraint assembly that minimize the looseness of the head restraint posts without adversely affecting operational efforts.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
}
|
Transseptal approach for stent implantation in right internal carotid artery stenosis.
Carotid artery stenting is emerging as an effective measure to prevent strokes in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. We report a case of right internal carotid artery stenosis in which we used a transseptal approach for successful carotid artery stenting. This patient had concomitant stenosis at all three coronary arteries, including the left main coronary artery. A transseptal approach was adopted due to the sharply angled take-off of the right brachiocephalic artery from the tortuous aortic arch, where advancement of an extra-stiff wire into the right common carotid artery was not possible by a femoral artery approach.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
FROM GERALD NEMEC:
Attached is a revised Amendment to the CSA Agreement which has been redlined
for your review.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
}
|
Rainbow Dash My Little Pony T-Shirt
Is your all-consuming passion in life to fly fast? Then you'll love our Rainbow Dash My Little Pony T-Shirt! This blue graphic tee features a doe-eyed Rainbow Dash on the front and her rainbow rear end on the back. Made of 100% cotton, our Rainbow Dash My Little Pony T-Shirt keeps you cool when you're having some casual fun with your pony pals and non-pony friends!
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Harrison Ford wants to do Indiana Jones 5. Steven Spielberg wants to do Indiana Jones 5. Lucasfilm wants to do Indiana Jones 5. So what’s the deal with Indiana Jones 5? Another installment following Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been buzzing around the Web for quite some time, and producer/Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy has another update for us.
Long story short, it’s still in the works, but obviously the big priority right now is getting the new Star Wars off the ground. THR spoke with the Lucasfilm president, who, among a number of other topics, said of Indiana Jones 5:
We’re all trying to figure out when the right time is to step back in. Harrison really wants to do it; Steven really wants to do it. We’ve kicked around a couple of story ideas, but beyond that, I don’t know yet. I think there will be one, we’ll certainly move forward with Indy. But right now, everybody’s just focused on Star Wars.
Ford reprises his role of Han Solo for The Force Awakens, out in theaters December 18th, and he’ll also return as Indy for this fifth installment. Spielberg said recently that he has no intentions of replacing the actor in the role, even though Crystal Skull made it seem like Shia LaBeouf was going to be stepping up to the leading man plate. Still, how long can a man in his early 70s go before he can’t crack the whip anymore?
Kennedy’s comments do conflict with previous statements from producer Frank Marshall, who said back in October that there haven’t been talks about Indy 5 yet, which apparently aren’t accurate. It’s hard to imagine hearing anything more on this front before the holidays, which will be all about Star Wars. Lucasfilm has a trilogy installment scheduled for every year with an anthology film slated in between. Once they get in a good groove, perhaps then Indy will get more attention. Hopefully everyone involved with still want to do it.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Incomplete nuclear transformation of human spermatozoa in oligo-astheno-teratospermia: characterization by indirect immunofluorescence of chromatin and thiol status.
BACKGROUND Sperm heterogeneity in the human, as observed in oligo-astheno-teratozoospermia (OAT), is associated with hypospermatogenesis. METHODS The chromatin of sperm from OAT and normospermic males was characterized with antibodies specific for nucleosomes, the histone H3.1/H3.2 isoform, histone TH2B, apoptosis-associated H4 acetylation (KM-2) and protamines. Subsequently, sperm samples were stained with the thiol-specific fluorochrome monobromobimane (mBBr) before and after reduction with dithiotreitol (DTT) as most thiol groups reside in the cysteine-rich protamines. We also used fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS) for sperm histograms and sorting for high or low free and total thiol levels. These fractions were further analysed for DNA damage with the TdT-UTP nick end-labelling (TUNEL) assay. RESULTS OAT sperm nuclei stained higher for nucleosomes and KM2-epitopes, and lower for TH2B. For free, and total, thiol groups, OAT sperm were characterized by biphasic distributions, reflecting incomplete thiol oxidation as well as overoxidation, and possibly reduced protamine contents. The TUNEL assay on sperm subfractions, for both control and OAT sperm, revealed that a lower level of free thiol groups is associated with a higher TUNEL incidence, and this relationship was also found for total thiol levels. Hence, both overoxidation and a low total number of thiol groups predestine for sperm apoptosis. CONCLUSIONS Chromatin characteristics reflecting an incomplete nucleosome to protamine remodelling were found in subfertile males. Sperm apoptosis is related to both incomplete remodelling and protamine overoxidation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
=15truecm =22truecm =-0.5cm
[**[Two-Dimensional Seven-State Potts Model\
\
Under External Magnetic Field]{}**]{}
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\
\
\
\
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The two-dimensional Potts Model with seven states under external field\
is studied using a cluster algorithm. Cluster size distribution and the fluctuations in\
the average cluster size provide helpful information on the order of phase transitions.\
Potts model [@Potts:1952] is known to have a very rich critical behaviour and considered as a testing ground for both analytical and numerical methods. Recently, the problem is mainly focused on determining the nature of the phase transition, especially the weak first-order transition occuring in this model [@Billoire:1995; @Lee:1990]. In two dimensions, the Potts model displays a second-order phase transition for the number of states $q = 2, 3$ and $4$, and first-order transition for $q \geq 5$, where transitions become stronger as $q$ increases [@Baxter:1973; @Wu:1982]. One of the most reliable methods to study first-order transitions is to observe the doubly-peaked probability distribution for energy [@Binder:1984; @Binder:1986]. At the critical point, the order parameter and the cluster size distribution should also exhibit the same behaviour. A first-order phase transition however is expected to become weaker under an increasing external field and it becomes a difficult task to recognize a double-peak in a weak first-order phase transition. Further increase in external field reduce the strength of the transition and the phase transition disappears for large external field strengths. This process is the result of two competing interactions: spins form sizable clusters in some regions because of the tendency to align in the field direction, while the thermal fluctuations result in disintegration of the clusters. The external field yields the ordering of the system at higher temperatures, shifting the critical temperature to higher values as well as reducing fluctuations in the system. On the other hand, the dynamical changes associated with a phase transition in the system are reflected in the fluctuations and variations in the cluster size. The aim in this work is to observe, by using a cluster algorithm, the dynamical behaviour of cluster size variations with respect to temperature and the external field.
$\;$
In the present work, the critical behaviour of the two-dimensional Potts model with seven states under external magnetic field is studied using cluster algorithm. Equilibrium averages, fluctuations in the average cluster size and the histograms for energy, order parameter and the average cluster size are obtained as a function of the temperature for different field strengths.
$\;$
The Hamiltonian of the two-dimensional Potts model is given by $${\cal H} = K \sum_{<i,j>} \delta_{\sigma_{i},\sigma_{j}} + H \sum_i
\delta_{\sigma_{i},o}.$$ Here $K=J/kT$ ; where $k$ and $T$ are the Boltzmann constant and the temperature respectively, and $J$ is the magnetic interaction between spins $\sigma_{i}$ and $\sigma_{j}$, which can take values $0,1,2, ..., q-1$ for the $q$-state Potts model and $H=h/kT$ with $h$ is the external field along the orientation 0. Reader can refer to the review article by Wu [@Wu:1982] for detailed information about the model. Order of the transitions can be studied by calculating specific heat
$$C=\frac {1}{kT^{2}} (<E^{2}>-<E>^{2})$$
and the Binder cumulant [@Binder:1981] $$B=1-\frac {<E^{4}>}{3<E^{2}>}$$ on finite lattices, where $E$ is the energy of the system.
$\;$
The dynamical evolution of clusters and fluctuations in the observables are strongly dependent on the correlations in the system. When the temperature is high the clusters are small, and they start growing as the critical point is approached. If the correlation length in the system is finite (especially when it is shorter than the lattice size), existing large clusters may break down to smaller ones with thermal fluctuations in the system. Hence in such a system, very large and very small clusters may coexist, resulting in large fluctuations in the cluster size. If the correlation length is very large as in the case of weak first-order phase transition or infinite as in the case of a second-order transition, the existing large clusters can not easily disintegrate with thermal fluctuations. A similar effect can be seen when an external field is turned on in a system with first-order phase transition. The effect of the external magnetic field aligns the spins parallel to the field direction creating large clusters and preserve these clusters from the effects of thermal fluctuations. These considerations led us to the usage of the average cluster size, fluctuations in the cluster size, cluster size distribution as the operators to investigate the changes in the phase transition with respect to variations of temperature and external field strength. The cluster algorithm which introduces a global update by means of selecting clusters and updating all spins in the cluster proved to be very successful in eliminating critical slowing down and super critical slowing down as in the first-order transitions in systems such as Potts [@Swendsen:1987] and O(N) [@Wolf:1989] models. Studying any operator which uses information related to the clusters is extremely straightforward since this information is inherited in the cluster algorithm. The algorithm used in this work is similar to Wolf’s algorithm, with the exception that, $H$ is incorporated following Dotsenko et al [@Dotsenko:1991] and before calculating the observables, searching the clusters is continued until the total number of sites in all searched clusters is equal to or exceeds the total number of sites in the lattice.
$\;$
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFig. 1 . [Energy histograms at the critical ]{} Fig. 2 . [Specific heat peaks vs. $H$.]{}\
[point $K_c$ for several values of $H$.]{}\
In this work, the two-dimensional, $q = 7$ Potts model with external magnetic field has been simulated on $64 \times 64$ square lattice. After thermalization with $10^{5} - 2 \times 10^{5}$ sweeps, $5 \times 10^{5} -
2 \times 10^6$ iterations are performed at different values of the coupling $K$ and the field $H$. Longer runs with up to $3 \times 10^{6}$ iterations are done near the finite-size critical value $K_{c}$ at each field strength $H$. For $H = 0.00, 0.01, 0.015, 0.016, 0.02, 0.03$ and $0.05$ the long runs are performed at $K_{c} = 1.2909, 1.2774, 1.2707, 1.2696, 1.2652, 1.2531$ and $1.2299$ respectively, where these points are chosen as the estimated peak positions of the specific heat. From these long runs we have evaluated by appropriate reweighting [@Ferrenberg:1988] the energy as a function of the temperature for each value of $H$. The continuous curves of energy, specific heat and the Binder cumulant obtained through extrapolation from one long run are in very good agreement with the data points over rather wide ranges of $K$ for each $H$ value . The point should be stressed here is that the success of an extrapolation depends on number of statistically independent configurations used, which is provided by the cluster algorithm employed here. As a first criterion to distinguish phase transition, we have checked for each value of $H$, the energy distribution at the critical temperature where the specific heat possess a peak. At $H = 0$, where seven-state Potts model exhibits first-order character, a distinct double-peak is observed. As one can see from figure 1, with increasing $H$ the double peak converges to a single peak while $H$ reaches to the value of 0.016. Our simulations indicate that $H = 0.016$ is almost at the verge of the first-order phase transition region and for larger values of $H$ we have seen no double peak behaviour but from the observation of a single gaussian energy distribution, it is hard to conclude whether the transition becomes second-order or it is totaly wiped out.
$\;$
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFig. 3 . [Cluster size distributions for seve-]{} Fig. 4 . [Fluctuations in cluster size]{}\
[ral values of $H$.]{}\
From specific heat peaks and the Binder cumulant minima, relevant information for the phase transition may also be obtained. For a first-order phase transition, the specific heat exhibits Dirac-delta function like shape. While the system moves towards the region of softer phase transitions with increasing $H$, the peak widens as well as the height is reduced. In the case of no phase transition, the system may still be expected to possess some fluctuations in the energy. For the set of values of the increasing external field, one obtaines a series of specific heat curves which become lower and wider as one moves towards the lower valus of $K$. Instead of a polynomial fit, here we have simply joined the tips of the successive specific heat curves by straight lines and displayed it in figure 2. This most naive presentation already prevails the existence of two distinct regimes and the turnover point is at $H=0.016$ where the line of first order transitions comes to an end. Our data on the Binder cumulant minima led to the same conclusion.
$\;$
In order to have more microscopic insight and demonstrate what possibly the cluster search may add to the knowledge, we studied the time evolution of average cluster size (CS), its fluctuations (FSC) and the cluster size distributions (CSD). While the average energy fluctuates within a limited range about a mean value, the size of then existing clusters may easily fluctuate between the two extremes, namely from a single spin to a cluster of lattice size. Hence it seems to us that one may draw more information from cluster formation about the dynamical changes occuring in the system. Although the clusters we consider are of the Swendsen-Wang type, since the changes in cluster size are due to the update algorithm used, the observables not dealing with the exact cluster size (like $FCS$ and $CSD$) should give correct information on the system. We have studied the time evolutions over 2 - 3 million iterations of average cluster sizes about $K_c$ for each value of the external field. These data are very much the same of the corresponding time-series for energy but more amplified and displays more insight about the grouping of spins leading to the concerned energy value. Two-state structures of first-order transitions and the long range fluctuations of second order phase transitions are more easily detectable comparing to the energy-time series. In figure 3, we show the corresponding cluster size distributions in terms of histograms over the cluster size (normalized to the volume) in the range of 0 to 1. From figure 3, one can easily follow the appearence of the two-state of small and large size clusters as for the $H=0.00$ case, almost equal weight for all sizes as for $H=0.016$ and loosing the small and large clusters in favor of medium sizes for $H > 0.016$. The point to bring into the readers attention here is that the distribution of small clusters (bins $<$ 0.1) are very different for the three cases considered. For a first-order phase transition a substantial amount of small clusters are present and they gradually disappear while the phase transition weakens.
$\;$
The fluctuations $FCS$ ($FCS=<(CS)^{2}>-<CS>^{2}$) in the average cluster size are calculated for different values of $H$ , as a function of $K$. For the case of no external field, at small $K$ values (high temperatures) the cluster sizes are small, hence $FCS$ is small. As $K$ increases, the cluster sizes are getting larger, but $FCS$ increases due to the existence of the small-size clusters as well as the large ones. At the critical point, formation of the largest clusters leads to the largest value of $FCS$. One can make a similar discussion for $K > K_{c}$ (when the critical point is approached from above). When the external field is turned on, spin alignments in the field direction reduces the fluctuations and the probability of finding large and small clusters in coexistence decreases with the increasing magnetic field. $FCS$ for $H=0.00, 0.01, 0.016, 0.02$ and $0.05$ are plotted in figure 4. Joining the tips of the successive $FCS$ curves in figure 4 yields nothing but exactly what is displayed in figure 2 apart from a small shift in $K$ due to the finite size effects. As can be seen from these plots, increasing magnetic field reduces the critical temperature, as well as the peak heights. As $H$ increases, the $FCS$ curves widen and after some $H$ value, it is hard to see a distinct maximum point. At $H=0.05$ the $FCS$ curve is step function like where the phase transition is already wiped out. Besides the appearence of two different regimes on either side of the field value $H=0.016$, figure 4 also displays differences in the distinct shapes of the $FCS$ curves belonging to two regimes. We observed that the $FCS$ curves for $H > 0.016$ are continuous and a polynomial fit is possible which may be denoted as the sign of a smooth change in the average cluster size in the system. The curves for $H < 0.016$ have the shape of a spike, for which the only possible polynomial fit is to have two distinct polynomials joining at the tip. This appearent discontinuity in the rate of fluctuations in cluster size may be attributed to the two state structure of first-order phase transitions. The low temperature asymptotic values for all $H$ seem to be almost the same regardless of the order of transition. Because of small thermal fluctuations at low temperatures, the clusters freeze after they are formed, resulting in a small $FCS$ value.
$\;$
In conclusion, one can see from $CSD$ and $FCS$ plots and from the energy histograms obtained near $K_{c}$ for each considered value of $H$ and from the extrapolations performed using the fitted values of the maximums of the specific heat, the first-order transition in 2D $q = 7$ Potts model seems to disappear at $H=0.016$. What we would like to bring into attention here is that the observation of the temperature dependence of fluctuations in the average cluster size and the cluster size distributions gives valuable information about the nature of the transition and this kind of investigation may enrich the physical insight when employed in studying phase transitions.
$\;$
Further work is planned to study random-field and random-bond Potts models using the same algorithm. $\;$
$\star \star \star$
The support from TÜBİTAK through project TBAG-1299 is acknowledged.
[20]{}
POTTS R. B., [*Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.*]{}, [**48**]{} (1952) 106.
BILLOIRE A., [*Nuc. Phys.*]{} (Proc. Suppl.), [**B42**]{} (1995) 21.
LEE J. and KOSTERLITZ J. M., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**65**]{} (1990) 137.
BAXTER R. J., [*J. Phys.*]{}, [**C6**]{} (1973) L445.
WU F. Y., [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, [**54**]{} (1982) 235.
BINDER K. and LANDAU D. P., [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, [**B30**]{} (1984) 1477.
CHALLA M. S. S., LANDAU D. P. and BINDER K., [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, [**B34**]{} (1986) 1841.
BINDER K., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**47**]{} (1981) 693.
SWENDSEN R. H. and WANG J. S., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**58**]{} (1987) 86.
WOLF U., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**62**]{} (1989) 361.
DOTSENKO V. S., SELKE W. and TALAPOV A. L., [*Physica*]{}, [**A170**]{} (1991) 278.
FERRENBERG A.M. and SWENDSEN R. H., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**61**]{} (1988) 2635.
FIGURE CAPTIONS
[Figure 1.]{} Energy histograms at the critical point $K_c$ for several values of $H$.
[Figure 2.]{} Specific heat peaks vs. $H$. Dashline is drawn to guide the eye.
[Figure 3.]{} Cluster size distributions for several values of $H$.
[Figure 4.]{} Fluctuations in cluster size vs. $K$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Treaty of Fort Laramie
Treaty of Fort Laramie may refer to:
Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851)
Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
}
|
Q:
How to generate an array of quarter numbers of a year along with year number based on current date using moment.js in node js?
I want to create an array of quarter numbers along with year number using current timestamp in node js.
For example, current quarter is, Q1 and year is, 2020. Now, I want to create an array like the following.
quarters = ['Q2-2019','Q3-2019','Q4-2019','Q1-2020']
In the above array, Q1 is of year 2020 and remaining 3 are from year 2019
Basically my requirement is to create array of quarters including present quarter number and past 3 quarter numbers along with year number.
Right now, am getting an array like, ['Q2','Q3','Q4','Q1'] by using the following code given by @Santhosh S. The code is,
let quarters = [ 0, 1, 2, 3 ].map(i =>
moment().subtract(i, 'Q').format('[Q]Q')
);
console.log(quarters);
Is there anyway to generate this array?
A:
use moment().quarter(); to get current quarter.
Edit: use subtract and format to Quarter. Sample code below
let format = '[Q]Q';
let quarters = [
moment().format(format),
moment().subtract(1, 'Q').format(format),
moment().subtract(2, 'Q').format(format),
moment().subtract(3, 'Q').format(format)
];
console.log(quarters);
<script src="https://momentjs.com/downloads/moment.min.js"></script>
Or a more concise version:
let quarters = [ 0, 1, 2, 3 ].map(i =>
moment().subtract(i, 'Q').format('[Q]Q')
);
console.log(quarters);
<script src="https://momentjs.com/downloads/moment.min.js"></script>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
}
|
Share this...
Already 58 New 2017 Papers Link
Solar Activity To Climate Changes
Earlier this month, the first installment in the accumulating list of hundreds of new peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting a skeptical position on climate change alarm was made available.
Included on the list were 38 papers linking climate changes to solar forcing: 38 Sun-Climate Scientific Papers, January-March 2017
Just in the last few weeks alone, another 20 scientific papers were identified which link solar variations to climate changes, which means 58 papers have already been published in 2017.
20 New Sun-Climate Papers
High Solar Activity (Warming), High Crop Yields – Low Solar Activity (Cooling), Low Crop Yields
“Throughout the written history of Finland, delayed onset of summer and night frost have been named as the main reasons for crop failure and famine. … Our reconstruction suggests that in the 8th–10th centuries AD, when continuous crop cultivation was established in Finland, the risk of temperature-driven crop failure was notably lower and the crops were generally higher than during the historical period (c. 13th century ad onwards). The continuous period of high crop yields coincides with an episode of multi-centennial summer season warmth, associated with the MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly] in the region and around north-west Europe (Goosse et al., 2012; Luoto and Helama, 2010; Ogilvie et al., 2000; Sundqvist et al., 2010). The warm climatic regime of the MCA was interrupted by a period of distinctly cold winter and summer temperatures c. ad 1110– 1150 (Helama et al., 2009b; Linderholm et al., 2015; Tiljander et al., 2003). Also on the eastern side of the study area, in North-West Russia, c. ad 950–1100 was marked by a warmer climate and intensive agricultural expansion to the north (Klimenko, 2016).”
“The rapid mid-15th century cooling, which followed a major atmospheric circulation change over the North Atlantic (Dawson et al., 2007; Meeker and Mayewski, 2002) and coincided with the culmination of the Spörer solar minimum (Miyahara et al., 2006), has been evidenced in various summer and winter season reconstructions of the region (Haltia-Hovi et al., 2007; Helama et al., 2009b; Klimenko and Solomina, 2010; Luoto and Helama, 2010; Zhang et al., 2015).”
“The culmination of the ‘LIA’ [Little Ice Age] in Finland has been commonly dated to the late 17th and early 18th centuries ad (Luoto, 2013; Luoto and Helama, 2010; Tiljander et al., 2003), which is synchronous with the onset of the phase of the lowest yield ratios in our reconstruction. The Maunder solar minima (c. 1645–1715) and several volcanic eruptions preceded the culmination (Shindell et al., 2003).”
Decadal Variations In Ozone, ENSO, NAO, Mean Sea Level, And Climate ‘Excited By Solar Activity’
2. Chapanov et al., 2017
DECADAL CYCLES OF EARTH ROTATION, MEAN SEA LEVEL AND CLIMATE,
EXCITED BY SOLAR ACTIVITY
“But recently, another mechanism of climate variations, due to cosmic rays was proposed (Kilifarska and Haight, 2005; Kilifarska, 2008, 2011; Velinov et al., 2005). According to the new models, the cosmic rays produce a ionization of the atmosphere, changes of atmosphere conductivity, lightning, and an increase of ozone concentration. The ozone plays significant role in climate variations, so the new models of cosmic ray influences on Earth atmosphere may explain the observed correlation between cosmic rays and climate variations.”
“The shape of solar cycles is rather different from sinusoidal form, so they affect geosystems by many short-term harmonics. A possible solar origin of decadal variations of Earth rotation, mean sea level and climate indices is investigated by the harmonics of Jose, de Vries and Suess cycles with centennial periods of 178.7, 208 and 231 years. The common decadal cycles of solar-terrestrial influences are investigated by long time series of Length of Day (LOD), Mean Sea Level (MSL) variations at Stockholm, ElNiño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), temperature and precipitation over Eastern Europe, Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), Wolf’s Numbers Wn and North-South solar asymmetry. A good agreement exists between the decadal cycles of LOD [length of day], MSL [mean sea level], climate and solar indices whose periods are between 12-13, 14-16, 16-18 and 28-33 years .”
“The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), Wolf’s Numbers (Wn) and North-South (N-S) solar asymmetry expose different spectral peaks, amplitude modulation and phases from these bands. These solar time series represent thermal heating over the Earth, solar wind (space weather) and solar magnetic field variations. The decadal cycles of N-S [North-South] solar asymmetry strongly affect corresponding cycles of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) .”
3. Helama et al., 2017 (full)
“Solar proxy data (Steinhilber et al., 2009) consistently illustrate low activity between AD 400 and 700, with a notable seventh-century solar minimum, the millennial-scale solar changes culminating over these centuries and thus during the DACP [Dark Ages Cold Period] (Scafetta, 2012). Interestingly, there is multiple proxy evidence showing that reduced solar activity may modulate the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) towards its negative phase (Gray et al., 2010). Since the NAO is a leading pattern of climate variability in the global atmosphere, and the negative NAO phase is generally associated with cooler temperatures particularly over western Europe and eastern North-America for both the winter (Wanner et al., 2001; Hurrell and Deser, 2010) and summer seasons (Folland et al., 2009), a prolonged negative NAO phase could thus result in cold temperatures at least over some parts of the Northern Hemisphere continents. … Recently, a collection of multi-proxy evidence illustrated a cooling phase around the Northern Hemisphere which was tree-ring dated to AD 536-660 and termed the Late Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA) (Büntgen et al., 2016). This event was shown to follow a multitude of large unknown volcanic eruptions in AD 536, 540 and 547, for which evidence was derived from bipolar ice-core timescales and sulphur records (Sigl et al., 2015). The cooling, having once initiated from volcanic aerosol forcing (Larsen et al. 2008), may have been sustained over extended intervals possibly because of the coinciding solar minimum and through sea-ice/ocean feedback mechanisms (Büntgen et al., 2016; Matskovsky and Helama, 2016), analogous to findings from equivalent proxy data (Gennaretti et al., 2014) and transient climate model simulations(Miller et al., 2012) during the LIA.
4. Yukimoto et al., 2017
“A delayed response of the winter North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) to the 11-year solar cycle has been observed and modeled in recent studies. The result of this study supports a previous hypothesis that suggests that the 11-year solar cycle signals on the Earth’s surface are produced through a downward penetration of the changes in the stratospheric circulation. … The importance of the North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) for the European weather and climate conditions has been known for a long time (Walker and Bliss 1932; van Loon and Rogers 1978; Hurrell et al. 2003). NAO is the dominant intrinsic mode of atmospheric variability over the Atlantic sector (Hurrell and Deser 2009). … The present result confirms the previous hypothesis reported by Kodera et al. (2016), which stated that the major solar influence on the Earth’s surface can be produced through changes in stratospheric circulation , and the spatial structure of the solar signal at the Earth’s surface is largely conditioned by atmosphere’s interaction with the ocean.”
5. Wang et al., 2017
“The identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively .”
’11-Year Solar Cycle…Influences [Surface] Weather And Climate’
6. Gray et al., 2017
“There is growing evidence that variability associated with the 11-year solar cycle has an impact at the Earth’s surface and influences its weather and climate . Although the direct response to the Sun’s variability is extremely small, a number of different mechanisms have been suggested that could amplify the signal, resulting in regional signals that are much larger than expected. In this paper the observed solar cycle signal at the Earth’s surface is described, together with proposed mechanisms that involve modulation via the total incoming solar irradiance and via modulation of the ultra-violet part of the solarspectrum that influences ozone production in the stratosphere.”
7. Hood, 2017
QBO/Solar Modulation of the Boreal Winter Madden-Julian Oscillation … “The Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), also known as the 30-60 day oscillation, is the strongest of the intraseasonal climate oscillations in the tropics and has significant derivative effects on extratropical circulation and intraseasonal climate. It has recently been shown that the stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) modulates the amplitude of the boreal winter MJO such that MJO amplitudes are larger on average during the easterly phase (QBOE) than during the westerly phase (QBOW). A major possible mechanism is the decrease in static stability in the lowermost stratosphere under QBOE conditions resulting from relative upwelling associated with the QBO induced meridional circulation. Here, evidence is presented that tropical upwelling changes related to the 11-year solar cycle also modulate the boreal winter MJO . Based on 37.3 years of MJO amplitude data, the largest amplitudes and occurrence rates, and the weakest static stabilities in the tropical lower stratosphere, occur during the QBOE phase under solar minimum (SMIN) conditions while the smallest amplitudes and strongest static stabilities occur during the QBOW phase under solar maximum (SMAX) conditions. Conversely, when the QBO and solar forcings are opposed (QBOW/SMIN and QBOE/SMAX), the difference in occurrence rates becomes statistically insignificant.”
8. Gan et al., 2017
Temperature responses to the 11-year solar cycle in the mesosphere from the 31-year (1979-2010) … “Atmospheric response to the solar cycle (SC) here refers to atmospheric variability induced by the 11-year solar activity cycle. The SC [solar cycle] response originates mainly from large (4-8%) solar UV spectral irradiance change (in the range of 200-250 nm) from solar minimum to maximum condition, while the total solar flux stays nearly constant (0.1%) [Donnelly, 1991; Lean et al., 1997; Woods and Rottman, 1997; Beig et al., 2008; Gary et al., 2010]. The variability of the solar UV spectral irradiance affects the thermal structure of the atmosphere by directly changing the total energy deposited and indirectly modifying the photochemistry and dynamics of the atmosphere . In addition to the equatorial Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) [Baldwin et al., 2011] and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [Li et al., 2013], the 11-year SC is also a significant source to the inter-annual variability in the mesosphere and lower (MLT) region.”
Periods Of Low Solar Activity Explain Little Ice Age Cooling Trends
9. Pandey and Dubey, 2017
“The Maunder minimum (1645-1715) refers to a period when very few sunspots were observed. During this period, the Earth climate was cooler than normal . This period mimics the solar cycle climate change connections. The particles and electromagnetic radiations flowing from solar activity outbursts are important for long-term climate variations. There is an abrupt and drastic cooling in the climate can be possible in near future due to large scale melting of global ice by global warming, and prolonged sunspot minima. There is a close correlation between variations in the 11-year sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate . Solar activity varies on shorter-time scales, including the 11- year sunspot cycle and longer-term as Milankovitch cycle.”
10. Williams et al., 2017
“Reconstructed SSTs significantly warmed 1.1 ± 0.30°C … from 1660s to 1800 (rate of change: 0.008 ± 0.002°C/year), followed by a significant cooling of 0.8 ± 0.04°C … until 1840 (rate of change: 0.02 ± 0.001°C/year), then a significant warming of 0.8 ± 0.16°C from 1860 until the end of reconstruction in 2007 (rate of change: 0.005 ± 0.001°C/year).” [Sea surface temperatures warmed faster from 1660s-1800 than they did from 1860-2007.]
“In fact, the SST reconstruction significantly co-varied with a reconstruction of solar irradiance [Lean, 2000] on the 11-year periodicity only from ~1745 to 1825. In addition, the reconstructed SSTs were cool during the period of lower than usual solar irradiance called the Maunder minimum (1645–1715) but then warmed and cooled during the Dalton minimum (1795–1830), a second period of reduced solar irradiance. … The Dalton solar minimum and increased volcanic activity in the early 1800s could explain the decreasing SSTs from 1800 to 1850 … [T]hese data suggest a complex combination of solar irradiance, volcanic activity, internal ocean dynamics and external anthropogenic forcing explain the variability in Aleutian SSTs for the past 342 years.”
11. Didkovsky et al., 2017
“Radiative forcing of the Earth’s atmosphere plays a significant role in its thermal and chemical balance (Haigh, 1994; Haigh et al., 2010). Effects of heating and cooling are influenced by long-term solar-cycle changes . One example of such change compiled from sources that show sensitivity to the changes of solar activity (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998) is the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to about 1715 (Maunder, 1890). These observations demonstrate the effects of solar-activity changes during the Maunder Minimum for which low to near-zero sunspot numbers persisted for about six solar cycles (SC) with a SC-averaged period (for SC 1 to 22) of 11 years (Hathaway, 2010).”
12. Nan et al., 2017
“Furthermore, our temperature records, within age uncertainty, coincides with the changes of the solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and climate variability. … The relationship between the solar irradiance and climate change has been demonstrated by lots of studies (He et al., 2013; Kroonenberg et al., 2007; Sagawa et al., 2014; Soon et al., 2014). It was suggested that the solar activity was a primary driving force of climatic variations in the Holocene (Bond et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005). Small solar perturbations can be magnified by different feedback mechanisms and may ultimately lead to climatic oscillations on several time scales, such as annual to decadal and/or centennial scales, as well as millennial scales (Haigh, 1996; Bond et al., 2001).”
‘Marked Association Of Solar Activity With Weather And Climate Change’
13. Xiao et al., 2017
“Solar wind and electric-microphysical process is the key mechanism that affects climate … We investigated the influencing mechanism of high-energetic particle precipitation modulated by solar wind on the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). On a day-to-day time scale, Zhou, Tinsley, and Huang (2014) and Huang et al. (2013) found that the minima in AO and NAO indices only lagged 0~2 days of the solar wind speed (SWS) minima during years of high stratospheric aerosol loading, which suggests a much faster mechanism of solar influence on the atmospheric system compared to the ozone destruction process. From the perspective of year-to-year variation, Xiao and Li (2016) and Zhou et al. (2016) showed a robust relationship between SWS [solar wind speed] and NAO in boreal winter . These aforementioned studies indicate that the wintertime Iceland Low in the North Atlantic was very sensitive to solar wind variations and played an important role in the process of solar wind and electric-microphysical effects on climate. Moreover, under the condition of a weak electric field, we have demonstrated the marked impact of cloud droplet electricity on the collision efficiency of cloud condensation nuclei. This, in turn, suggests that the collision in a cloud microphysics process constitutes the core link between atmospheric electricity and climate (Tinsley and Leddon 2013; Tinsley and Zhou 2013, 2014). Furthermore, Tinsley and Zhou (2015) improved the collision and parameterization scheme that varied with electric quantity in a cloud microphysics process and quantitatively evaluated the effects of high-energetic particle flux on cloud charge. This achievement not only supports the marked association of solar activity with weather and climate change on various time scales , but also but also avails the quantitative accession of solar impacts on climate. It is worth noting that the successful establishment development of a theoretical model regarding of the influencing process of solar energetic particles on the atmosphere improves the development of global climate models.”
Hurricane Frequency ‘Is Synchronous With The Solar Irradiance’
14. Vyklyuk et al., 2017
“Hurricane genesis modelling based on the relationship between solar activity and hurricanes … There are a number of works concerning the Sun–Earth connections and their influence on atmospheric motions. There are a number of observations which show that within a few days after energetic solar eruptions (flares, coronal mass ejections and eruptive prominences), there are diverse meteorological responses of considerable strength (Gomes et al. 2012). … Conclusion: [T]here are several indications which are in favor that the beginning of violent cyclonic motions in Earth’s atmosphere may be caused by charged particles from the solar wind .”
15. Katsuki et al., 2017
“Typhoon frequency in East Asia is synchronous with the solar irradiance . … Several studies documented typhoon pattern changes in response to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). … The fluctuation of the solar activity plays a key role in regulating the westerly jet movement. The multi-centennial scale of the typhoon frequency in mid-latitude East Asia is therefore caused by changes in the solar activity and ENSO conditions.”
‘Climate…Follows Solar Activity Fluctuations On Multidecadal To Centennial Time Scales’
16. Moreno et al., 2017
“Understanding the Sun-Earth’s climate coupling system is both an essential and an urgent issue, with great progress achieved over the last decades (e.g., Haigh, 2007; Soon et al., 2014 for a review). Recently, Brugnara et al. (2013) referred that the Euro–Atlantic sector, in which Portugal is located, seems to be a region with a particularly strong solar influence on the troposphere, finding a significant change in the mean late winter circulation over Europe, which culminates in detectable impacts on the near-surface climate. Jiang et al. (2015) suggested that (i) climate in the northern North Atlantic regions follows SA [solar activity] fluctuations on multidecadal to centennial time scales , and (ii) it is more susceptible to the influence of those fluctuations throughout cool periods with, for instance, less vigorous ocean circulation. Similar results were found by Gómez-Navarro et al. (2012) in the context of climate simulations for the second millennium over the Iberian Peninsula, recognizing that temperature and precipitation variability is significantly affected at centennial time scales by variations in the SA [solar activity].”
“Grand Minima and Dalton-type Minimum scenarios are broadly characterized by (i) lower TSI (i.e., lower available PAR) (Lean, 1991, and references therein), (ii) development of cloudiness (e.g., Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008), and (iii) decreased global/regional air surface temperatures (e.g., Neukom et al., 2014) in tandem with greater regional precipitation variability.”
“The connections between solar phenomena and the lower atmosphere processes can be explained by two kind of mechanisms: (i) “top-to-down”, influencing the pole-to-equator temperature gradient and exerting an impact on the modulation of the atmospheric circulation cells, weakening or strengthening the zonal winds, and (ii) “bottom-to up” that directly impact on the radiation fluxes, energy balance and temperatures on the ground. Both finally impact the atmospheric circulation modes responsible for the global/regional precipitation and temperature patterns (e.g., Gray et al., 2010; Martin-Puertas et al., 2012; Thiéblemont et al., 2015).”
17. Lihua, 2017
“The modulation action from solar activity plays an important role in the temperature change, and there is a possible association existing in the global land-ocean temperature and solar activity on decade time scales . … About 11-year period, a remarkable oscillation of solar activity, continually exists in wavelet transform of solar variation. According to the cross wavelet transform, solar activity influences global land-ocean temperature change on ~11-year time scales during 1935-1995 with above the 5 % significance level.”
‘A Large Proportion Of [Recent] Climate Variations…Explained By TSI And Cosmic Rays’
18. Utomo, 2017
“A similar result was also found for the relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray flux with a negative correlation, i.e. 0.69/year. When solar activities decrease, the clouds cover rate increase due-0.61/month and – to secondary ions produced by cosmic rays. The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth’s surface [cooling]. … The increase in the formation rate of cloud would affect the decrease in the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The relationship between cosmic rays and solar constant is an “opposite” relationship because of the negative correlation type (r < 0). The phenomenon of “opposite” is in a good agreement with the result by Svensmark (1997) who found a correlation between temperature and global cloud coverage with the cosmic rays . … [T]he climate also depends on variations in the flux of solar energy received by the earth’s surface. Variation in the solar energy flux is caused by variations in solar activity cycle. Thus the climate is a manifestation of how solar radiation is absorbed, redistributed by the atmosphere, land and oceans, and ultimately radiated back into space. Every variation of solar energy received at the earth’s surface and reradiated by the earth into space will have a direct impact on climate change on Earth .”
19. Biktash, 2017
“The effects of total solar irradiance (TSI) and volcanic activity on long-term global temperature variations during solar cycles 19–23 [1954-2008] were studied. It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters. … Recent studies by Pudovkin and Raspopov, Tinsley, and Swensmark have shown that the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity. Conditions in interplanetary space, which can influence GCRs and climate change, have been studied in numerous works. As has been demonstrated by Biktash, the long-term CR count rate and global temperature variations in 20–23 solar cycles are modulated by solar activity and by the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field). A possible geophysical factor which is able to affect the influence of solar activity on the Earth’s climate is volcanism. The effects of volcanism can lead to serious consequences in the atmosphere and the climate.”
+2 W m-2 Per Decade Surface Solar Radiation Forcing From 1983-2013
20. Alexandri et al., 2017
“In this work, the spatiotemporal variability of surface solar radiation (SSR) is examined over the Eastern Mediterranean region for a 31-year period (1983–2013). … The satellite-based data from CERES (Cloud and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System), GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment) and ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) underestimate SSR while the reanalysis data from the ERA-Interim overestimate SSR compared to CM SAF SARAH. Using a radiative transfer model and a set of ancillary data, these biases are attributed to the atmospheric parameters that drive the transmission of solar radiation in the atmosphere, namely, clouds, aerosols and water vapor [CO2 not mentioned].. … The CM SAF SARAH SSR trend was found to be positive (brightening) and statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (0.2 ± 0.05 W/m2/year [2 W m-2 per decade].”
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
package org.simpleflatmapper.reflect;
public interface IndexedSetter<T, P> {
void set(T target, P value, int index) throws Exception;
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Leave your childhood behind: a GI Joe comic all grown up
I’ve been holding onto this title for a while and after this last issue, I have to let it out. I was a huge GI Joe fan when I was growing up. So much so that in middle school I wrote an exposition essay about my childhood obsession and got a perfect 5/5. The huge battlegrounds my brother and I used to setup with the small, plastic figures all over our backyard were extensive and amazing. Zip lines, sand pits, water hazards, and epic battles. I was a storm shadow kid myself. I loved the ninjas, but something about the ninja in white just did it for me.
Cobra
When I jumped back into collecting comics I immediately set my sights on the GI Joe titles. IDW was releasing them title after title and when the movie came out, there was a boom in new interest. There are many titles including GI Joe, GI Joe: Origins, and the one you should be reading, GI Joe: Cobra.
This title, Cobra, is written by Mike Costa and Christos Gage with art by Antonio Fusio. It follows a double agent for the Joe’s who has recently infiltrated Cobra. I called it a grown up GI Joe because this book is sort of an all hands off approach to what is otherwise a pretty long standing world. I recently saw an interview with Costa who said IDW and Hasbro were all for him taking this story in any direction he saw fit. Costa had been writing on the Transformers story (also recommended) and was asked to take the lead on this new Joe title. He admitted to not being much of a fan and decided to basically say “no one is safe,” and man, NO ONE is safe in this story line. There are so many shocker moments, so many deaths from central figures, you just feel like you are watching an agent lose his grip on reality. The most recent issue, all spoilers aside, is jaw dropping. The action is fast, the pacing is perfect, the art a great match. Heavy inks, jagged lines. I can’t recommend this story enough.
For those that haven’t seen Max Landis’ “The Death and Return of Superman”, you’re missing out on pure internet gold. The short film takes a whimsical, and drunken, look at one of the most important events in comic book history, The Death and Return of Superman (see above..doi).
Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. was our idea. Yep, that’s right, we thought of it way back in July of 2012. You want evidence? Fine! Check out episode 69 of Rated NA right around the 34 minute mark. Okay, we realize we’re probably not the only group of geeks on the planet that fantasized about a S.H.I.E.L.D. television series before it was announced last year, but we like to feel special on occasion.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Museums / Visitor Centers
The connection of people to spaces is nowhere more evident that in visitor centers, theaters, museums and classrooms. Some of our firm’s favorite design types are buildings that make this connection with the public. In addition to ready access and pleasing aesthetics, these spaces need to be accoustically excellent and technologically advanced.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
As you probably now, your application’s images that are in the drawable directory must be named in lowercase.
Unfortunately this is not true for the iPhone applications. A big portion of my job is to develop Android apps using resources from existing iPhone apps. In order to be quick and efficient, I wrote this bash script that renames all your files in your current directory to lowercase, creates a new folder named 2x (which contains the large images) and removes the @2x extension.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Downloads storage
On iPhone, Spotify saves downloaded music in an encrypted form on your device’s storage. If you need more room for a new download, iOS automatically frees up space by deleting any unused stored data. If no more stored data can be deleted, you need to free up space by manually removing downloaded tracks.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
DNA damage in dihydroartemisinin-resistant Molt-4 cells.
Artemisinin generates carbon-based free radicals when it reacts with iron, and induces molecular damage and apoptosis. Its toxicity is more selective toward cancer cells because cancer cells contain a higher level of intracellular free iron. Dihydroartemisinin (DHA), an analog of artemisinin, has selective cytotoxicity toward Molt-4 human lymphoblastoid cells. A major concern is whether cancer cells could develop resistance to DHA, thus limiting its therapeutic efficacy. We have developed a DHA-resistant Molt-4 cell line (RTN) and found out that these cells exhibited resistance to DHA but no significant cross- resistance to artemisinin-tagged holotransferrin (ART-TF), a synthetic artemisinin compound. In the present study, we investigated DNA damage induced by DHA and ART-TF in both Molt-4 and RTN cells using the comet assay. RTN cells exhibited a significantly lower level of basal and X-ray-induced DNA damage compared to Molt-4 cells. Both DHA and ART-TF induced DNA damage in Molt-4 cells, whereas DNA damage was induced in RTN cells by ART-TF, and not DHA. The result of this study shows that by the cell selection method, it is possible to generate a Molt-4 cell line which is not sensitive to DHA, but sensitive to ART-TF, as measured by DNA damage.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
package io.micronaut.aop
import io.micronaut.context.ApplicationContext
import spock.lang.Specification
class CombinedBeanSpec extends Specification {
void "test a bean with both AOP and executable methods"() {
given:
ApplicationContext ctx = ApplicationContext.run('spec.name': CombinedBeanSpec.simpleName)
expect:
ctx.getBean(CombinedBean) != null
}
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
(CMR::FUNCTION-DEPS)
(CMR::FUNCTION-DEPS-LST)
(CMR::COLLECT-TOPOSORT-FUNCTION-DEPS)
(CMR::FORMULA-CHECK-TESTS)
(CMR::DEF-FORMULA-CHECKER-FN)
(CMR::FORMULA-CHECKS-LEMMAS)
(CMR::DEF-FORMULA-CHECKER-LEMMAS-FN)
(CMR::FORMALS-SUBSUBSTS)
(CMR::DEF-FORMULA-CHECK-DEFINITION-THM-FN-AUX)
(CMR::DEF-FORMULA-CHECK-DEFINITION-THM-FN)
(CMR::DEF-FORMULA-CHECKS-DEFINITION-THM-LIST-FN)
(CMR::FILTER-DEFINED-FUNCTIONS)
(CMR::DEF-FORMULA-CHECKS-FN)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Welcome back!
So, there is more to this chapter, I'll be the first to say it. I'm throwing some finishing touches on it now. I had made this one big super chapter, but was informed that, unfortunately, 8000+ words is way too much for one chapter. So, as a result, I cut it down into two parts.
Now, I must apologize. This took way too long to bring out, regardless of what anyone says. End of school led to an increase at work and it was tough for me to figure out a way to schedule in everything, but now, after a month or two, I have found a way to properly schedule my work, writing and, albeit nonexistent, social life.
Anyway, now that all of that is out of the way, I can finally say that I'm proud to bring you the fourth chapter of Downed!
Enjoy.
Yang shot out, striking a Crok head on. The massive beast bounced back, hit a tree, but still got up and began moving back towards the team.
Ruby was trying to cut down as many as she could without wasting ammo. She knew she was already low enough as is; shooting these things wouldn't help. She'd have to use them in an emergency.
Blake was close by to her leader, providing as much support as possible. Using her shadows, Blake was able to bounce in and around these beasts, cutting them up quickly and accurately. However, their iron-like skin makes dealing any kind of damage very difficult. Bullets and shells seemed to bounce off of them, while cutting them down was difficult and dangerous.
Something the girls noticed was that as the Crok's got close, they stood on their back legs, giving themselves a huge size advantage. This, however, did leave them exposed, as their bellies weren't armored. But they could still take a couple of hits. Crok's were very well built.
Yang made a shot, punching one that dared stand in its gut. It recoiled for a moment, but then turned an angry eye towards the brawler. Before it could lunge at Yang, a gust of wind could be felt. Before Yang realized it, her younger sister had come to the rescue, utilizing her speed semblance to decapitate the beast. Ruby did a flip before landing next to Yang. The sisters silently nodded then went back in.
Blake had been using the trees to give herself a boost. Using her cat-like reflexes, she prowled above the Crok's that were still on their feet. Those were her targets. She jumped down, quickly slashing and stabbing whatever she could.
She weakened them greatly, but they wouldn't die yet.
Choosing that she didn't care about her ammo anymore, Blake pumped a few rounds into each beast. Five fell. But others still emerged from the swamp.
"Ruby! Yang!" Blake called, "There's too many! We have to fall back!"
"To where?!" Yang responded, "To the cave? We'll be cornered there!"
"Well we can't fight here," Ruby defended Blake, "Weiss would be a great deal of help too!" She took a breath, "Ok! We're going back to the cave!"
They all ran back to the cave. Ruby using Crescent Rose to cut down a many trees as possible, blocking the Crok's for a moment. It was still better than nothing.
Once they got back to the cave, the trio took a moment to catch their breaths. Weiss, who had stayed back in the cave per Yang's request, was confused. "What happened out there?" She asked, "Was it-?"
"Croks!" Ruby almost yelled, trying to steady her breathing, "So many! Like... Wow was that a lot of Croks!"
"I only wish you were joking..." Weiss spoke meekly, "How many is a lot?"
"Enough to give us trouble." Yang said blankly. "Listen up! Ruby gave us some time by taking those trees down but we don't have much longer here! We can either move to another area or stand and fight."
All three looked at each other, pondering their options. Up until Weiss decided to speak, "Ok, allow me to be the voice of reason here. Ahem, we have few supplies, probably low an ammo, we're backed into a cave and our ride out of here is just over forty-five minutes away. Running may not seem like a good idea, but it gives us the best chance for survival. If we stay here then once we run out of ammo we're dead."
Ruby and Blake looked at Weiss, then each other, then to Yang. Ruby stood up, "I... I think Weiss is right here. We can go out, find another place that won't leave us backed into a corner and fight there. Any amount of time we can burn until the evac comes is a plus. I say we book it."
Blake sighed, "I hate to admit it, but running for now sounds good."
Yang nodded and clapped her hands together, "So it's settled?" Everyone nodded, "Good. Let's get going." Picking up the radio, Yang was the first to step out of the cave. She didn't even take more than two steps before stopping and sighing. The rest of the team joined her outside and gasped.
The Crokolisks had climbed above and moved around the trees Ruby had taken down. The young leader's shoulder slumped, "Man. Can't catch a break today."
"No." Blake said, drawing Gambol Shroud, "No we cannot."
"Nobody said it'd be easy." Weiss commented, turning Myrtenaster toward the Grimm.
"Well, if we're gonna go down, I'd say let's give 'em hell!" Yang cried, her gauntlets activating. She dropped the radio behind her and took a stance, "Let's go!"
The entire team joined her in a brutal war cry, charging in.
"Hey... Pyrrha?"
"Yes, Jaune?"
"Wasn't Team RWBY supposed to be home, like, an hour ago from their mission?"
"They probably got caught up in some weather or something." Pyrrha said.
"Maybe their flight got cancelled?" Nora inquired, "You can never trust airlines these days."
"I don't think it works like that, Nora." Ren stated, not even looking up from his book. "Beacon would provide the transportation to and from."
Jaune looked out from his team's dorm room. Team RWBY had been sent on a mission in the southern territories to assist a dig site. Said dig site was run by the Schnee Dust Company and was running into some problems with Grimm running around the area. Ozpin recommended a third or fourth year team or two, but Weiss' father insisted it would be his daughter's team. They performed perfectly, keeping Grimm at bay until the SDC was able to build a proper wall around the site.
The mission wasn't set to last more than two days. Even if they got held over for some reason, one of the members of RWBY would tell someone in JNPR.
That's why Jaune was worried.
Still, he knew lack of communication between teams is part of the job and passed it off as an emergency or something. Or maybe they did get caught in some weather.
He sighed, closing the door. Looking into his teams' dorm, Jaune announced, "Ok... Anyone have any suggestions on what to do next?"
"OH!" Nora cried, "I know! We can go raid Team RWBY's room again!"
"Nora," Pyrrha chastised, "We already set up some pranks in there. If we open the door it'll blow up in our face..."
"Literally!" Jaune added.
Nora became slightly flustered and sat back down, "Oh yeah... I forgot." Just as she sat, her stomach rumbled, catching both hers and Ren's attention. "Oh! I got it, now! Let's go get dinner!"
Jaune and Pyrrha shared a glance; Pyrrha smirked while Jaune sighed. "Alright, I guess we can go get some food." The leader gave in, earning a loud cheer from the hammer wielder.
The team departed from their dorm. It had been a long day for them, and there wasn't really much to do (not that they really put much thought into it). Dinner would definitely give them a chance to recharge a bit and figure out something to do.
Entering the cafeteria, they were almost instantly greeted by team CFVY, who had entered moments before them. "Hey there!" Coco called, "How's it going?"
"Slow day." Pyrrha responded as her team went for dinner. "If it wasn't for Nora we'd still be in our dorm doing nothing." She and the rest of team CFVY followed the rest of JNPR's lead and went up for their food. "Hey, since I've got you all, have any of you seen team RWBY? I'm not sure if they got back from their last mission..."
Velvet turned to her questioningly, "Oh? They never got back?"
"Ah!" Coco waved them both off, "They probably got caught up in Ozpin's web of after-action reports, debriefing and mission review." She composed herself, picking up a tray and filling it with food, "I'm sure they're fine."
"Yeah," Pyrrha sighed, continuing her quest for dinner, "You're probably right."
"Of course I'm right! Now come on, let's go eat!"
Both teams nodded in agreement and took their seats. The teams chatted amongst each other, topics varying from different points, depending on who you listened in on. Pyrrha, Jaune and Velvet held a conversation on their school work; Ren and Nora mindlessly babbled (Nora did most of the babbling, Ren corrected her) while Coco, Fox and Yatsuhashi all listened. Well, Fox and Yatsuhashi jumped in and out of the conversation, while holding their own at times.
Every now and again, though, Jaune would break temporarily and glance towards the cafeteria entrance, hoping to see RWBY walk through the doors. Alas, though, nothing. His hopes were dashed whenever he saw another team enter or leave when the door opened. Coco noticed this and sighed.
"Ya know, they're not gonna walk in just because you keep looking at the door."
Jaune looked to her, "I know. Thing is, they were supposed to be back hours ago. Even if they had paperwork to do, it shouldn't have taken this long."
"Eh, clear out missions take a while. You could be leaving two days early or staying a week late. It happens." The older girl said, taking a bite out of her meal, "If I were you, I'd concern yourself with something a little bit more important... Like your History grade."
"H-Hey!"
Coco snickered at the leaders reaction, "I'm joking. And I'm telling you, they're fine, so don't worry."
"Are you so sure about that, Miss Adel?" A voice called from the end of the table, causing both teams to do a double take.
"WOAH!" Coco flinched, dropping her sandwich, "Damnit... Oh, uh... Hi, Professor Ozpin."
"Hello." He greeted, "I was hoping I'd find you all together."
"What's wrong, Professor?" Velvet asked.
"I'm sure you've noticed, by now, the absence of a certain team." All present nodded, "I'm sure you've been wondering where they are presently at. Please, come with me. We have precious time."
Both teams looked to one another and shrugged, but did as the headmaster asked and followed him out of the cafeteria. After a short walk, they found themselves on their way to the schools armory. "Um, headmaster, I don't mean to be nosey, but what's going on?" Pyrrha asked.
"All will be explained soon." Ozpin said, stopping just outside of the armory. "Grab your weapons, students, and meet me at the hanger. Be quick." All present nodded and rushed inside whilst Ozpin departed for the hanger.
It had been less than twenty minutes since Glynda informed him that they found team RWBY, alive and well, but down in a dangerous area. The swamp they were in was more of a basin, surrounded by mountains. Past those natural borders however were lush, greener plains. Ozpin chuckled to himself, "It must be their luck that put them in that swamp, rather than the plains." Glynda didn't share his humor, but that didn't matter to him.
Ozpin made it to the hanger and found Glynda preparing both Bullheads. One was for the pickup, which would have medical supplies on board, while the other was for support, which was currently stocking itself with weapons.
That particular swamp area was known to house many Crokolisks. Too dangerous to clear out, topped with the fact that there was no interest in that area in the first place, gave hunters no reason to clear it out. Too much danger, not enough reward.
Still, Ozpin did have deep regrets of agreeing to Mr. Schnee's requests in only sending in his daughter's team. Ozpin wished he had sent in at the very least team CFVY. Even JNPR would have been some help in their current situation. 'Still,' he thought, 'Preparation for the world of hunting I suppose.'
"Glynda," He called. Professor Goodwitch snapped to attention, "Are all of the bullheads ready?"
"A-almost, sir. We're finishing loading the ammo now."
"Good." Ozpin nodded. Looking out to the entrance of the hanger, he awaited teams CFVY and JNPR's arrival. Explaining what happened and what their job will be is going to be the easy part, executing the plan will be difficult, only because of the ever present Grimm there.
Ozpin didn't wait long as both teams entered with their weapons in hand. "Ok, Ozpin," Coco declared, "What's going on?"
"Well, Miss Adel, since you're so anxious I'll explain." Ozpin sighed, stopping Glynda from scolding the younger women, "At approximately three o'clock this afternoon we lost contact team RWBY's bullhead over a swampy basin, surrounded by the Waldrike Mountain range. for almost an hour and a half we attempted to re-establish contact, until we received a hail from the emergency radio from the craft.
The GPS on said radio is still active, though we are unable to establish a satellite link at this time to see how they are doing. Unfortunately, they haven't responded to our more recent hails, which concerns us greatly."
Professor Goodwitch stepped in, "Your mission is a search and Rescue for them. Team CFVY, we thought you would be more willing to go if you had some... larger weapons at your disposal." Coco's eyes shined, "You will be providing cover, while Team JNPR will be doing the actual rescue."
"We will explain more into your mission as you make your way there. In the mean time, load up. Every second we waste is a second closer to death for Team RWBY." Ozpin said, voice as level as ever. Both teams nodded and went to their respective crafts. After loading up, the pilots raised their altitude and flew off.
"How long until they make it?"
"Hopefully, within twenty minutes, if the pilots punch it."
"Well then, Professor Goodwitch, let's hope you're correct."
With a fiery blast Yang knocked back another Crok. The fight had been going as well as one could expect. That meaning that they were all holding their own. Weiss needed more help than usual, but that was mainly because her injury was getting worse. It wasn't swelling as much, but it was bruising, very badly. She was slower and had to watch herself, as any wrong move would lead to more pain.
The sheer number of Crokolisk's that currently surrounded the group was mind boggling small. Just a few dozen. In terms of normal Grimm that wouldn't be much, but in terms of theses beasts only one dozen are as dangerous as a few packs of Ursa Majors.
Distance is key when fighting these beasts, but when you're running out of ammo fast, that little tidbit goes out the window.
Luckily, though, Weiss worked best at a distance. Her glyphs, along with her weapon itself, made ranged fighting easy. Using most of her ice dust, she managed to impale a few Crok's by stabbing her blade into the ground, causing the water to freeze and rise up, piercing through their undersides. Those that weren't killed instantly would hang there until they died.
Yang glanced over towards Blake, watching her work. Her faunus teammate was holding her own, mainly because of her semblance. She could dodge the massive chomps of the Crokolisks easily, but flat out killing them was tough. The undersides weren't as armored, but it was tough to reach there without getting bit in half.
"Yang, watch out!"
Before Yang could react she was smacked hard by what could only be described as a small train. Looking up, she saw a Crok, standing on its back legs, staring down on her. Stunned, be it by the force of the hit or the fear she felt, all Yang did (or could do) was stare as the beast slowly opened its massive jaws, revealing a dark maw of death.
Accepting her fate and bracing for the worst, Yang closed her eyes, when in a flash of red the beast in front of her had lost its head. Opening her eyes Yang saw a flurry of rose petals fall around her, revealing a figure oddly similar to her sister...
Wait...
"Tsk tsk tsk..." Ruby shook her head, "Yang Xiao Long, I can't leave you alone for two minutes without you getting into trouble, can I?" She extended a hand to Yang.
Yang chuckled, smiling lightly, "What can I say? It tends to follow me." She claimed, accepting her sister's help. In a flash, once again, Ruby was gone. It was very clear that she was out of ammo, or at least close to being. She was using her speed as momentum to cut the Grimm up, something that she had done often whenever she found herself strapped for bullets.
Yang jumped back, getting a better view of the battleground. They were losing and she knew it. It took far too much to kill one of these things, and it was only a matter of time before the Crok's got a clue and begin to overwhelm them. She looked up at the trees that surrounded them. Very large oak trees, with flat canopies as the branches stretched out...
Flat canopies...
"Oh duh." Yang smacked her face with her hand, internally kicking herself too, "Ruby! Treetops!" The aforementioned leader looked up and saw exactly what Yang saw. She too smacked herself. "Blake, Weiss! Follow us!"
Instead of waiting for the two, Yang and Ruby both picked up their respective partners and rushed up the closest tree. After making a quick ascent, all four took a seat upon the flat-top of the tree and looked below them. The Crok's were circling the very oak tree the team found themselves in, most with mouths open indicating they were ready for their meal.
"Well," Yang spoke, out of breath, "I think we found our place to hide!"
The top of the tree wasn't entirely spacious, but it would due as a place to rest for a few minutes. Weiss was trying to get settled, clearly not enjoying the small space of the canopy. "Ruby!" She called, "Will you move over!?"
"Where?" Ruby asked, looking down, "I move anywhere and I fall. And I don't wanna fall."
"Weiss just bring your knees to your chest and wrap your arms around them. Boom, problem solved." Yang said, doing exactly as she instructed Weiss to do. The heiress was more reluctant to do that, considering her stomach. It was visible to the others that she was still in pain, regardless of how much she denied it.
"I think I'll pass, thanks."
"Still hurting?" Blake inquired.
"Not pain, more discomfort. It's tough to move, too. I think sore would be the best word for it."
"Let me take another look." Blake climbed over both Yang and Ruby, who were both sitting between her and the white haired heiress. Blake sat to Weiss' left whilst Ruby moved next to Yang in order to give her faunus teammate more room.
Blake began her examination, feeling her teammates abdomen and watching for a reaction of any kind. The area in question was still bruised, but it wasn't worse than it was earlier. It appeared that Weiss' aura had stopped whatever it was, but didn't heal it completely. Whether or not it was because of low aura overall wasn't a concern; Blake's main concern was whether or not it was severe. "Does any of that hurt?" She asked as she pressed down on the bruise. Weiss shook her head, but her facial expression told Blake that it was definitely uncomfortable.
Blake sat back furrowed her brow, "I have no idea. It could be a ruptured organ, or just a popped blood vessel. But it's not any worse than it was earlier and apparently it's not hurting anymore. We'll just have to wait and see what the doctors say."
Ruby and Yang looked to each other, nodded, then to Weiss. She covered her stomach once again and nodded, understanding that she would have to wait for actual medical professionals to get answers. "Hey Blake..." Ruby called. Blake turned her attention to her young leader as she sat back on a branch. "Where did you learn medical training?"
"We had to know a few things about medicine in the White Fang." Blake said easily, "Just in case something happens."
"I'm going to take your current bluntness as you being tired right now?"
"Yes, Weiss. At this point I just don't care. I just want to go home."
"Don't we all." Ruby said, leaning back on a large branch. She wasn't putting her full weight on it, in case her seat of choice wasn't as strong as it appeared. Yang noticed this and pulled her sister to her side, sharing her seat. "So... How long do you think we have? U-until our rescue gets here?"
Weiss sat up, cupping her hand under her chin, "I don't know, Ruby. Maybe... Ten minutes? I suppose I could ask, I have the radio right here." She pulled the Emergency Radio to the center of the canopy and turned it on. As she began to speak into the microphone, Blake allowed her eyes to wonder.
She looked around from her elevated position. Crok's were everywhere, ranging in size. They were just, staring up at the team, some even able to stand on their back legs. Menacing would be a word to describe it.
Blake looked down, only to see some of these beasts attempt to climb the tree. Some made it a good distance, but ultimately failed. This allowed the faunus to breathe a sigh of relief. She turned to Ruby, who had also been watching bellow. The two shared a concerned glance, but shrugged. It didn't appear that the Crok's could get up to them.
Blake zoned back in to the end of the conversation between Weiss and... Whoever was on the other end. It sounded like professor Goodwitch, but she just didn't know. "Well," Weiss sighed, putting the radio down, "She said fifteen minutes. They're going as fast as possible though."
"That's good, right?" Ruby asked. Everyone nodded, to which she physically relaxed. "Good..." She looked down and squinted, trying to determine if what she was seeing was true...
The Grimm were trying to eat away the tree. "Hey, guys... Uh, How well do you think A Crokolisk could eat a tree?"
"Could you repeat the question?" Weiss asked, "It sounded like you said 'eat a tree'!"
Yang looked down, seeing what her sister saw. The Crok's, mouths agape, had begun to take bites out of the massive oak tree's trunk. The tree shook with each bite taken. "Woah... You gotta be kidding me, right?!" She yelled as she jumped away from the end. "They're actually eating the tree! What the hell is this!?"
"Someone doesn't want us getting out of here!" Ruby yelled, "I think it's time we abandoned ship!"
Just as she finished her sentence, the tree began to fall...
Well... That's a thing.
This is where I contemplated finishing the first time, but said 'Nah, you're good, chief.' Next thing I know I'm about 7k words in saying 'Maybe I'm not that good...'
Oi, about halfway through this chapter I realized I have a very, VERY, simplistic writing style. I'm gonna try and fix that.
So what did you think? I know, not enough. But I'm not sure if I'd be able to hold your attention for 8k words. Splitting was the best possible outcome for me and for you in the long run. I'll be finishing the next chapter overnight and should have it up and ready tomorrow. There'll be another chapter after that for the epilogue.
Now, when I say these next few words, I mean it. I don't want a "cool story" or a "Nice chapter". No. I want a review. I want to know how you feel. Do you agree with what I said about my writing style? Do I suck? Am I ok? Let me know! I want an actual review!
TWO WORDS DOESN'T HELP ME, PEOPLE!
With that, I'm off. I hope you all enjoyed.
Until Next Time.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
2009-14 Ford F150 4" Oval Wheel to Wheel Bars, black
Product No: BOVL543FD ICI
Availability: In stock
$379.95
FREE SHIPPING to Cont. U.S.
Qty:
Quick Overview
Innovative Creations (ICI) nerf bars will add both style and functionality giving you much easier access in and out of your Ford F150. Unlike some other brands, ICI uses one piece of seamless tube for a flawless look. The heavy duty carbon steel wheel to wheel nerf bars have a black coating to prevent premature corrosion or rust. ICI is committed to using the finest materials available to ensure you receive a quality product that will last.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
What's up in emerging technology
What's up in emerging technology
September 14, 2017
Nope, We Can’t Trust Data Firms to Update Against Known Security Flaws
It seems Equifax was hacked using a two-month-old vulnerability that it could have protected itself against.
"We know that criminals exploited a U.S. website application vulnerability,” the company wrote in a statement. “The vulnerability was Apache Struts CVE-2017-5638.” But as Ars Technica points out, that flaw was identified and fixed on March 6, with a patch (albeit a complex and finicky one to implement) offered to users of the Web app software so that they didn’t get hacked. Equifax was hacked in mid-May, a full two months after the vulnerability was announced. In other words, it looks like Equifax fell foul of a known exploit that it hadn't yet updated its systems against.
That would be careless if it was a security flaw on, say, your own home computer. But when failure to update software with a vulnerability like that—which, as Ars Technica has also reported, was used heavily by hackers in March—can result in the loss of personal data from as many as 143 million Americans, it’s negligent. And when a company claims, like Equifax, to be in the business of fraud prevention, identity management, and selling advice on how to manage data breaches? Well, I guess then we just find ourselves in the modern-day couldn’t-care-less corporate approach to cybersecurity.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Q:
How can I make other people's account to do ether transactions with smart contract?
I was making a smart contract which involves people to buy tokens in exchange of ether they send. It works fine in testrpc as all accounts are unlocked, but how do I do it for actual accounts in main network using web3 in nodejs. What fields would be required to invoke these payable functionalities of smartcontract except the wallet address ofcourse? Any code snippets or examples? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
A:
A few points to help you separate issues and clarify thinking.
A contract cannot do anything that a normal user can't do. For example, there's nothing you can program to make a contract spend someone else's money.
All action on the blockchain starts with an "Externally Owned Account" "signing" and transaction. Contracts can talk to each other, but they never do anything until someone sends a signed transaction, so those "messages" are in another category ("messages").
Signing is done by wallets using secret keys. Without the secret, signing is not possible. But anyone who acquires the secret (somehow) can sign on behalf of another address.
When you're using TestRPC, "the" user has 10 different addresses. They are his addresses, not strangers. He's got the secret keys. TestRPC simply makes it convenient to unlock the accounts and spend as you go. You would not be able to make up an 11th address and spend from it without the corresponding secret.
In the case of a website, there are two (general) solutions.
The website can create the accounts and (safely!) keep the secret keys. That would be like opening the accounts "on behalf of" the users. Consider how Exchanges operate.
The browser can rely on the users' local Ethereum or MetaMask so it is (in fact) the user and not the web server that signs transactions and sends them to the chain. Consider the Mist Wallet contract.
Hope it helps.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
}
|
Media Contact
Parliament Diary
Winter Session Wrap 2016
Winter Session 2016 has been one of the least productive sessions for both Houses in the last 15 years, with repeated disruptions on the issue of demonetisation of currency. While eight Bills were introduced in this session, only two were passed. Legislative business this session has been the lowest so far in the current Parliament (16th Lok Sabha).
Both Houses of Parliament saw repeated disruptions on the issue of demonetisation. While Lok Sabha lost 107 hours of scheduled time to disruptions, Rajya Sabha lost 101 hours.
As a result of repeated disruptions, only two of the 330 listed questions in Rajya Sabha could be answered orally. This has been one of the least productive Question Hour sessions for Rajya Sabha in the last three Parliaments. Previously, one of the 480 questions and none of the 420 questions were answered orally in the Winter Sessions of 2010 and 2013, respectively.
90% of planned legislative business could not be transacted; LS passed Taxation Bill without discussion.
At the beginning of the session, 19 Bills were listed for consideration and passage; none of these were passed. Out of the nine Bills listed for introduction, three were introduced. Only two Bills were passed during this Session.
This session, MPs of the opposition in Lok Sabha had requested for an Adjournment Motion to discuss the issue of demonetization of currency. However, the request was not allowed by the Speaker.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Iraqi Scientist Meets U.N. Inspectors
Published 7:00 pm, Friday, January 24, 2003
International arms inspectors met with an unidentified Iraqi on Saturday in their effort to recruit well-placed scientists for private U.N. interviews on Iraqi weapons programs. Neither U.N. nor Iraqi spokesmen reported any progress.
At the request of U.N. inspectors, Baghdad government officials had urged three scientists to submit to such questioning. But knowledgeable sources said at least two of them had refused to speak without Iraqi government officials monitoring the questions and answers.
A U.N. inspections team leader met he unidentified Iraqi man, accompanied by an Iraqi official, at about 10:40 a.m. at the front door of a Baghdad hotel and led him inside. The man departed about noon in a government car, seen off by the same inspector. He refused to speak with waiting reporters.
The subject of private interviews has become a major issue in advance of a U.N. chief inspectors' report Monday on how well Iraq has cooperated during the first two months of renewed arms inspections.
Earlier Saturday, in unrelated and unexplained incidents, two men _ one carrying knives, the other shouting "Save me!" and carrying a notebook _ tried to enter the U.N. inspectors' compound on Baghdad's outskirts, a U.N. spokesman reported.
The first man was apprehended as he tried to get through a front gate and was taken away by Iraqi police. Journalist witnesses said the second was led inside the compound, and U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki said he was handed over to Iraqi authorities at a government office next door.
Two days before its "report card" on arms inspections, one U.N. agency said Baghdad would get a "quite satisfactory" grade on its responses to inspectors' questions and requests for information. In Washington, the White House, easing off the tougher rhetoric of recent days, said Friday it might give inspectors more time to look for weapons, depending on the content of Monday's report.
Late Friday, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry said new requests had been received from U.N. officials for interviews Saturday with three Iraqi scientists, who were not publicly identified. The Iraqi liaison agency working with the inspectors said it had "encouraged" the three to grant private interviews.
In its harsh criticism of Iraq, the Bush administration has focused most sharply on the issue of private interviews of scientists.
The Security Council resolution governing the inspections declares that "Iraq shall provide … private access" to anyone the inspectors wish to interview.
The inspectors believe that Iraqis knowledgeable about possible weapons programs would be less candid when questioned with government monitors present. In all formal interview requests thus far, however, the Iraqi specialists have asked to have government representatives present.
The Baghdad government says it cannot force its scientists into private interviews, but it reached agreement with the chief inspectors last Monday to "encourage" interview subjects to submit to unmonitored questioning.
The White House on Friday rejected the Iraqi approach. "President Bush believes that Iraq's refusal to allow Iraqi scientists to submit to private interviews with U.N. inspectors is unacceptable," spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
Meanwhile, international opposition to the U.S. threats of war against Iraq appeared to solidify.
France, Germany and Russia all urge that the inspectors be given more time to do their job of assessing whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or programs to build them. After conferring Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, reported "growing support" in Europe for Germany's opposition to military action.
Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Saturday that the international community it cannot shrink from its responsibility to disarm Iraq by force if necessary just because "the going is getting tough."
"The burden is upon Iraq," Powell said on his arrival in Davos, Switzerland, where 2,300 world political and business leaders have gathered for an annual meeting. "Iraq must comply, or it will be made to comply with military force."
Powell made no mention of a timetable. But the U.S. government were considering giving the U.N. inspectors more time to find Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, a senior U.S. official said.
The Security Council's next moves will be based on a report it receives Monday from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on Iraqi cooperation in the two months since inspections resumed.
The IAEA said Friday that analyses of samples taken by nuclear inspectors in Iraq have so far not revealed any evidence of prohibited nuclear activity.
Blix has said his report will be a "mixed bag." He notes the Iraqis have cooperated well on hundreds of daily inspections since Nov. 27 _ of chemical plants, nuclear centers, medical laboratories and other "sites of concern." The inspectors thus far have not reported finding any violations of U.N. bans on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
"Their report card will be a `B,'" on requests for information and responses to questions, said Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for ElBaradei's nuclear agency.
But Blix complains that Iraq has resisted allowing American U-2 reconnaissance planes to aid the inspection effort.
Saturday's daily inspections took U.N. teams to Al-Qaddissiya University, 150 miles south of Baghdad; the Northern Oil Company in Mosul Province 240 miles north of the capital; and a missile site in the al-Dejehiel area, 36 miles north of Baghdad.
They also revisited the Qa Qa chemical complex, 40 miles south of Baghdad, where inspectors have checked the facilities about a dozen times since November. Western intelligence reports said Qa Qa might be the site of Iraqi chemical weapons work, but no such violations have been reported thus far.
As the crucial U.N. report date approached, the fear of war was taking stronger hold among Iraqis.
The Iraqi Parliament speaker, Saadoun Hammadi, declared Saturday that if war comes, Iraqis "will fight fiercely until the end," and would use "every method to inflict heavy damages on the enemy."
Hammadi, speaking at a news conference in New Delhi, India, did not elaborate on what he meant by "every method." The U.S. government has repeatedly warned the Iraqi military not to use any chemical or biological weapons it may have against U.S. troops.
Here in Baghdad, a few foreign embassies have decided to evacuate dependents, or even to close down. Japan has urged its citizens to leave Baghdad, citing the possibility of military action.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
told him i bought new lingerie Asked if it was from sears
240 shares
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Q:
Memory leaks and dispose
May I do not understand the conecept or I do something wrong.
I have some questions about the memory management in .NET.
Imagine the situation:
Form1 is the big man Form, as MDI-parent and a little FormChild, is bound as child:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void simpleButton1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
FormChild formChild = new FormChild();
formChild.MdiParent = this;
formChild.Show();
}
}
Now the child is allocating a little bit memory as simulation:
public partial class FormChild : Form
{
private readonly List<byte[]> _list = new List<byte[]>();
public FormChild()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void FormChild_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int i = 0;
while (i < 100)
{
_list.Add(new byte[1024 * 1024 * 10]);
i += 1;
}
}
}
Now, I'm inspecting with a memory profiler whats going on in the memory heap.
I see, if i click on the button, the memory is allocated. Then I close the FormChild and it calls Dispose(). But the memory is still allocated. If I click again a System.OutOfMemoryException occures.
Why is the GC waiting to free the managed memory?
Or is this my mistake of design?
A:
The GC only frees memory in response to memory pressure, the main purpose of Dispose is to clean up non-memory related resources.
In other words nulling out managed objects isn't necessarily going to make them get collected any faster, but makes diagnosing memory issues much easier to diagnose.
A:
It looks like some sort of timing problem, where the first instance of formChild is still reachable (ie not garbage) wen the second one is created. You can't accommodate that _list twice.
Note that I close the FormChild and it calls Dispose() is a statement about resources and Window handles, not about freeing the memory.
It is not clear if you wrote your own Dispose() but in this (rather special) case you should.
Cut the void Dispose(bool disposing) method from the FormChild.Designer.cs file and move it to FormChild.cs .
use it to release the huge memory block:
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
_list = null; // add this
if (disposing && (components != null))
{
components.Dispose();
}
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
Note that this is not a 'usual' form of memory management but it's needed because your _list is unusual too.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
}
|
#!/bin/bash
#
# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
# contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
# this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
# The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
# (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
# the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
# limitations under the License.
#
# source me
# (if your're deploying KYLIN on a powerful server and want to replace the default conservative settings)
# uncomment following to for it to take effect
export KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS="-Xms1024M -Xmx4096M -Xss1024K -XX:MaxPermSize=512M -verbose:gc -XX:+PrintGCDetails -XX:+PrintGCDateStamps -Xloggc:$KYLIN_HOME/logs/kylin.gc.$$ -XX:+UseGCLogFileRotation -XX:NumberOfGCLogFiles=10 -XX:GCLogFileSize=64M"
# Newer versions of glibc use an arena memory allocator that causes virtual
# memory usage to explode. Tune the variable down to prevent vmem explosion.
# See HADOOP-7154.
export MALLOC_ARENA_MAX=${MALLOC_ARENA_MAX:-4}
# export KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS="-Xms16g -Xmx16g -XX:MaxPermSize=512m -XX:NewSize=3g -XX:MaxNewSize=3g -XX:SurvivorRatio=4 -XX:+CMSClassUnloadingEnabled -XX:+CMSParallelRemarkEnabled -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSIncrementalMode -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=70 -XX:+UseCMSInitiatingOccupancyOnly -XX:+DisableExplicitGC -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError -verbose:gc -XX:+PrintGCDetails -XX:+PrintGCDateStamps -Xloggc:$KYLIN_HOME/logs/kylin.gc.$$ -XX:+UseGCLogFileRotation -XX:NumberOfGCLogFiles=10 -XX:GCLogFileSize=64M"
# uncomment following to for it to take effect(the values need adjusting to fit your env)
# export KYLIN_DEBUG_SETTINGS="-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.authenticate=false -Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote.ssl=false"
# when running on HDP, try to determine the software stack version adn set hdp.version JVM property
if [[ -d "/usr/hdp/current/hadoop-client" ]]
then
export KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS="-Dhdp.version=`ls -l /usr/hdp/current/hadoop-client | awk -F'/' '{print $8}'`"
# attempt to locate JVM native libraries and set corresponding property
if [[ -d "/usr/hdp/current/hadoop-client/lib/native" ]]
then
export KYLIN_LD_LIBRARY_SETTINGS="-Djava.library.path=/usr/hdp/current/hadoop-client/lib/native"
fi
else
export KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS=""
# uncomment the following line to set JVM native library path, the values need to reflect your environment and hardware architecture
# export KYLIN_LD_LIBRARY_SETTINGS="-Djava.library.path=/apache/hadoop/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64"
fi
if [ ! -z "${KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS}" ]
then
verbose "KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS is ${KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS}"
KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS="${KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS} ${KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS}"
else
verbose "KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS is not set, using default jvm settings: ${KYLIN_JVM_SETTINGS}"
fi
if [ ! -z "${KYLIN_DEBUG_SETTINGS}" ]
then
verbose "KYLIN_DEBUG_SETTINGS is ${KYLIN_DEBUG_SETTINGS}"
KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS="${KYLIN_DEBUG_SETTINGS} ${KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS}"
else
verbose "KYLIN_DEBUG_SETTINGS is not set, will not enable remote debuging"
fi
if [ ! -z "${KYLIN_LD_LIBRARY_SETTINGS}" ]
then
verbose "KYLIN_LD_LIBRARY_SETTINGS is ${KYLIN_LD_LIBRARY_SETTINGS}"
KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS="${KYLIN_LD_LIBRARY_SETTINGS} ${KYLIN_EXTRA_START_OPTS}"
else
verbose "KYLIN_LD_LIBRARY_SETTINGS is not set, it is okay unless you want to specify your own native path"
fi
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Characteristics of coherent lidar returns from calibration targets and aerosols.
A CO(2) heterodyne lidar system and high speed digitizer were used to examine properties of returns from disk and belt-type calibration targets and atmospheric aerosols. Amplitude statistics of the returns from the targets examined corresponded to those of the Rayleigh phasor predicted by theory. Returns from a belt sander fluctuated at a much slower rate than those from the disks or aerosols, requiring longer averaging times for accurate power measurement. At very close focal lengths returns from single large particles often domier nated the backscattered aerosol signal.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
// <copyright file="MMALDownstreamHandlerComponent.cs" company="Techyian">
// Copyright (c) Ian Auty and contributors. All rights reserved.
// Licensed under the MIT License. Please see LICENSE.txt for License info.
// </copyright>
namespace MMALSharp.Components
{
/// <summary>
/// Base class for all downstream components which support capture handlers.
/// </summary>
public abstract class MMALDownstreamHandlerComponent : MMALDownstreamComponent, IDownstreamHandlerComponent
{
/// <summary>
/// Creates a new instance of <see cref="MMALDownstreamHandlerComponent"/>.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="name">The name of the component.</param>
protected MMALDownstreamHandlerComponent(string name)
: base(name)
{
}
}
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
WE SPECIALIZE IN ALL-INCLUSIVE
WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY & CINEMA COLLECTIONS
It is your wedding day. Simply put, you deserve the best. We believe you should have everything you need and that you shouldn’t have to worry about the logistics. We believe in weddings done right. In order to make this happen we make sure that you always get everything that you need and that you have the option to add on anything that you want.
Our standard wedding collections always include:
2 professional photographers or cinematographers
Full-day coverage
A support hero both in planning and on your wedding day
All your images backed up online for you to access for 10 years (photography collections only)
All final images delivered to you in high resolution jpeg files (photography collections only)
Wedding highlight film to capture the story and emotions of your wedding (cinema collections only)
MEET THE TEAM
ZACH NILES
co-founder & weddings
Zach is our principal photographer and cinematographer. He is fun and enjoys joking around with couples while shooting. Zach grew up in Portland, Oregon and moved to Fresno when Third Element was first born. Zach graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a business degree where he met his wife, Nettie. Zach and Nettie were married in 2010 (and of course Forrest took the photos). Zach and Nettie have two beautiful daughters, Addison and Avery. Every once in a while you can see photos of the girls pop up on the Third Element Instagram!
NETTIE NILES
client care & administration
Nettie is our client care and administration specialist. She is the one behind the scenes sending love to all of our clients! Nettie is the “secret sauce” that supports Zach in the operation of Third Element Photography & Cinema, filling in the areas where Zach is lacking, making the company complete. Nettie can be found making sure that all the “i”s are dotted and “t”s are crossed so that everything runs smoothly. Nettie is the (beautiful and talented) wife of Zach and Super Mom to Addison and Avery. Every once in a while you can find photos of Nettie’s amazing parties that sometimes look more like a styled shoot for a magazine than a dinner party for friends!
FORREST CAVALE
co-founder & commercial
Forrest is one of our co-founders and while he no longer works full time with weddings, you can find him creating magic over at the Cavale Creative Company. Forrest and Zach met at LeTourneau University as flight majors and Forrest worked as a professional pilot and mechanic before going full time with photography. Forrest is married to Jessica and they have one son, Finn. If you pay attention while you are watching TV, you may see one of the many commercials he has filmed!
OUR STORY
The Third Element journey started unofficially in 2006. Zach and Forrest had met at LeTourneau University where they both were studying aviation. Their first wedding together was in 2006 and Zach and Forrest have grown Third Element into the company that it is today. Forrest and Zach shot full-time together from 2006 to 2011 when Zach took a break from photography to join Teach For America as a Jr. High math teacher. After his time as a teacher, Zach re-joined the Third Element team and took over the operations of the wedding and portrait business in 2014 and Forrest began focusing on growing the commercial brand 4Creeks Creative.
Today, Zach is the lead at Third Element shooting nearly every wedding on our books while Forrest spends his weeks doing commercial photography and cinema along with shooting about 1/3 of the weddings that Third Element does annually. In addition to Zach and Forrest, Third Element maintains an extensive network of highly qualified associates who are professional photographers and cinematographers and have been thoroughly trained and vetted to be able to produce imagery that we are proud to give to our clients.
THE THIRD ELEMENT COUPLE
The typical Third Element couple is a unique breed. They are full of love and romance. They believe in spending quality time together and making every moment count, even if it’s a car ride together or making dinner. They believe in getting married once and doing it right. They believe in a significant and sacred wedding ceremony and a party to celebrate during their reception. They have a timeless style and elegance about them and they choose timeless with a hint of trendy. They communicate and work together to plan a wedding that is a kickoff to their marriage together. They pay attention to the details and they make sure they are meaningful. They write thank you notes and send them with genuine love and gratitude. They plan their wedding to be significant to them, incorporating traditions from both sides of the families but making them their own. Most of all, they are best friends who have unconditional love and support for each other and they believe that they can conquer the world as long as they are together.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Friday, July 14, 2017
Creature Loot: D is for Dragons (and a few others) Part 1
Not a dragon
Holy smokes, folks. I really didn't anticipate there being so much dragon stuff... but I mean it is in the name of the game. Today we'll go up through the Chromatic dragons, with a few other monsters to whet our non-dragon appetites. If you're as lost as a hobbit in a treasure hoard, check out my explanation here.
Dinosaurs
Allosaurus (2) – beast (nature)
1 Dinosaur Hide:
Acts as a blanket. Can be carefully crafted (leatherworker’s tools into the
equivalent of studded leather armor or a chain shirt.
1d4 Dinosaur Claw:
Acts as a sickle. Can be crafted (smith’s tools) into a handaxe.
Ankylosaurus (3) – beast (nature)
2 Dinosaur Hide:
Acts as a blanket. Can be carefully crafted (leatherworker’s tools into the
equivalent of studded leather armor or a chain shirt.
1 Knobbed Tail: No
immediate use. Can be carefully crafted (smith’s tools) into a Flail or
Greatclub.
Plesiosaurus (2) – beast (nature)
1 Dinosaur Hide:
Acts as a blanket. Can be carefully crafted (leatherworker’s tools) into the
equivalent of studded leather armor or a chain shirt.
1 Plesiosaurus
Bladder: Acts as a balloon. Can be crafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a
waterskin.
Triceratops (5) – beast (nature)
2 Dinosaur Hide:
Acts as a blanket. Can be carefully crafted (leatherworker’s tools into the
equivalent of studded leather armor or a chain shirt.
3 Triceratops Horns:
No immediate use. Can be carefully crafted (smith’s tools) into a Lance, Pike,
or War Pick.
1d6 Displacer Beast
Paws: No immediate use. Can be carefully crafted (transmutation) by a
spellcaster into an amulet that can cast Silent Image once per day.
Also not a dragon
Doppelganger (3) – monstrosity (nature)
2 Lumps of Doppelganger
Flesh: If applied to a missing hand or foot, it becomes a working replica of
the missing appendage, though it never grafts to the rest of the body, so
attaching it in some way is required. 2 lumps can form an arm, 3 lumps can form
a leg. It cannot replicate more complex organs such as eyes or tongues.
1 Doppelganger
Brain: No immediate use. Can be carefully crafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Mind Reading.
Dracolich (+1 from dragon) – undead (religion)
1 Phylactery: This
item is not found with the Dracolich unless the check made to loot the body was
a 30 or higher. No immediate use. If not destroyed, the Dracolich reforms the
moment the phylactery touches the corpse of another dragon.
Additionally, the
following items are no longer found with the dragon: Hide, Heart, Eyes, Scales,
Spines, Frills, Fins. They are each replaced by the following item:
Dracolich Bone: No
immediate use. 100 of these can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies and
transmutation) by a spellcaster to create a Potion of Lichdom. When drunk, the user
is instantly killed and their soul is destroyed, unless it has been removed via a
specially prepared Imprisonment spell
with a Phylactery as the material component. If it has, roll 1d20. On a 20, the
user is revived as a Lich. Their alignment becomes evil, if it wasn’t already,
and they may become an NPC under the DM’s control.
Shadow Dragon (+3 from Dragon) – dragon (nature)
3 Motes of Shadow: No
immediate use. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a Potion of
Shadow (grants resistance to damage that isn’t force, fire, or radiant for one
hour, as long as the user is in dim light or darkness).
Additionally, any damage type, resistance, vulnerability, or immunity granted by an item from the dragon is changed to Necrotic
Black Dragon
Hey! It's a dragon!
Ancient Black Dragon (21) – dragon (nature)
1 Ancient Black
Dragon Skull: If a creature with at least 18 Strength lifts the skull above
their head as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a
DC 19 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The
skull can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of
the following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, chariot, throne, or a
ship’s figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is
hostile to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they
must make a DC 19 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A
creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending
the effect on itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful
or the effect ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next
24 hours.
2 Black Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to acid damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Black Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Acid Immunity (grants immunity to acid damage for 1 hour).
3d4 Black Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Acid damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) acid damage on a hit. This acid
damage ignores acid resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Black Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) acid
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to acid
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
5 Strips of Black
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a swim speed of 30 feet and the ability to
breathe underwater.
1 Ancient Black
Dragon Heart: If a humanoid creature’s heart is removed or damaged in some way,
the dragon’s heart can be placed in the wound. This saves the creature’s life,
and confers the following benefits: The creature’s Strength, Constitution, and
Charisma increase by 2, to a maximum of 22. The creature gains one use of the
Legendary Resistance trait (once per day, if the creature fails a saving throw,
it may choose to succeed instead). The creature gains immunity to acid damage,
a flying speed equal to their walking speed, and darkvision out to 120 feet.
Additionally, the creature’s alignment becomes Chaotic Evil if it wasn’t
already, and they become an NPC under the DM’s control.
1 Ancient Black
Dragon Acid Pouch: Difficult to handle, deals 9 (2d8) acid damage per round to
any organic material in contact with it. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s
supplies) into a Black Dragon’s Bane Poison (if ingested, a creature must make
a DC 22 Constitution saving throw, taking 67 (15d8) acid damage on a failed
save, or half as much on a success).
3d10 Black Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to acid damage while in use.
2 Ancient Black
Dragon Horns: Acts as a magical club +3. 2 of these can be mastercrafted
(smith’s tools) into a magical greataxe +3 whose wielder can cast Darkness as an action once per day.
In Lair: 2 Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 5d20 Evil
Lizardfolk or Kobold Slaves
In Lair: 1d10 – 7
Black Dragon Eggs
Adult Black Dragon (14) – dragon (nature)
1 Adult Black Dragon
Skull: If a creature with at least 15 Strength lifts the skull above their head
as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a DC 16
Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat
the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself
on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for
it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The skull can
be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of the
following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, helmet, shield, or a ship’s
figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is hostile
to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they must make
a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours.
2 Black Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to acid damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Black Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Acid Immunity (grants immunity to acid damage for 1 hour).
2d4 Black Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Acid damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) acid damage on a hit. This acid
damage ignores acid resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Black Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) acid
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to acid
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
2 Strips of Black
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools)
into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1, Scale
Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement, and
grants the attuned creature a swim speed of 30 feet and the ability to breathe
underwater.
2d10 Black Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to acid damage while in use.
2 Adult Black Dragon
Horns: Acts as a magical club +2. 2 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools)
into a magical greataxe +2.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 3d20 Evil
Lizardfolk or Kobold Slaves
Young Black Dragon (7) – dragon (nature)
2 Black Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to acid damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Black Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Acid Immunity (grants immunity to acid damage for 1 hour).
1d4 Black Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Acid damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) acid damage on a hit. This acid
damage ignores acid resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 Black Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) acid
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to acid
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
1 Strip of Black
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools)
into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1, Scale
Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement, and
grants the attuned creature a swim speed of 30 feet and the ability to breathe
underwater.
1d10 Black Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to acid damage while in use.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 11-16
In Lair: 1d20 Evil
Lizardfolk or Kobold Slaves
Black Dragon Wyrmling (2) – dragon (nature)
1d4 Black Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Acid damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) acid damage on a hit. This acid
damage ignores acid resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 Black Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to acid damage while in use.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 5-10
Blue Dragon
The captions might be a little lame for this article
Ancient Blue Dragon (23) – dragon (nature)
1 Ancient Blue
Dragon Skull: If a creature with at least 19 Strength lifts the skull above
their head as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a
DC 20 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The
skull can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of
the following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, chariot, throne, or a
ship’s figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is
hostile to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they
must make a DC 20 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A
creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending
the effect on itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful
or the effect ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next
24 hours.
2 Blue Dragon Wing: Acts
as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak that
requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to lightning damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Blue Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Lightning Immunity (grants immunity to lightning damage for 1 hour).
4d4 Blue Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Lightning
damage on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) lightning damage on a hit. This
lightning damage ignores lightning resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Blue Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) lightning
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to lightning
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
5 Strips of Blue
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a burrow speed of 30 feet.
1 Ancient Blue Dragon
Heart: If a humanoid creature’s heart is removed or damaged in some way, the
dragon’s heart can be placed in the wound. This saves the creature’s life, and
confers the following benefits: The creature’s Strength, Constitution, and
Charisma increase by 2, to a maximum of 22. The creature gains one use of the
Legendary Resistance trait (once per day, if the creature fails a saving throw,
it may choose to succeed instead). The creature gains immunity to lightning
damage, a flying speed equal to their walking speed, and darkvision out to 120
feet. Additionally, the creature’s alignment becomes Lawful Evil if it wasn’t
already, and they may become an NPC under the DM’s control.
1 Ancient Blue
Dragon Lightning Organ: Difficult to handle, deals 9 (2d8) lightning damage per
round to any organic material in contact with it or any metal object holding
it. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a Blue Dragon’s Bane
Poison (if ingested, a creature must make a DC 23 Constitution saving throw,
taking 88 (16d10) lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much on a
success).
3d10 Blue Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to lightning damage while in use.
1 Ancient Blue
Dragon Horn: Acts as a magical club +3. Can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools)
into a magical war pick +3 whose wielder can cast Call Lightning (save DC 17) as an action once per day.
2 Blue Dragon Eyes: When
held, grants advantage on Charisma checks made to influence dragons. Each can
be mastercrafted (jeweler’s tools) into an amulet that requires attunement. An
attuned creature can cast Suggestion (save
DC 20) once per day, however, the target of the spell must have the Dragon tag.
In Lair: 2 Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 5d20
Humanoid Artisan Slaves and various monstrous minions
In Lair: 1d10 – 7
Blue Dragon Eggs
Adult Blue Dragon (16) – dragon (nature)
1 Adult Blue Dragon
Skull: If a creature with at least 16 Strength lifts the skull above their head
as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a DC 17
Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat
the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself
on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for
it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The skull can
be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of the
following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, helmet, shield, or a ship’s
figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is hostile
to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they must make
a DC 17 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours.
2 Blue Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to lightning damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Blue Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Lightning Immunity (grants immunity to lightning damage for 1 hour).
3d4 Blue Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Lightning
damage on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) lightning damage on a hit. This
lightning damage ignores lightning resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Blue Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) lightning
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to lightning
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
2 Strips of Blue
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a burrow speed of 30 feet.
2d10 Blue Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to lightning damage while in use.
1 Adult Blue Dragon
Horn: Acts as a magical club +2. Can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
war pick +2.
2 Blue Dragon Eyes: When
held, grants advantage on Charisma checks made to influence dragons. Each can
be mastercrafted (jeweler’s tools) into an amulet that requires attunement. An
attuned creature can cast Suggestion (save
DC 20) once per day, however, the target of the spell must have the Dragon tag.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 3d20 Humanoid
Artisan Slaves and various monstrous minions
Young Blue Dragon (9) – dragon (nature)
2 Blue Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to lightning damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Blue Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Lightning Immunity (grants immunity to lightning damage for 1 hour).
2d4 Blue Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Lightning
damage on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) lightning damage on a hit. This
lightning damage ignores lightning resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 Blue Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) lightning
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to lightning
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
1 Strip of Blue
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools)
into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1, Scale
Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement, and
grants the attuned creature a burrow speed of 30 feet.
1d10 Blue Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to lightning damage while in use.
1d2 Blue Dragon Eyes:
When held, grants advantage on Charisma checks made to influence dragons. Each
can be mastercrafted (jeweler’s tools) into an amulet that requires attunement.
An attuned creature can cast Suggestion
(save DC 20) once per day, however, the target of the spell must have the
Dragon tag.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 11-16
In Lair: 1d20
Humanoid Artisan Slaves and various monstrous minions
Blue Dragon Wyrmling (3) – dragon (nature)
2d4 Blue Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) Lightning
damage on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) lightning damage on a hit. This
lightning damage ignores lightning resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 Blue Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to lightning damage while in use.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 5-10
Green Dragon
But I mean, how many jokes can you make about dragons?
Ancient Green Dragon (22) – dragon (nature)
1 Ancient Green
Dragon Skull: If a creature with at least 18 Strength lifts the skull above
their head as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a
DC 19 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The
skull can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of
the following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, chariot, throne, or a
ship’s figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is
hostile to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they
must make a DC 19 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A
creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending
the effect on itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful
or the effect ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next
24 hours.
2 Green Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to poison damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action. Once
this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Green Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Poison Immunity (grants immunity to poison damage for 1 hour).
3d4 Green Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) poison damage
on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) poison damage on a hit. This
poison damage ignores poison resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Green Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) poison
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to poison
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
5 Strips of Green
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a swim speed of 30 feet, and the ability to breathe
underwater.
1 Ancient Green
Dragon Heart: If a humanoid creature’s heart is removed or damaged in some way,
the dragon’s heart can be placed in the wound. This saves the creature’s life,
and confers the following benefits: The creature’s Strength, Constitution, and
Charisma increase by 2, to a maximum of 22. The creature gains one use of the
Legendary Resistance trait (once per day, if the creature fails a saving throw,
it may choose to succeed instead). The creature gains immunity to poison damage,
a flying speed equal to their walking speed, and darkvision out to 120 feet.
Additionally, the creature’s alignment becomes Lawful Evil if it wasn’t
already, and they may become an NPC under the DM’s control.
1 Ancient Green
Dragon Poison Lung: Difficult to handle, deals 9 (2d8) poison damage per round
to any organic material in contact with it. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s
supplies) into a Green Dragon’s Bane Poison (if ingested, a creature must make
a DC 22 Constitution saving throw, taking 77 (22d6) poison damage on a failed
save, or half as much on a success).
3d10 Green Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to poison damage while in use.
3 Green Dragon
Spines: Acts as a magical dagger +1. 3 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s
tools) into a magical shortsword +3 whose wielder can cast Plant Growth as an action once per day.
In Lair: 2 Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 1d20 Elven
Slaves and 4d20 various monstrous minions
In Lair: 1d10 – 7
Green Dragon Eggs
Adult Green Dragon (15) – dragon (nature)
1 Adult Green Dragon
Skull: If a creature with at least 15 Strength lifts the skull above their head
as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a DC 16
Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat
the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself
on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for
it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The skull can
be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of the
following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, helmet, shield, or a ship’s
figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is hostile
to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they must make
a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours.
2 Green Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to poison damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Green Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Poison Immunity (grants immunity to poison damage for 1 hour).
3d4 Green Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) poison damage
on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) poison damage on a hit. This
poison damage ignores poison resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Green Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) poison
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to poison
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
2 Strips of Green
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a swim speed of 30 feet, and the ability to
breathe underwater.
2d10 Green Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to poison damage while in use.
2 Green Dragon
Spines: Acts as a magical dagger +1. 3 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s
tools) into a magical shortsword +3 whose wielder can cast Plant Growth as an action once per day.
In Lair:Treasure Hoard 17+
In Lair: 1d10 Elven
Slaves and 3d20 various monstrous minions
Young Green Dragon (8) – dragon (nature)
2 Green Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to poison damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Green Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Poison Immunity (grants immunity to poison damage for 1 hour).
1d4 Green Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) poison damage
on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) poison damage on a hit. This
poison damage ignores poison resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 Green Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) poison
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to poison
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
1 Strip of Green
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools)
into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1, Scale
Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement, and
grants the attuned creature a swim speed of 30 feet, and the ability to breathe
underwater.
1d10 Green Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to poison damage while in use.
1 Green Dragon
Spine: Acts as a magical dagger +1. 3 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s
tools) into a magical shortsword +3 whose wielder can cast Plant Growth as an action once per day.
In Lair:Treasure Hoard 11-16
In Lair: 1d4 Elven
Slaves and 1d20 various monstrous minions
Green Dragon Wyrmling (2) – dragon (nature)
1d4 Green Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) poison damage
on a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) poison damage on a hit. This
poison damage ignores poison resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 Green Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to poison damage while in use.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 5-10
Red Dragon
Most of them have already been printed on cheap t-shirts from Etsy
Ancient Red Dragon (24) – dragon (nature)
1 Ancient Red Dragon
Skull: If a creature with at least 20 Strength lifts the skull above their head
as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a DC 21
Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat
the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself
on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for
it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The skull can
be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of the
following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, chariot, throne, or a ship’s
figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is hostile
to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they must make
a DC 21 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours.
2 Red Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to fire damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Red Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Fire Immunity (grants immunity to fire damage for 1 hour).
3d4 Red Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) fire damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) fire damage on a hit. This fire
damage ignores fire resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Red Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) fire
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to fire
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
5 Strips of Red
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a climb speed of 30 feet.
1 Ancient Red Dragon
Heart: If a humanoid creature’s heart is removed or damaged in some way, the
dragon’s heart can be placed in the wound. This saves the creature’s life, and
confers the following benefits: The creature’s Strength, Constitution, and
Charisma increase by 2, to a maximum of 22. The creature gains one use of the
Legendary Resistance trait (once per day, if the creature fails a saving throw,
it may choose to succeed instead). The creature gains immunity to fire damage,
a flying speed equal to their walking speed, and darkvision out to 120 feet.
Additionally, the creature’s alignment becomes Chaotic Evil if it wasn’t
already, and they become an NPC under the DM’s control.
1 Ancient Red Dragon
Fire Sac: Difficult to handle, deals 9 (2d8) fire damage per round to any
organic or metal material in contact with it. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s
supplies) into a Red Dragon’s Bane Poison (if ingested, a creature must make a
DC 24 Constitution saving throw, taking 91 (26d6) fire damage on a failed save,
or half as much on a success).
4d10 Red Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to fire damage while in use.
2 Ancient Red Dragon
Horns: Acts as a magical club +3. 2 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s
tools) into a magical greatsword +3 whose wielder can cast Fireball (save DC 17) as an action once per day.
2 Red Dragon Eyes: When
held, grants advantage on Charisma checks made to influence dragons. Each can
be mastercrafted (jeweler’s tools) into an amulet that requires attunement. An
attuned creature can cast Fear (save
DC 20) once per day, however, the target of the spell must have the Dragon tag.
In Lair: 3 Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 3d20
Humanoid slaves
In Lair: 1d10 – 7
Red Dragon Eggs
Adult Red Dragon (17) – dragon (nature)
1 Adult Red Dragon
Skull: If a creature with at least 18 Strength lifts the skull above their head
as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a DC 19
Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat
the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself
on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for
it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The skull can
be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of the
following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, helmet, shield, or a ship’s
figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is hostile
to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they must make
a DC 19 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours.
2 Red Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to fire damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Red Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Fire Immunity (grants immunity to fire damage for 1 hour).
2d4 Red Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) fire damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) fire damage on a hit. This fire
damage ignores fire resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Red Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) fire
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to fire
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
2 Strips of Red
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a climb speed of 30 feet.
3d10 Red Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to fire damage while in use.
2 Adult Red Dragon
Horns: Acts as a magical club +2. 2 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s
tools) into a magical greatsword +2.
2 Red Dragon Eyes: When
held, grants advantage on Charisma checks made to influence dragons. Each can
be mastercrafted (jeweler’s tools) into an amulet that requires attunement. An
attuned creature can cast Fear (save
DC 20) once per day, however, the target of the spell must have the Dragon tag.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 1d20
Humanoid slaves
Young Red Dragon (10) – dragon (nature)
2 Red Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to fire damage. Additionally,
the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action. Once this
property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 Red Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Fire Immunity (grants immunity to fire damage for 1 hour).
2d4 Red Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) fire damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) fire damage on a hit. This fire
damage ignores fire resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 Red Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) fire
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to fire
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
1 Strip of Red Dragon
Hide: Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into the
equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1, Scale Mail +1, or
Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement, and grants the
attuned creature a climb speed of 30 feet.
2d10 Red Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to fire damage while in use.
1d2 Red Dragon
Horns: Acts as a magical club +1. 2 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s
tools) into a magical greatsword +1.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 11-16
In Lair: 1d10
Humanoid slaves
Red Dragon Wyrmling (4) – dragon (nature)
2d4 Red Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) fire damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) fire damage on a hit. This fire
damage ignores fire resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 Red Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to fire damage while in use.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 5-10
In Lair: 1d4
Humanoid slaves
White Dragon
But I suppose a running commentary on Dragon-related humor is no substitue for content
Ancient White Dragon (20) – dragon (nature)
1 Ancient White
Dragon Skull: If a creature with at least 15 Strength lifts the skull above
their head as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a
DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself
on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for
it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The skull can
be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of the
following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, chariot, throne, or a ship’s
figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is hostile
to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they must make
a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours.
2 White Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to cold damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 White Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Cold Immunity (grants immunity to cold damage for 1 hour).
3d4 White Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) cold damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) cold damage on a hit. This cold
damage ignores cold resistance, but not immunity.
2d10 White Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) cold
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to cold
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
5 Strips of White
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a burrow speed of 30 feet and the ability to
move through difficult terrain composed of ice and snow without expending extra
movement.
1 Ancient White
Dragon Heart: If a humanoid creature’s heart is removed or damaged in some way,
the dragon’s heart can be placed in the wound. This saves the creature’s life,
and confers the following benefits: The creature’s Strength, Constitution, and
Charisma increase by 2, to a maximum of 22. The creature gains one use of the
Legendary Resistance trait (once per day, if the creature fails a saving throw,
it may choose to succeed instead). The creature gains immunity to cold damage,
a flying speed equal to their walking speed, and darkvision out to 120 feet.
Additionally, the creature’s alignment becomes Chaotic Evil if it wasn’t
already, and they become an NPC under the DM’s control.
1 Ancient White
Dragon Ice Gland: Difficult to handle, deals 9 (2d8) cold damage per round to
any organic material in contact with it. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s
supplies) into a White Dragon’s Bane Poison (if ingested, a creature must make
a DC 22 Constitution saving throw, taking 72 (16d8) cold damage on a failed
save, or half as much on a success).
3d10 White Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to cold damage while in use.
1 Ancient White
Dragon Frond: Acts as a magical handaxe +3. Can be mastercrafted (smith’s
tools) into a magical glaive +3 whose wielder can cast Sleet Storm (save DC 17) as an action once per day.
In Lair: 2 Treasure
Hoard 17+
In Lair: 5d20 Monster
Corpse Trophies
In Lair: 1d10 – 7
White Dragon Eggs
Adult White Dragon (13) – dragon (nature)
1 Adult White Dragon
Skull: If a creature with at least 13 Strength lifts the skull above their head
as an action, each creature within 120 feet of the skull must make a DC 14
Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat
the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself
on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for
it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours. The skull can
be mastercrafted (smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools) into one of the
following items: wall trophy, warhorse barding, helmet, shield, or a ship’s
figurehead. The item has the following property: when a creature who is hostile
to the current owner of the item is within 30 feet of the skull, they must make
a DC 14 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1 minute. A creature can
repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on
itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect
ends for it, the creature is immune to this effect for the next 24 hours.
2 White Dragon Wing:
Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a cloak
that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to cold damage.
Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move action.
Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next dawn.
1 White Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Cold Immunity (grants immunity to cold damage for 1 hour).
2d4 White Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) cold damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) cold damage on a hit. This cold
damage ignores cold resistance, but not immunity.
d10 White Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) cold
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to cold
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
2 Strips of White
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Each can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s
tools) into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1,
Scale Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement,
and grants the attuned creature a burrow speed of 30 feet and the ability to
move through difficult terrain composed of ice and snow without expending extra
movement.
2d10 White Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to cold damage while in use.
1d22 White Dragon
Wing: Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools) into a
cloak that requires attunement, and grants its wearer resistance to cold
damage. Additionally, the wearer may fly up to 40 feet as part of their move
action. Once this property is used, it cannot be used again until the next
dawn.
1 White Dragon Tail:
Acts as a magical whip +1. Can be mastercrafted (alchemist’s supplies) into a
Potion of Cold Immunity (grants immunity to cold damage for 1 hour).
1d4 White Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) cold damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) cold damage on a hit. This cold
damage ignores cold resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 White Dragon
Fangs: Acts as a magical Shortsword that deals an additional 4 (1d8) cold
damage on a hit. If planted into fertile soil, after 1d10 days the tooth will
grow into an armed humanoid warrior. The Warrior has the statistics of a Guard
(MM pg. 347) except that its type is construct and it has immunity to cold
damage. The warrior will attack the first thing it sees, fighting until dead.
1 Strip of White
Dragon Hide: Acts as a blanket. Can be mastercrafted (leatherworker’s tools)
into the equivalent of one of the following: Studded Leather Armor +1, Scale
Mail +1, or Splint armor +1. Additionally, the armor requires attunement, and grants
the attuned creature a burrow speed of 30 feet and the ability to move through
difficult terrain composed of ice and snow without expending extra movement.
1d10 White Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to cold damage while in use.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 11-16
In Lair: 1d20
Monster Corpse Trophies
White DragonWyrmling (2) – dragon (nature)
1d4 White Dragon
Claws: Acts as a magical dagger that deals an additional 4 (1d8) cold damage on
a hit. 6 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into a magical
greatsword that deals an additional 13 (3d8) cold damage on a hit. This cold
damage ignores cold resistance, but not immunity.
1d10 White Dragon
Scales: No immediate use. 25 of these can be mastercrafted (smith’s tools) into
a shield that grants resistance to cold damage while in use.
In Lair: Treasure
Hoard 5-10
I wanted to go for the feeling that if you manage to kill one of these dragons, you've got the resources to outfit the entire party in sick-looking dragon gear.
Next week we'll finish up the second half of the Dragons and the rest of the D's (finally!!)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Q:
Why "undefined: StackGuardMultiplierDefault" error?
describe
When I clone GoAdminGroup/go-admin projectin github and run the project by the steps of README.MD file , I get this error
TEST-MBP:example TEST$ GO111MODULE=on go run main.go
go: downloading github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3 v1.11.0
go: extracting github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3 v1.11.0
go: finding github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3 v1.11.0
# runtime/internal/sys
/Users/TEST/go/src/runtime/internal/sys/stubs.go:16:30: undefined: StackGuardMultiplierDefault
Actually my /Users/TEST/go/src folder was cloned from https://github.com/golang/go/tree/release-branch.go1.13/src
Why StackGuardMultiplierDefault was undefined in /src/runtime/internal/sys/stubs.go
A:
As per my understanding you cloned the Go source code from it's github and expecting it to work. It will not work.
You need to to follow Go guide Installing Go from source if you want to install it from the (github) source. Only cloning the repository is not enough, there are some required steps to be done after that.
Otherwise I suggest to install by using the available binary distributions installer.
Detailed explanation: the const StackGuardMultiplierDefault is not found because the file where the const declared does not exists (the zversion.go file). This particular file is only generated when àll.bash is executed (part of steps on installling Go from source).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
}
|
Introducing the concept of modern depression in Japan; an international case vignette survey.
Japanese psychiatrists have increasingly reported patients with depression that does not seem to fit the criteria of the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV, and which has recently been called modern type depression (MTD). We explored whether MTD is frequently seen in Japan and also in other countries, and if so, how patients with MTD are diagnosed and treated. The questionnaires, with two case vignettes (traditional type depression (TTD) and MTD), were sent to psychiatrists in Australia, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the USA. Participants rated their opinions about each case's prevalence in their country, etiology, diagnosis, suicide risk, and treatment using Likert scales. Out of 247 responses (123 from Japan and 124 from other countries), two hundred thirty-nine valid responses were received. MTD was recognized in all participating countries, and especially in urban areas. Generally, the factor of personality was regarded as the most probable cause of MTD. Whereas about 90% of Japanese psychiatrists applied the ICD/DSM criteria to TTD, only about 60% applied the criteria to MTD. Our results indicate that Japan's MTD seems to be occurring in many other countries, and that the present ICD/DSM criteria may not be sufficient to diagnose MTD. Therefore, it could be an important candidate for a new international diagnostic criterion as a subtype of depression. A clear diagnostic framework and consensus on the interventions to treat MTD would be valuable. Further clinical, psychopathological and international epidemiological studies are needed to confirm our preliminary findings of MTD.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
Kiss bassist Gene Simmons is being sued by a radio and television broadcaster who claims the rocker groped her and made “unwanted, unwarranted sexual advances” during a November 1 interview she conducted.
According to the lawsuit, the alleged incident occurred while the plaintiff, identified as “Jane Doe,” was interviewing Simmons and his Kiss bandmate Paul Stanley at their Rock & Brews restaurant at San Manuel Casino in Highland, California.
“Defendant Simmons turned standard interview questions into sexual innuendos, which made plaintiff Doe extremely uncomfortable,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday.
Simmons, the suit claims, repeatedly grabbed the unnamed woman’s hand and “forcefully placed it on his knee and held it on his knee.” The suit also claims Simmons “reached toward Plaintiff Doe’s buttocks and touched it” while they were posing for a promotional photo.
Allegations included in the lawsuit include sexual battery, battery, assault, and gender violence.
“My client is embarrassed and humiliated by the incident with Mr. Simmons,” the unidentified plaintiff’s attorney, Willie W. Williams, told the San Bernardino Sun in an interview. “She filed suit because she wanted to make a strong statement that this behavior is unacceptable and she wants to see an end to this type of behavior.”
Simmons, for his part, said he intends to “vigorously” counter the allegations made against him.
“Friends, I intend to defend myself against any alleged charges you may have been reading about in the media. For the record, I did not assault the person making these accusations in the manner alleged in the complaint or harm her in any way,” the Kiss co-founder said in a statement, Pitchfork reports. “I am conferring with my lawyers with the aim of vigorously countering these allegations. And, I look forward to my day in court where the evidence will prove my innocence.”
Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
The Hamiltonian for a system of spinless fermions on a 1D chain (with chemical potential $\mu=0$) is given by
$$ H=-\sum_j\left( c^\dagger_{j+1} c_j+h.c.\right)+\Delta \sum_j \left( c^\dagger_{j+1}c^\dagger_j+h.c.\right)
$$
where $\Delta$ is some number. If we introduce
$$ c_j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_k e^{ikj}c_k$$
We obtain the result below:
I see that, to obtain my old coupling term, I have to let $e^{ik}c_k^\dagger c_{-k}^\dagger=e^{-ik}c_k c_{-k}=0$, but I can't explain why. Can someone please help me with this step? Here is a similar question posed in a problem set from a German university for your reference: http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~romito/qft2011/set6.pdf
1 Answer
1
First, watch out for the factors of 2 and $\sin(k)$s in your line 3 (after doing the fourier transform).
Second, you do not want to set those terms to zero.
Instead, remember that $k$ is just a dummy index. I could consider each term as a separate sum, and for some of them, I'll set $k \rightarrow -k$. Then $$-e^{ik}c_{k}^{\dagger}c_{-k}^{\dagger} \rightarrow -e^{-ik}c_{-k}^{\dagger}c_{k}^{\dagger}= +e^{-ik}c_{k}^{\dagger}c_{-k}^{\dagger}$$
... and this guy just gets absorbed into the first term.
Another way to think about this is that we should, strictly speaking, only consider the sum in the Nambu hamiltonian as only counting modes with $k \geq 0$, and then we need both kinds of terms since one ends up then also counting the original terms with $k \leq 0$. People tend to be very sloppy with this notation however.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, the courtly Mississippi Republican who held leadership positions over some four decades in the Senate, died on Thursday at the age of 81, his successor, U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, said in a statement.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senator Thad Cochran takes part in a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, Cuba, February 22, 2017. REUTERS/Alexandre Meneghini
Cochran had served as chairman of the influential Senate Appropriations Committee, which controls billions of dollars in discretionary spending, and before that during the George W. Bush administration, when he oversaw funding for the Iraq War and rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Gulf Coast.
He resigned from the Senate last year due to health concerns. Hyde-Smith was first appointed to take his seat, and won a special election last November to serve the remainder of his term.
Cochran started out as a Democrat back when the U.S. South was a stronghold for the party, and voted for Lyndon Johnson for president in 1964. But with the region shifting toward the Republican Party, four years later he worked for Richard Nixon’s successful presidential campaign.
Cochran first went to Washington to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1973. When he was elected to the Senate in 1978, he became the first Republican to win a statewide election in Mississippi since Reconstruction following the Civil War.
His health had been a concern for several years and there was increasing speculation in 2017 that he might have to step down at a time when Republicans needed all the Senate votes they could get in pushing for tax breaks and undoing Democratic former President Barack Obama’s healthcare program.
Cochran had survived an especially nasty 2014 re-election race after insurgent right-wing Tea Party Republicans went after him as the embodiment of establishment Washington. The opposition campaign accused Cochran of having an affair while his wife, Rose, was suffering from dementia and published photos online of her in a nursing home bed.
Despite his positions of power, Cochran kept a low profile in Washington - not the sort to appear on Sunday political talk shows to discuss hot issues. He also had a reputation as a Republican who was not averse to working with Democrats.
U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, the chamber’s top Democrat, called Cochran “one of the most personally decent, nicest people” he had met in his career.
President Donald Trump called Cochran a friend, and wrote that he “never let our Country (or me) down!” in a Twitter post.
HEALTH PROBLEMS
Cochran had a dwindling presence in Washington in 2017 after contracting a urinary tract infection that kept him in Mississippi for several weeks in the fall as Republicans formulated spending bills to keep the federal government running late in the year.
He frequently missed votes, and media reports said he rarely met with colleagues and was showing mental and physical deterioration. In October 2017 Politico reported he appeared disoriented in the Capitol and mistakenly cast a “yes” vote on a tax reform amendment despite being repeatedly told the Senate leadership stance was a “no” vote. He eventually switched his vote to “no.”
There had been speculation that Cochran would not run for re-election in 2008 and again in 2014, but he always returned to the fray.
His last political race was a contentious one, with Tea Party adherents running conservative state Senator Chris McDaniel in a Republican nominating election. McDaniel’s supporters accused Cochran of having an affair with longtime aide Kay Webber, but the Cochran campaign dismissed the allegation as “silly gossip.”
Rose Cochran died in December 2014 and Cochran, then 77, married Webber in May 2015.
McDaniel had drawn more votes than Cochran in the primary election but with establishment Republicans, minority voters, big-money donors and even some Democrats such as liberal former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg rallying around him, Cochran defeated McDaniel by two percentage points in a runoff. He then easily beat a Democratic opponent in the general election to win his seventh Senate term.
During the primary campaign, a McDaniel-supporting blogger shot cellphone video of Cochran’s wife in her nursing home bed and it was posted online. The blogger was sentenced to five years in prison for conspiracy while two other men pleaded guilty and received no jail time.
Cochran, who sometimes played classical music on the baby grand piano he kept in his Senate office, was known as “Gentleman Thad” because of his mannered, genial demeanor.
“From the beginning of his career he rejected the invective of Southern demagoguery, a specialty that so many of his contemporaries were practicing when he was first elected to Congress,” journalist Curtis Wilkie, a longtime Cochran friend, wrote in Politico in 2014.
Cochran, the son of educators, was born in Pontotoc, Mississippi, on Dec. 7, 1937, and graduated from the University of Mississippi, where he was a cheerleader, in 1959. After serving in the Navy, he earned a law degree from the school and practiced for several years.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
thanks for the welcome back, been a long time under the rock . I thought it was about time to come out and keep you honest knowing that the good horses are just around the corner.,by the way how is Jill going when is her next start at Sandown?
Me and a few lads from here are in a syndicate that part owns Flying Omission, trained by D Weir. Had his first start today at Mildura, ran 3rd. Came out from the widest gate and settled last, seemed to lose a bit of contact with them and was a length or two off them at the turn, and only really got warmed up the last few hundred. I'm sure they will look to 1400m now and that should suit him a bit better than the 1200m. He's a Flying Spur / Erin Bee.
"Well, I will never post again, if the Oz dollar doesnt go below 80 cents within the year 2012." - Occy22
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Not sure if I told you I had the worst time
74,176 shares
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
1. Field
The present disclosure relates to a method of continuously producing 5-aminolevulinic acid by using a photosynthetic membrane vesicle separated from photosynthetic bacteria.
2. Description of the Related Art
Depletion of modern fossil fuel has led to a necessity for development of advanced technology to use light energy as one of alternatives to fossil fuel. A source for light energy is the sun, which will not be depleted for the next few billions of years. Also, the manufacturing process for light energy does not cause pollutions, which is why light energy receives much attention as clean energy.
Photovoltaic cell apparatuses are widely used to convert light energy into electric energy. Similarly, photosynthetic bacteria have been used as devices also to convert light energy into chemical energy, which is further used for the biosynthesis of organic materials to support cell growth, and various biomaterials of high value. Once biomaterials are produced, they are either accumulated inside of photosynthetic bacteria or secreted therefrom. Studies to genetically modify the bacteria to improve the production of biomaterials are actively under way (Wang et al. 2012. Frontiers in Microbiology 3: 344). Such biomaterials include biofuel, such as fatty acid, alcohol, or hydrogen, and industrially useful compounds, such as isoprene or poly-β-hydroxybutyrate.
Photosynthesis can be classified into oxygenic and anoxygenic photosynthesis; oxygenic one is found in plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, whereas anoxygenic one is observed in purple nonsulfur bacteria, purple sulfur bacteria, green nonsulfur bacteria, green sulfur bacteria, and Heliobacteria. Bacterial photosynthetic machineries are localized to photosynthetic membranes, and examples are thylakoid membrane (TM) and intracytoplasmic membrane/invaginated chromatophore membrane (ICM).
Oxygenic photosynthesis occurs in a thylakoid membrane (TM) in bacteria. During photosynthesis, water is used as an electron donor to split into oxygen and electrons, which is mediated by light energy. Electrons are subject to flow down through a series of electron carriers, ultimately reducing the oxidized form of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP+) to the reduced form of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH). During the electron flow, a proton motive force is generated and used for synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and inorganic phosphate by ATP synthase. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) may be converted into nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) by pyridine nucleotide transhydrogenase.
Purple nonsulfur bacteria performing anoxygenic photosynthesis have chromatophore membrane (ICM) in addition to plasma membrane, and the chromatophore membrane (ICM) is known as a place where photosynthesis apparatuses are exclusively localized. Photosynthesis of purple nonsulfur bacteria is performed by cyclic electron flow. When bacteriochlorophyll a in reaction center complex receives light energy, charge separation takes place to emit electron. The electron passes through a series of electron carriers and returns to bacteriochlorophyll a in reaction center. Through this process, a proton motive force is formed, and used for the synthesis of ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate. In addition, a reverse electron flow takes place, in which oxidized nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) is reduced to the reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) through respiratory complex I and complex II of the chromatophore membrane. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) may be converted into nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) by pyridine nucleotide transhydrogenase.
Mature chromatophore membrane is present as an open vesicle in cell. The closed vesicle form is easily generated by cell disruption and easily purified by centrifugation (Tucker et al. 2010. Mol. Microbiol. 76: 833-847). The expressions of genes for the formation of chromatophore membrane and the biochemical process for the differentiation of cell membrane to form chromatophore membrane have been extensively studied. However, there have been no attempts to use the chromatophore membrane itself for industrial purpose. Accordingly, a practical use of the chromatophore membrane presented herein may provide a possibility for the novel use of the chromatophore membrane.
5-Aminolevulinic acid is a precursor that is first generated in the synthetic pathway of the tetrapyrroles such as heme or bacteriochlophyll. Administration of 5-aminolevulinic acid at high dose in cell leads to the formation of porphyrin-based materials at high level, which generally exhibit photosensitivity. Especially, oxidative stress (also called phototoxicity) is generated in light to show lethal effect on cell. Accordingly, 5-aminolevulinic acid is often used as herbicide and pesticide (Rebeiz et al. 1984. Enzyme Microbiol Technol. 6: 390). In particular, 5-aminolevulinic acid is also known as an environmentally-friendly herbicide due to its excellent biodegradability.
In Pharmaceutical industry, 5-aminolevulinic acid is used for the treatment of skin-related disease and also used as an additive in cosmetics. In addition, 5-aminolevulinic acid may be used for photodynamic therapy; cancerous cells can be killed by the exogenous addition of 5-aminolevulinic acid, followed by the light irradiation (Wachowska et al. 2011. Molecules 16: 4140-4164). Furthermore, 5-aminolevulinic acid can be used for bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects. For example, 5-aminolevulinic acid can be used to keep fish from viral or bacterial infection in the aquaculture industry (Korean Patent Application No. 10-2000-0024382).
Metabolic controls to produce more 5-aminolevulinic acid in Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Escherichia coli have been extensively studied (Kang et al. 2011. Bioengineered bugs 2: 6). Zymomonas mobilis was improved and used to synthesize the 5-aminolevulinic acid at higher level (Korean Patent Application No. 10-2011-0143640). However, 5-aminolevulinic acid in fact is produced by expensive organic synthetic methods, which are complicated and cost ineffective (Beale et al. 1979. Phytochemistry 18: 441).
The descriptions presented above as the background are used only for better understanding of the inventive concept, and shall not be regarded by one of ordinary skill in the art as admitting that they correspond to the known prior art.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
}
|
An interactive computer program for recording and analysing longitudinal cephalometric growth material.
An interactive suite of chained programs is described for recording, measuring, and analysing a large number of longitudinal cephalometric records. The programs are arranged in a logical sequence, and integrated with the hardware, to ensure a smooth and automatic running of the system from data collection to data analysis. The results of the analysis can be presented in suitable numerical and/or graphical forms to show individual as well as mean growth profiles.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
Tibetology
Tibetology () refers to the study of things related to Tibet, including its history, religion, language, culture, politics and the collection of Tibetan articles of historical, cultural and religious significance. The last may mean a collection of Tibetan statues, shrines, Buddhist icons and holy scripts, Thangka embroideries, paintings and tapestries, jewellery, masks and other objects of fine Tibetan art and craftsmanship.
History
The Jesuit Antonio de Andrade (1580–1634) and a few others established a small mission and church in Tsaparang (1626), in the kingdom of Guge (Western Tibet) in the 17th century. When the kingdom was overrun by the king of Ladakh (1631), the mission was destroyed.
A century later another Jesuit, the Italian Ippolito Desideri (1684–1733) was sent to Tibet and received permission to stay in Lhasa where he spent 5 years (1716–1721) living in a Tibetan monastery, studying the language, the religion of the lamas and other Tibetan customs. He published a couple of books in Tibetan on Christian doctrine. Because of a conflict of jurisdiction (the mission was entrusted to the Capuchins, and not to the Jesuits) Desideri had to leave Tibet and returned to Italy, where he spent the rest of his life publishing his Historical notes on Tibet. They were collected, in 4 volumes, under the title of Opere Tibetane (Rome;1981–1989). Desideri may be considered as the first Tibetologist and he did much to make Tibet known in Europe.
Desideri was however a pioneer, and as such what he produced were rather 'observations' on Tibet, a work he did with objectivity and sympathy, but not always perfect accuracy. The inception of Tibetology as an authentic academic discipline is thus associated with the Hungarian Sándor Kőrösi Csoma (1784–1842) who is considered as its founder to present day, the other early tibetologists of note being Philippe Édouard Foucaux who in 1842 occupied the first chair for Tibetan studies in Europe and Isaac Jacob Schmidt, who was primarily the pioneering mongolist residing in Saint Petersburg.
The publications of the British diplomat Charles Alfred Bell contributed towards the establishment of tibetology as an academic discipline. As outstanding tibetologists of the 20th century the British Frederick William Thomas, David Snellgrove, Michael Aris, and Richard Keith Sprigg, the Italians Giuseppe Tucci and Luciano Petech, the Frenchmen Jacques Bacot and Rolf Alfred Stein, finally the Germans Dieter Schuh and Klaus Sagaster, may be mentioned.
Since a few decades, particularly in Anglo-Saxon countries, the study of Tibet and Tibetology open itself towards other disciplines, resulting in works with interdisciplinary approach. This has become most obvious in the regular conferences of the IATS (International Association of Tibetan Studies), held at intervals of three years in different cities all over the world. As examples of such open-minded Tibet researcher we might mention the American anthropologist Melvyn Goldstein, among others, who has done noted research and publications on lexical questions, about Tibetan nomads and the modern history of Tibet. Others are Robert Barnett, Matthew Kapstein, Elliot Sperling, Alex McKay, Geoffrey Samuel, and many more.
See also
Buddhist Digital Resource Center - Formerly known as Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center
Latse - a nonprofit based in NYC focusing on promoting contemporary Tibetan culture.
External links
IATS - The International Association of Tibetan Studies
Tibetology Network
Tibetan & Himalayan Digital Library
Additional images
Footnotes
Literature
Tsering Shakya: The Development of Modern Tibetan Studies. In: Robert Barnett (Hg.): Resistance and Reform in Tibet (Bloomington/Indianapolis, Indiana University Press 1994), , S. 1–14.
SHAKABPA, W. D. 1967. Tibet: A Political History [With plates and maps.]. Yale University Press: New Haven & London.
See also
China Tibetology Research Center
International Seminar of Young Tibetologists
Vajrayana Buddhism
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
}
|
Highlights for LG Electronics Internal Blu-ray Writer - Bulk Pack
Product Type:Blu-ray Writer
Marketing Information
BDXL? Ultimate Capacity
Three Layer BDXL-R/BDXL RE discs offer 100GB capacity while quad layer BDXL-R discs boast 128GB storage capacity. You can now write up to 128GBs of data on a single quad layer BDXL? disc which is the equivalent of 27 standard dvds or 5 single layer Blu-ray discs.
Experience 3D Blu-ray
Take entertainment to the next level with 3D using the new Power BD-DVD 3D Software bundle. With 2D to 3D converting feature, you can bring new dimensions to all your videos.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
GOFILES := $(shell find . -name '*.go' ! -path './.go*')
POSTGRES := postgres:12.4-alpine
SHELL := /bin/bash
export COMPOSE_FILE = docker/core.yml:docker/ports.yml
define STUB
package routes
import "net/http"
const holeJsPath = ""
const twemojiWoff2Path = ""
func Asset(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {}
endef
bump:
@go get -u
@go mod tidy
cert:
@mkcert -install localhost
@chmod +r localhost-key.pem
.PHONY: db
db:
@ssh -t rancher@code.golf docker run -it --rm \
--env-file /etc/code-golf.env $(POSTGRES) psql
db-admin:
@ssh -t rancher@code.golf docker run -it --rm \
--env-file /etc/code-golf.env $(POSTGRES) psql -WU doadmin
db-dev:
@docker-compose exec db psql -U postgres code-golf
db-diff:
@diff --color --label beta --label dev --strip-trailing-cr -su \
<(ssh rancher@code.golf "docker run --rm \
--env-file /etc/code-golf.env $(POSTGRES) pg_dump -Os code-golf-beta") \
<(docker-compose exec db pg_dump -OsU postgres code-golf) || true
@diff --color --label live --label dev --strip-trailing-cr -su \
<(ssh rancher@code.golf "docker run --rm \
--env-file /etc/code-golf.env $(POSTGRES) pg_dump -Os") \
<(docker-compose exec db pg_dump -OsU postgres code-golf)
db-dump:
@rm -f db/*.gz
@ssh rancher@code.golf "docker run --env-file /etc/code-golf.env \
--rm $(POSTGRES) sh -c 'pg_dump -a | gzip -9'" \
> db/code-golf-`date +%Y-%m-%d`.sql.gz
@cp db/*.gz ~/Dropbox/code-golf/
deps:
@yay -S mkcert python-brotli python-fonttools
dev:
@touch docker/.env
@docker-compose rm -f
@docker-compose up --build
e2e: export COMPOSE_FILE = docker/core.yml:docker/e2e.yml
e2e: export COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME = code-golf-e2e
e2e:
# TODO Pass arguments to run specific tests.
# TODO Return correct exit code.
@touch docker/.env
@docker-compose rm -fs
@docker-compose pull
@docker-compose build -q
@docker-compose run e2e || docker-compose logs
@docker-compose rm -fs
fmt:
@gofmt -s -w $(GOFILES)
@goimports -w $(GOFILES)
font:
@docker build -t code-golf-font -f Dockerfile.font .
@id=`docker create code-golf-font`; \
docker cp "$$id:twemoji-colr/build/Twemoji Mozilla.woff2" assets/twemoji.woff2; \
docker rm $$id
lint:
# FIXME Stub out assets if it doesn't yet exist.
ifeq ($(wildcard routes/assets.go),)
$(file > routes/assets.go, $(STUB))
endif
@docker run --rm -v $(CURDIR):/app -w /app golangci/golangci-lint:v1.30.0 golangci-lint run
live:
@./build-assets
@docker build --pull -t codegolf/code-golf .
@docker push codegolf/code-golf
@ssh rancher@code.golf " \
docker pull codegolf/code-golf && \
docker stop code-golf; \
docker rm code-golf; \
docker run \
--cap-add CAP_KILL \
--cap-add CAP_SETGID \
--cap-add CAP_SETUID \
--cap-add CAP_SYS_ADMIN \
--cap-drop ALL \
--detach \
--env-file /etc/code-golf.env \
--init \
--name code-golf \
--publish 80:1080 \
--publish 443:1443 \
--read-only \
--restart always \
--security-opt seccomp:unconfined \
--volume certs:/certs \
codegolf/code-golf && \
docker system prune -f"
logs:
@ssh rancher@code.golf docker logs --tail 5 -f code-golf
test:
# FIXME Stub out assets if it doesn't yet exist.
ifeq ($(wildcard routes/assets.go),)
$(file > routes/assets.go, $(STUB))
endif
@go test ./...
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
25 = 0, 4*m = -20. What are the prime factors of a?
2, 5
Let v = -3 + 7. Suppose -3*i = -2*w + 6*w + 1, 5*i + 23 = v*w. List the prime factors of w.
2
Suppose -v - 3*v + 5*y + 222 = 0, 0 = v + 2*y - 49. List the prime factors of v.
53
Let v = 53 + -35. Suppose d = -2*d + v. List the prime factors of -3*d/(1 - 3).
3
Suppose 12*k = -248 + 2576. What are the prime factors of k?
2, 97
Let m be (-2)/(0 - 1) + 2. Let a(y) = -8*y - y**2 - 1 - m - 1. What are the prime factors of a(-6)?
2, 3
Let x = -33 - -22. Let f = x - -23. List the prime factors of f.
2, 3
Let w be -1 - 12/(3*-1). Let j(d) = d**2 - d - 4. Let b be j(w). Suppose 5*o - 33 = -3*c, -o + 4*c + 0 + b = 0. List the prime factors of o.
2, 3
Suppose -i = -8 - 3. List the prime factors of i.
11
Let v = 69 - -101. What are the prime factors of v?
2, 5, 17
Let j(s) = -s**2 - 12*s - 6. Let o be -2 + 2 + 6/(-1). Let k be j(o). Suppose -u - 9 = -2*f, 0*f + k = 4*f + 2*u. List the prime factors of f.
2, 3
Let y = 539 - 349. What are the prime factors of y?
2, 5, 19
Suppose 2*s + 50 = 166. List the prime factors of s.
2, 29
Suppose q + 54 = 3*g, 5*g + 5*q - 35 - 75 = 0. Let f = g - -2. What are the prime factors of f?
3, 7
Let p = -40 + 51. List the prime factors of p.
11
Let f = 2 + 32. What are the prime factors of f?
2, 17
Let y(a) = 9*a. What are the prime factors of y(3)?
3
Let f(q) = q - 1 - 5*q + 2*q. What are the prime factors of f(-4)?
7
Suppose 0 = -0*c + 3*c - 42. Let d be (-8)/(-28) - (-66)/c. Suppose -2*l + d*l = 9. List the prime factors of l.
3
Let n(b) = -b - 3. Let q be n(-8). What are the prime factors of 0 - 2 - (-5 - q)?
2
Suppose -2*j + 50 = -78. Suppose 0*w = -4*w + j. List the prime factors of w.
2
Let x(w) = -w**3 - 12*w**2 - 17*w - 15. Let t be x(-11). Suppose n - 9 = -a, 0 = -0*a - 4*a - n + t. List the prime factors of a.
2, 7
Let b be (-2 - -4) + 6/2. Let k(z) = -z**2 + 6*z + 7. List the prime factors of k(b).
2, 3
Suppose 9*q + 89 = 2*g + 4*q, 3*g + 4*q = 99. List the prime factors of g.
37
Let m = -1 + 15. Let j = -6 + m. List the prime factors of j.
2
Let y = 10 + -4. Let t(g) = g + 5. List the prime factors of t(y).
11
Let v = 319 - 202. List the prime factors of v.
3, 13
Suppose 2*b - 132 = -2*b. Suppose k + 25 = 6*k. Suppose -62 - b = -k*j. What are the prime factors of j?
19
Suppose 3*s + j = 9 + 6, -s + 3*j - 5 = 0. Let x(c) = 2*c - 6. Let v be x(s). Suppose 22 = v*u - 0*u. List the prime factors of u.
11
Let g = 3 - -1. Suppose 3*o - 23 = 2*o - 5*v, -4*o + 60 = g*v. List the prime factors of o.
13
Let o be 1/2*(-2 - -2). Suppose o = 2*d - 0*d - 64. List the prime factors of d.
2
Let u = -9 - -11. Suppose a = 5, -5*a = -3*p + u*p - 4. List the prime factors of p.
3, 7
Let f = -16 - -300. What are the prime factors of f?
2, 71
Let b = -3 - -8. Suppose b*y - 44 + 14 = 0. Suppose y = 3*g - 0*g. List the prime factors of g.
2
Suppose -512 - 672 = -8*s. List the prime factors of s.
2, 37
Suppose 0*z - 4*z + 20 = 0. Suppose -43 = -z*l + y, 2*y + 16 + 6 = 2*l. List the prime factors of l.
2
Let d(w) = 4*w**2 + 4*w - 4. Let f be d(-4). Let t be (116/6)/(14/3 + -4). Let b = f - t. What are the prime factors of b?
3, 5
Let t be (1/(-2) - 0)*0. Suppose -2*g + 5*g - 93 = t. List the prime factors of g.
31
Suppose 2*s = 2 + 2. Suppose 3*f - 5*a = 30, -4*a + 1 + s = 3*f. Suppose 4 = 5*u + 14, -f*k = -3*u - 21. List the prime factors of k.
3
Suppose -x - 21 = -3*t + 2*x, 5*x + 23 = t. Let k(p) = 5*p + 23. Let j(z) = 2*z + 8. Let u(b) = 11*j(b) - 4*k(b). What are the prime factors of u(t)?
2
Suppose -3*v = -4*v + 37. What are the prime factors of v?
37
Let m(p) = -3*p**3 + 3*p**2 + 3*p + 1. List the prime factors of m(-3).
2, 5
Let n(b) = 1. Let f(s) = s - 15. Let t(l) = -f(l) - 2*n(l). List the prime factors of t(0).
13
Suppose -w = w. Suppose -2*x + 3*x - 2*u - 54 = w, -3*x + 3*u + 156 = 0. Suppose 2*p + x = 7*p. List the prime factors of p.
2, 5
Let b(c) = c**3 - 7*c**2 + 6*c + 5. List the prime factors of b(7).
47
Suppose -5*h + 24 = h. Suppose 0 = h*y + 3*k - 242 + 84, -2*k = -3*y + 110. What are the prime factors of y?
2, 19
Let z(g) = -g + 12. Let f be (-1)/(-2 - -3) + 4. Suppose 5*v + f*q - 11 = 17, -q = v - 6. What are the prime factors of z(v)?
7
Suppose 0*k + 22 = r + 5*k, -r = 2*k - 22. Suppose 58 = x + r. List the prime factors of x.
2, 3
Let o(b) = b + 29. What are the prime factors of o(0)?
29
Let r(k) = -2*k**2 + 2*k + k**3 - 2*k**3 - 2 - k**3. What are the prime factors of r(-3)?
2, 7
Let p = 82 + 56. List the prime factors of p.
2, 3, 23
List the prime factors of 1 - 3*(-29 + -3).
97
Let c(g) = g**3 - 5*g**2 + g. List the prime factors of c(5).
5
Suppose -p + 41 = -8. What are the prime factors of p?
7
Let g be (0 + 9)*2/3. Let f(u) = -u + 10. Let n be f(g). Suppose n*m - 15 = m. List the prime factors of m.
5
Let y be 49 + 8 - (-3)/1. Suppose -i = 5*q + 2*i + y, 0 = -3*i. What are the prime factors of q/(-8) - 27/(-6)?
2, 3
Suppose -15 = o + 3*u, 0 = -2*o - 3*u + 6 - 21. Suppose 7*s - 4*s - 12 = o. What are the prime factors of s?
2
Let j(d) = -d**2 + 885. Let y be j(0). Let x be y/(-33) + (-4)/22. Let l = -15 - x. What are the prime factors of l?
2, 3
Suppose -277 - 257 = -3*k. What are the prime factors of k?
2, 89
Let i = -18 - -11. Let s = -3 - i. Suppose 5*t + 2*u - 20 = 0, 0*u + 16 = 4*t - s*u. What are the prime factors of t?
2
Suppose 3*m - 4*r = -2*m + 155, 0 = -2*m + 3*r + 69. List the prime factors of m.
3
Let s = 10 - 7. Suppose s*b - 12 = b. What are the prime factors of b?
2, 3
Let k = 50 + -36. Let g = -10 + k. List the prime factors of g.
2
List the prime factors of (-1278)/(-63) + 2/(-7).
2, 5
Let t be (0*3/9)/(-2). Suppose 5*u - 3*a - a = t, -u - 2*a = -14. Suppose u*i = 19 + 1. What are the prime factors of i?
5
Suppose 52 = 6*g - 8. What are the prime factors of (-284)/(-6) - g/(-15)?
2, 3
Let k = -173 - -361. List the prime factors of k.
2, 47
Suppose 2*p = -0*p - 36. What are the prime factors of 10/(-4)*p/15?
3
Suppose -5 = -5*n + 5. Suppose 0*g - n*g = 0. List the prime factors of 2*(8 + 1 - g).
2, 3
Let f(c) = 8*c + 4. Let v be f(-3). What are the prime factors of (-5)/v - (-150)/8?
19
Suppose 0 = 4*z + 156 + 260. What are the prime factors of 3/(-3*4/z)?
2, 13
Suppose 2*b + 2 + 2 = 2*c, 4*c - 5*b = 9. Suppose -h = -c - 7. What are the prime factors of h?
2
Let w(i) = i. Let a(s) = s + 1. Let v be a(4). Let x be w(v). Let d = 9 - x. List the prime factors of d.
2
Let w(x) = -x**3 - 11*x**2 - 11*x + 8. Let h be (18/(-45))/((-1)/(-25)). What are the prime factors of w(h)?
2, 3
Let t be (0*(-3)/9)/1. What are the prime factors of -4*(1 + -2 + t)?
2
Suppose -2*k = -1 - 7. Let w(z) be the first derivative of z**4/4 - 2*z**3/3 - 5*z**2/2 + 6*z - 2. What are the prime factors of w(k)?
2, 3
Suppose -263 = -2*u - 2*j + 5*j, -j = -3*u + 391. What are the prime factors of u?
2, 5, 13
Suppose -6*a + 214 = -914. What are the prime factors of a?
2, 47
Let f(b) = -b**3 + 3*b**2 - 2*b + 3. Let r be f(2). Suppose -4 = -d + r. Suppose -d - 26 = -3*q. What are the prime factors of q?
11
Let l = 13 - 7. Suppose -5*s + l = 4*h - 54, -3*h - 2*s = -52. What are the prime factors of h?
2, 5
Let i(j) = -j**3 + 3*j**2 - 2*j. Let n be i(2). Suppose n = 2*r - 3*m - 16, -6*m = -2*r - 4*m + 12. What are the prime factors of r?
2
Let t(x) = -x**3 + 15*x**2 - x + 18. Let k be t(15). Suppose 0 = y + k - 24. What are the prime factors of y?
3, 7
Let g be 0 + 5/1*8. Suppose 3*n - g = -2*r, -r + 3*r = 3*n + 28. What are the prime factors of r?
17
What are the prime factors of 1 + -5 + 3 + 52?
3, 17
Suppose 5 = -5*i, c - 15 = -2*c - 3*i. Suppose u + 0*u = 2*l - 16, 2*l + 4*u - c = 0. What are the prime factors of l?
7
Let n = 139 - 127. Let r = 8 + -12. Let g = n + r. List the prime factors of g.
2
List the prime factors of -1*((-9)/2 + 4)*108.
2, 3
Let w = 23 - 16. Suppose 0 = -3*f + n + w, n + 5 = 5*f - 4*n. Suppose 0 = 2*q + f*z - 25, 0*z + 6 = 2*z. What are the prime factors of q?
2
Suppose -6*p + 9 + 117 = 0. List the prime factors of p.
3, 7
Let x(k) = k**2 + k + 1. Suppose 4*g = -5*v - 36, -5*v - 4 - 12 = -g. What are the prime factors of x(g)?
13
Let u(z) = -z**3 + 9*z**2 - 8*z + 7. Let g be 56/6*15/5. Suppose 15 + 6 = 2*m - y, -4*y = -m + g. What are the p
|
{
"pile_set_name": "DM Mathematics"
}
|
"Gas basket" Ukraine: what proportion of domestic gas will be?
Ukraine is to Russia not only long fights for the Donbass, and protracted diplomatic with the participation of the European Commission for the transit of gas through Ukraine and Russian gas supplies "Naftogaz" at prices of the European market. In short, the continued difficult bargaining for the second so-called winter package. Formally, September 16 at the Vienna talks the parties agreed on the main points, and is expected to sign an agreement next week in order to have from October 1, "Gazprom" resumed gazopostavki to Ukraine for its needs on a prepaid basis.
According to the first "winter package" "Naftogaz" buy Russian gas at the end of November 2014 on 1 June 2015 imports of Russian natural gas directly to the needs of Ukraine, according to the top management of the government and "Naftogaz" should only complement the so-called diversified gas basket of the country, to reduce risks and dependence on one source of imported gas - "Gazprom". And last year, in this sense, we have made considerable progress, increasing gas imports from Europe as repeatedly told ZN.UA. But the main source of gas supply to Ukraine was and remains the natural gas production in its own territory. Here success, as evidenced by the facts were much more modest.
Given the inertia of the industry, the decline of production rates this year may be adversely affected by the general situation with the gas. Already this year, the situation with gas production in Ukraine has deteriorated dramatically. This applies both to the state company "Ukrgasdobycha" parastatal "Ukrnafta" and private mining companies. If the first eight months of last year production growth was 2.5%, but this year for the same period, on the contrary, there is a drop in production of 2.5%. In absolute terms, the fall has 300 million cubic meters. Nationwide, at first glance, it seems to be not critical yet, but the trend is alarming. On this and many other related problems of the national mining industry September 10 held a substantive discussion with direct participants of the Ukrainian gas market in the course of the round table "Will Ukraine with its own gas: production, taxes and investments", organized ZN.UA and consulting company "Nyufolk ". For publication, we have chosen the most reasoned and bright, in our view, to the speakers.
According to most of them, the main problem of gas production in Ukraine remains high taxes. Raising the rent twice in August last year, radically changed the situation on the market. The period of rapid growth in gas production is over and today this industry is going through, to put it mildly, not the best of times. Some cushion companies and inert process gas production still fails to fully experience the depth of the problems of the mining industry. In addition to high taxes, private companies have a lot of other problems, first and foremost, with the state policy on gas production. An illustrative example is the situation with the largest private natural gas producer "Neftegazdobycha", which in the past three years is a part of DTEK. For five months, state authorities block the work of the company. Its accounts are arrested, which makes it impossible to sell gas, "Neftegazdobycha" forced to give it to the gas transportation system is actually pumped into underground gas storage (UGS) at not quite certain conditions. Today, about 450 million cubic meters of gas the company is in underground storage. Roughly speaking, this gas resource is simply withdrawn from the market, and that a third of the gas produced by private companies. If the situation does not change, about a thousand people working in the company, as well as contractors, will be unemployed.
Government policy in relation to the private gas production is not only fraught with problems in the energy sector, but will have significant implications for all economic and social development, especially in those regions where mining companies, including private ones, and where they took over a large part of the social burden.
Oleg PROKHORENKO, head of the PAO "Ukrgasdobycha": "If the policy of the state regarding the" Ukrgasdobycha "will not change fundamentally, we will continue to lose its gas. Representing the largest public gas producer country, unfortunately, I consider it necessary to talk about the threat of decline . Because if the state policy regarding the PAO "Ukrgasdobycha" will not change fundamentally, we will continue to lose its gas production in Ukraine. I responsibly declare: Unfortunately, there is a decline in gas production this year. It is 200 million cubic meters in the area of ATO and the fall of natural gas companies operating under joint operating agreements (DM) with PAO "Ukrgasdobycha." This year, more precisely, in the second half of the year, we are already working in the new tax regime - rents on extracted gas is 70%. This situation killing the company. We do a lot of calculations, projections, we do a lot to save money ... but it will not save us. Here are the latest estimates prepared by us. In our economy influenced by four main factors.
The first - the price of gas sales.
The second - the world price of oil, it linked the prices of our oil products and liquefied gas, we produce and sell.
The third factor - the level of rents, ie taxes.
Fourth - the level of payments to "Naftogaz Ukraine", which sells all of the produced gas.
What is happening? We are working at 70% of the rent for the last month the price of oil slipped by 20-25%. This means that the money that we had planned to receive for the sale of petroleum products and that finance the current activities of the company, we will receive less. If we were planning to get for petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gas about 600 million USD per month, now this amount will not exceed 500 million USD. And this is not the limit. Now we have to make predictions and calculations based on an oil price of $ 30. Per barrel. In the basic financial plan for the next year pawned oil price of $ 60. Per barrel, but I do not believe in this forecast.
I think that the oil price will be closer to $ 30. Per barrel. In such circumstances, if the rent is 70%, the price of oil - $ 30. Per barrel, and the level of payments "Naftogaz" for gas "Ukrgasdobycha" - only 83% of that observed in the last year, after payment of all taxes remains for us to finance all activities, operating and capital, 1.3 billion USD. As it is correlated with the needs of the company, unless the operating costs necessary to 5.7 billion USD? First of all, wages, energy, basic spare parts for repairs, transportation, chemicals, interest on bank loans - without all this the company simply "stop", we will not be able to service existing wells. But this is only the current activities excluding new capital investment. To support the production of gas at the existing level, to compensate for the natural pressure drop, we need substantial investment. If we do not make any capital investment, are drilling are not, do not do the operation on gas production intensification, the next year production could fall to 12.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas to 14.5 billion cubic meters this year.
To maintain production at a level of 14.5 billion cubic meters in 2016, we need to invest 13.5 billion USD. This amount includes USD 8.2 billion for drilling, seismic, pipes and other equipment, construction and connection of new wells. If we drill, connect new wells, moving at the level of the past and current years, it will predictably 1.24 billion cubic meters of gas to partially compensate for the natural fall. But this is not enough. If we want to fulfill the plan for the extraction of gas in the volume of 14.5 billion cubic meters a year, we need to produce an additional 900 million cubic meters, which we can get, especially from operations to intensify existing wells and on commissioning of booster compressor stations. This is 5.3 billion USD. The baseline for the next year (in case of lack of funds for investment) - a drop in production to 12.4 billion cubic meters. "Ukrgasdobycha" hopes to produce 14.5 billion cubic meters, ie necessary to compensate for the loss of 2.1 billion cubic meters of gas. This requires operating costs at 5.7 billion USD, capital expenditures - 13.5 billion. That is, if the rent is 70% when the price of oil continues to fall, we do not (will not) means even on operations, not to mention the capital investment.
The question arises: what he wants from the state "Ukrgasdobycha"? Or the state continues to extort money from the company through the rents in the falling volumes of gas or the government wants to maintain the level of gas production, which shows the company. Miracles do not happen, we can save on procurement, on implementation, but production - is a physical process, it drops all the time to maintain it needed capital investment. That's what happens with the production without investment by the example of one of the "youngest" of our fields - Kobzevskogo (see. Fig. Online ZN.UA). Prior to April 2014 due to investments mainly in new wells has been able to maintain production levels. But all this time remained underfunded construction of a booster compressor station (BCS), which would allow to maintain production at the level of 2012-2014., And since May 2014 is rapidly beginning to lose mine production rate. After a delay of several years BCS yet been put in place, but now it can perhaps a little support production at mid-2015, the effect of BAC is much less - the deposit will not be able to return to the level of production 2012-2014. That is, the more we hold off on investment, the more we save in gas and can even lose the deposit. This is a simple physics of the process.
The state must choose the way: either we do not fund capital investments of the state mining company (by reducing rents), then soon we get a picture of falling gas production in all fields, as shown in the example Kobzevskogo; and we strive to maintain production at a constant level - then you need to invest. We did the calculations, if we produce 2.14 billion cubic meters of gas (in addition, more than indicators of the baseline scenario of 12.4 billion cubic meters in 2016), it would cost the state 4.4 billion UAH (including depreciation of long-term investments needed to next year). If we do not s get this amount of gas, the state ("Naftogaz") will go to the market and buy the volume of the import of 12.3 billion USD. This is what we take account of gas price of $ 250. Per thousand cubic meters. The State, represented by "Naftogaz" would still need to provide the 2.1 billion cubic meters. The question arises: what is better - to get it in Ukraine, which will give us a salary to workers, domestic enterprises will download orders or pick up money from us through the rent and then buy the same gas in Russia three times more expensive? Saving 70% of the rent - is additional budget expenditures on the purchase of gas and increased our gas dependency on Russia.
Arthur Somov, CFO "Karpatygaz": "In 70% of the rent, even the drug trade becomes uninteresting. We work on the basis of cooperation agreements with the state company" Ukrgasdobycha. "In his speech, I will focus on three fundamental areas. Item 1. With respect to insurance stock, I want everyone to understand why private companies are so worried. Today, the gas business, I can say responsibly, do not believe the government. In any state initiative begins search for "where the crux of the matter", and not even a dog, the whole horse. Perhaps it is a problem of the entire state, why not built communications, at least with the oil and gas business.
Probably, if the ratio is correct, then after some time the trust return. But to date, the trust of the gas business in the state is not. This also applies to the situation last winter, when "Naftogaz Ukraine" addressed the monopoly supplier of gas for more than a hundred of the largest enterprises. This also applies to our personal experience with the previous government.
Item 2. "Karpatygaz" works at the intersection of public and private sector - working with "Ukrgasdobycha." I 110% support the head "Ukrgasdobycha." Today in Ukraine develops rather interesting situation: all initiatives to reduce rent payments apply only to private companies, which account for 15-20% of gas production. Then, like a huge share of the market - 80% of which occur in "Ukrgasdobycha" - subject to the rent of 70%. The main problem of the gas market - the rent, the rent and the rent again. No transparency of the market, do not tender ... When 70% of the rent, even the drug trade becomes uninteresting, not to mention the gas production in Ukraine. Therefore, the rent will be reduced - investors will come. The experience of the previous two or three years has shown that the opacity of the market, its infrastructure problems are not put off foreign investors from coming to Ukraine. Here JKX came back in the mid-90s of the last century, when Ukraine was generally incomprehensible situation. The same applies to Burisma, Shell, etc. If companies are imposing some insane taxes, it does not matter what other conditions are created, they will be derivatives only thing.
Paragraph 3, painful enough for us - the PSA (Production Sharing Agreement). In fact, when we talk with the deputies, everything is understood. But the result is important! In July, the bill was defeated by a change, improve the PSA. Because it came to the rostrum Rada deputy of one of the right-wing parties and unproven he told that it's all bad. And we voted against. Populism is not just rolls over, it is no longer limited. Returning to the problems of "Karpatygaz" have today the state is pushing for the signing of the PSA. But probably not in the conditions that exist today. When we serve the documents for signing the PSA, where everything is approved, I am afraid that by the time we had "a bit dead" to sign the PSA will have no one. But in general we welcome all foreign investors in the oil and gas sector of Ukraine.
Andrew MIZOVETS, president of the Association of "Gas Traders of Ukraine", "Insurance reserves of gas at the proposed conditions - it is freezing of funds". Add some numbers. Let's start with the fact that, according to "Ukrtransgaz", in July for the industry was supplied 640 million cubic meters of gas. Of these, "Naftogaz of Ukraine" - 60 million cubic meters, the company related to Oblgases - 40 million, not including HMOs, all the rest "closed" private providers traders. That is, the share of private traders in the summer reaches 80% of the total supply industrial consumers.
Of course, since the fall of their share will decline, while the share of "Naftogaz" and the regional gas companies to grow. But the fact that private providers play an important role in the gas industry, says that the work is done, and there are results. More figures. Last year production growth of private companies reached 30%, and this year we expect to fall.
Why? The answer is simple: taxes, rent, money washed out. Separately recall the decision of the Cabinet Forced transfer of consumers in the gas supply "Naftogaz". Until today, in order to return customers, the mining companies and associated gas traders are forced to sell at a large discount. Already mid-September, but we still have no understanding as we go through the winter heating season. We have less gas in underground storage than last year. Yes, in the country to reduce gas consumption, since the beginning of the year for the industry - by 25%, all in Ukraine - 20%. But the fall in consumption does not solve the issue of gas injection into underground storage facilities.
Next problem - the formation of an insurance reserve. "Current" resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers provides for each supplier of 10 percent of the supply of gas supplies quarterly, is about 30% of deliveries per month. Who we are invited to "insure" 100%! If a judgment will (as expected on September 20) to October 1, already have to have an insurance reserve. Where his brother? Insurance gas supply - is the freezing of money. If mining companies providing the resources, so they, too, should form the stock, while still pay the rent for the produced gas, which forms the reserve stock. Today, private companies supply the market 350- 400 million cubic meters of gas per month, or 1-1.2 billion in the quarter. Under the current legislation, UGS private traders need to keep 120 million cubic meters of gas, and the new - already 400 million. This gas will actually "lie" in underground storage instead of going to the market - consumers. At today's prices is about 2 billion USD, they need somewhere to take. Loans also now no one gives. All look forward to the enactment of the regulator, which dot the "i". I wish that it was as progressive as the Law "On the Natural Gas Market", which we really applaud.
Roman Storozhev, president of the Association "Subsoil users of Ukraine", "The increase in safety stock is killing the business of traders, without solving the problem per se. In addition, 300 million cubic meters of gas in underground storage facilities is necessary to replace the market with imported gas. Be saved if Georgia 300 million cubic meters of gas in underground storage facilities in winter period? I think not. 300 million cubic meters at the national level - it is very small, but if from the turnover of the domestic market, such a situation may derail market scare off investors. This will require gas suppliers to "freeze" 100% of current assets, simply omit them in store. Where can I get money? Loans in UAH today - is 35% per annum, and if we go to a foreign bank the first category, there us no one will give money, because in Ukraine there is a sixfold require collateral.
In western Ukraine, in fact, no one believes, no we will not give gas in storage, no we will not give cheap loans. Upon the decision to increase the safety stock traders kills business, and in fact does not solve the problem of filling of UGS. As I said, 300 million cubic meters - is very little to "Naftogaz Ukraine".
However, Yuri Vitrenko, business development director of "Naftogaz Ukraine", said that "Naftogaz" in early summer offers private mining companies and traders to form gas reserves in underground storage facilities for the coming winter as a resource, produced and harvested in Ukraine and from import. But no company on such an appeal has not responded. In this sense, according to Yu.Vitrenko, the above-mentioned participants of the gas market can be said to have brought. And not shared jointly and severally liable with the NAC. Nevertheless, he is confident that by the beginning of the heating season in the Ukrainian underground gas storage is accumulated at least 16.5 billion cubic meters of gas.
In view of reverse supply and import of "Gazprom", says Yu.Vitrenko, Ukraine may take the coming autumn-winter season is relatively painless. So "Help!", In his opinion, it is not necessary to shout. However, in more detail about the situation on the gas market and its vision Yu.Vitrenko and other top managers "Naftogaz" will be discussed in the next room ZN.UA.
As the position of the legislators, in particular, the deputy Olga Belkova. She says that the government is seeking a compromise with the tax relationship with the private mining companies. And although it is not a final solution to the problem, start. In addition, O.Belkova initiated the next week in the framework of the round table TEKovskogo Committee. It just goes on the PSA, which is so opposed to private gas producers.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
GPTU WEBSITE
Tuesday, 30 June 2015
GATHERINGS BUT NOT BLATHERINGS
Hi Flotsams and Jetsams
GATHERINGS BUT NOT BLATHERINGS
Welcome to the latest of our occasional Rising Tide UK Newsletters with details of stuff to go to!
1) SAVE THE DATE FOR FUN & FROLICS WITH FELLOW MISCHIEF MAKERS:-Sunday September 13th 2015,We’re announcing “Open Season” with the Art Not Oil Coalition www.artnotoil.org.ukPlease join us and SAVE THE DATE for a mass creative protest against big oil!Maybe even a festivoil?It’s time to step things up. The day will finish with a grand finale where different groups will gather for a mass performance and we’ll send you more details of that closer to the time. Get the date in your diaries. We'll be doing a more public announcement about this later, so please don't post it on social media yet, so we can make a proper splash about it closer to the time - thanks!
With just over a week to go to the Breaking the Frame2 Gathering there are still a few places left, but book soon if you want a bed rather than your tent! We have an exciting programme with speakers from campaign groups, academics and writers. Breaking the Frame is not just another summer gathering (although there will be plenty of time to relax and enjoy yourself) - it's an innovative effort to rethink our approach to the crucial issue of technology, by learning from each other and drawing on everyone's insights and experience. Neither is it just another political event focused on problems - we will be thinking together about how to gain democratic control of technology and what sort of future we want. So, if you care about the politics of technology, whether it's GM food, surveillance, renewable energy, women and digital technology, or designer babies; whether you're a technology politics campaigner, trade unionist, environmentalist, critical scientist, developer of alternative technology, artist or plain concerned citizen; Breaking the Frame2 is not to be missed. Come and help us change the debate on technology.
3) 19th-24th August, 2015 (Wed-Mon)EARTH FIRST SUMMER GATHERING At a rural site in the Derbyshire Peak District (TBC)The EF! Summer Gathering is 5 days of workshops, networking and planning actions at a low impact eco-living camp organised non-hierarchically. It's run without leaders by everyone who comes along, so come prepared to chip in! Five days of skill-sharing for grassroots ecological direct action - make links, share ideas, and get involved in the struggles against fracking, new roads and more. The Gathering will be camping at a rural site (accessible by public transport) so you'll need to bring a tent, sleeping bag, torch and suchlike. Meals are provided by the Gathering's collective kitchen and there'll be a snack shop. Everyone is crew, so the site, including toilets and running water, will be run by us all. Contact : summergathering@earthfirst.org.uk http://earthfirstgathering.org/That's all for now so fill in 13th September in your diary and go and get your tent ready!
Please contact P.Murry at yrrumuk@googlemail.com if you are interested.
GREEN LEFT FRINGE AT AUTUMN CONFERENCE 2012
Both Green Left and the Green Party Trade Union Group applied to have fringes at the Green Party Conference September 7-10 2012, Conferences Committee turned down both these requests. Green Left decided to mount a fringe outside conference at 6-8pm on Saturday 8th September GPTU agreed to support this meeting and contribute towards costs of room hire. Video clips at http://greenleftblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/green-left-fringe-fringe-at-green-party.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
export default {
lang: 'ca',
dir: 'ltr',
common: {
ok: 'Salvar',
cancel: 'Cancel',
key_backspace: 'backspace',
key_del: 'delete',
key_down: 'down',
key_up: 'up',
more_opts: 'More Options',
url: 'URL',
width: 'Width',
height: 'Height'
},
misc: {
powered_by: 'Powered by'
},
ui: {
toggle_stroke_tools: 'Show/hide more stroke tools',
palette_info: 'Feu clic per canviar el color de farciment, shift-clic per canviar el color del traç',
zoom_level: 'Canviar el nivell de zoom',
panel_drag: 'Drag left/right to resize side panel',
quality: 'Quality:',
pathNodeTooltip: 'Drag node to move it. Double-click node to change segment type',
pathCtrlPtTooltip: 'Drag control point to adjust curve properties',
pick_stroke_paint_opacity: 'Pick a Stroke Paint and Opacity',
pick_fill_paint_opacity: 'Pick a Fill Paint and Opacity'
},
properties: {
id: 'Identify the element',
fill_color: 'Canviar el color de farciment',
stroke_color: 'Canviar el color del traç',
stroke_style: 'Canviar estil de traç guió',
stroke_width: 'Canviar l'amplada del traç',
pos_x: 'Change X coordinate',
pos_y: 'Change Y coordinate',
linecap_butt: 'Linecap: Butt',
linecap_round: 'Linecap: Round',
linecap_square: 'Linecap: Square',
linejoin_bevel: 'Linejoin: Bevel',
linejoin_miter: 'Linejoin: Miter',
linejoin_round: 'Linejoin: Round',
angle: 'Canviar l'angle de rotació',
blur: 'Change gaussian blur value',
opacity: 'Canviar la opacitat tema seleccionat',
circle_cx: 'CX cercle Canvi de coordenades',
circle_cy: 'Cercle Canvi CY coordinar',
circle_r: 'Ràdio de cercle Canvi',
ellipse_cx: 'Canviar lipse CX coordinar',
ellipse_cy: 'Lipse Canvi CY coordinar',
ellipse_rx: 'Ràdio x lipse Canvi',
ellipse_ry: 'Ràdio i lipse Canvi',
line_x1: 'Canviar la línia de partida de la coordenada x',
line_x2: 'Canviar la línia d'hores de coordenada x',
line_y1: 'Canviar la línia de partida i de coordinar',
line_y2: 'Canviar la línia d'hores de coordenada',
rect_height: 'Rectangle d'alçada Canvi',
rect_width: 'Ample rectangle Canvi',
corner_radius: 'Canviar Rectangle Corner Radius',
image_width: 'Amplada de la imatge Canvi',
image_height: 'Canviar l'altura de la imatge',
image_url: 'Canviar URL',
node_x: "Change node's x coordinate",
node_y: "Change node's y coordinate",
seg_type: 'Change Segment type',
straight_segments: 'Straight',
curve_segments: 'Curve',
text_contents: 'Contingut del text',
font_family: 'Canviar la font Família',
font_size: 'Change Font Size',
bold: 'Text en negreta',
italic: 'Text en cursiva'
},
tools: {
main_menu: 'Main Menu',
bkgnd_color_opac: 'Color de fons / opacitat',
connector_no_arrow: 'No arrow',
fitToContent: 'Ajustar al contingut',
fit_to_all: 'Ajustar a tot el contingut',
fit_to_canvas: 'Ajustar a la lona',
fit_to_layer_content: 'Ajustar al contingut de la capa d'',
fit_to_sel: 'Ajustar a la selecció',
align_relative_to: 'Alinear pel que fa a ...',
relativeTo: 'en relació amb:',
page: 'Pàgina',
largest_object: 'objecte més gran',
selected_objects: 'objectes escollits',
smallest_object: 'objecte més petit',
new_doc: 'Nova imatge',
open_doc: 'Obrir imatge',
export_img: 'Export',
save_doc: 'Guardar imatge',
import_doc: 'Import Image',
align_to_page: 'Align Element to Page',
align_bottom: 'Alinear baix',
align_center: 'Alinear al centre',
align_left: 'Alinear a l'esquerra',
align_middle: 'Alinear Medi',
align_right: 'Alinear a la dreta',
align_top: 'Alinear a dalt',
mode_select: 'Eina de selecció',
mode_fhpath: 'Eina Llapis',
mode_line: 'L'eina',
mode_rect: 'Rectangle Tool',
mode_square: 'Square Tool',
mode_fhrect: 'Free-Hand Rectangle',
mode_ellipse: 'Lipse',
mode_circle: 'Cercle',
mode_fhellipse: 'Free-Hand Ellipse',
mode_path: 'Path Tool',
mode_text: 'Eina de text',
mode_image: 'Image Tool',
mode_zoom: 'Zoom Tool',
no_embed: 'NOTE: This image cannot be embedded. It will depend on this path to be displayed',
undo: 'Desfés',
redo: 'Refer',
tool_source: 'Font Edita',
wireframe_mode: 'Wireframe Mode',
clone: 'Clone Element(s)',
del: 'Delete Element(s)',
group_elements: 'Elements de Grup de',
make_link: 'Make (hyper)link',
set_link_url: 'Set link URL (leave empty to remove)',
to_path: 'Convert to Path',
reorient_path: 'Reorient path',
ungroup: 'Desagrupar elements',
docprops: 'Propietats del document',
move_bottom: 'Mou al final',
move_top: 'Mou al principi',
node_clone: 'Clone Node',
node_delete: 'Delete Node',
node_link: 'Link Control Points',
add_subpath: 'Add sub-path',
openclose_path: 'Open/close sub-path',
source_save: 'Salvar',
cut: 'Cut',
copy: 'Copy',
paste: 'Paste',
paste_in_place: 'Paste in Place',
delete: 'Delete',
group: 'Group',
move_front: 'Bring to Front',
move_up: 'Bring Forward',
move_down: 'Send Backward',
move_back: 'Send to Back'
},
layers: {
layer: 'Layer',
layers: 'Layers',
del: 'Eliminar capa',
move_down: 'Mou la capa de Down',
new: 'Nova capa',
rename: 'Canvieu el nom de la capa',
move_up: 'Mou la capa Up',
dupe: 'Duplicate Layer',
merge_down: 'Merge Down',
merge_all: 'Merge All',
move_elems_to: 'Move elements to:',
move_selected: 'Move selected elements to a different layer'
},
config: {
image_props: 'Image Properties',
doc_title: 'Title',
doc_dims: 'Canvas Dimensions',
included_images: 'Included Images',
image_opt_embed: 'Embed data (local files)',
image_opt_ref: 'Use file reference',
editor_prefs: 'Editor Preferences',
icon_size: 'Icon size',
language: 'Language',
background: 'Editor Background',
editor_img_url: 'Image URL',
editor_bg_note: 'Note: Background will not be saved with image.',
icon_large: 'Large',
icon_medium: 'Medium',
icon_small: 'Small',
icon_xlarge: 'Extra Large',
select_predefined: 'Seleccioneu predefinides:',
units_and_rulers: 'Units & Rulers',
show_rulers: 'Show rulers',
base_unit: 'Base Unit:',
grid: 'Grid',
snapping_onoff: 'Snapping on/off',
snapping_stepsize: 'Snapping Step-Size:',
grid_color: 'Grid color'
},
notification: {
invalidAttrValGiven: 'Invalid value given',
noContentToFitTo: 'No content to fit to',
dupeLayerName: 'There is already a layer named that!',
enterUniqueLayerName: 'Please enter a unique layer name',
enterNewLayerName: 'Please enter the new layer name',
layerHasThatName: 'Layer already has that name',
QmoveElemsToLayer: "Move selected elements to layer '%s'?",
QwantToClear: 'Do you want to clear the drawing?\nThis will also erase your undo history!',
QwantToOpen: 'Do you want to open a new file?\nThis will also erase your undo history!',
QerrorsRevertToSource: 'There were parsing errors in your SVG source.\nRevert back to original SVG source?',
QignoreSourceChanges: 'Ignore changes made to SVG source?',
featNotSupported: 'Feature not supported',
enterNewImgURL: 'Enter the new image URL',
defsFailOnSave: 'NOTE: Due to a bug in your browser, this image may appear wrong (missing gradients or elements). It will however appear correct once actually saved.',
loadingImage: 'Loading image, please wait...',
saveFromBrowser: "Select 'Save As...' in your browser (possibly via file menu or right-click context-menu) to save this image as a %s file.",
noteTheseIssues: 'Also note the following issues: ',
unsavedChanges: 'There are unsaved changes.',
enterNewLinkURL: 'Enter the new hyperlink URL',
errorLoadingSVG: 'Error: Unable to load SVG data',
URLLoadFail: 'Unable to load from URL',
retrieving: "Retrieving '%s' ...",
popupWindowBlocked: 'Popup window may be blocked by browser',
exportNoBlur: 'Blurred elements will appear as un-blurred',
exportNoforeignObject: 'foreignObject elements will not appear',
exportNoDashArray: 'Strokes will appear filled',
exportNoText: 'Text may not appear as expected'
}
};
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Q:
OS X 10.9 Redistributable?
I work in an Apple-only office environment with ~40 Macs. Is it possible for me to download an OS X 10.9 redistributable so that we're not downloading 5+ GB continually over our ADSL link ?
Thanks!
A:
Yes it is.
You can download it once and then distribute it over an external Harddrive, an USB Flash Drive or your network. The package is called Install OS X Mavericks.app and you will find it in the directory /Applications.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
}
|
Workshops
Andy’s music reflects an ideal combination of respect for traditional music heritage with a willingness to push the envelope in expanding the contemporary repertoire available to hammer dulcimer players.
Janet Swartz, Dulcimer Society of Northern Illinois
Andy wowed so many people with his teaching, playing, and fresh approach to the instrument last year that we're bringing him back this year as a featured performer.
Sam Edelston, chair, Nutmeg Dulcimer Festival
He was able to clearly explain and teach some very complicated musical concepts to students with remarkable success.
Joanie Blanton, Upper Potomac Music Weekends
Andy has become one of my new favorite teachers at the Upper Potomac Music Weekends.
Joanie Blanton, Upper Potomac Music Weekends
Promo Materials
Below are downloadable materials for use in promoting upcoming events. Please email any questions or requests.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Hearing assistance devices are used to assist patient's suffering hearing loss by transmitting amplified sounds to ear canals. In one example, a hearing aid is worn in and/or around a patient's ear. Patients prefer that their hearing aids are minimally visible or invisible, do not interfere with their daily activities, and are easy for them to control during use, such as pairing the device with an external programmer, turning the device on/off and adjusting sound volume. One area of particular concern is how to operate hearing aid devices in view of shrinking package sizes, limited power, and an increasingly more adult population with limited or diminishing manual dexterity.
Accordingly, there is a need in the art for improved switching and sensing for hearing assistance devices.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
}
|
2004 United States Senate election in Georgia
The 2004 United States Senate election in Georgia took place on November 2, 2004, alongside other elections to the United States Senate in other states as well as elections to the United States House of Representatives and various state and local elections. Incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Zell Miller decided to retire, leaving an open seat. Majette became both the first African American and the first woman to be nominated for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. Republican Johnny Isakson won the open seat.
The results were almost a complete reversal from the previous election in 2000.
Major candidates
Democratic
Denise Majette, U.S. Representative
Republican
Johnny Isakson, U.S. Representative
Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather's Pizza
Mac Collins, U.S. Representative
Campaign
Majette's announcement that she would seek to replace Miller also caught Democrats by surprise, as she was not on anyone's call list when Democrats began seeking a candidate to replace Miller. Further skepticism among Democrats about the viability of her candidacy surfaced when she announced that "God" had told her to run for the Senate. She received important endorsements from U.S. Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, along with many others in Washington who campaigned and raised money for Majette. Her Senate campaign slogan was "I'll be nobody's Senator, but yours."
A number of factors led to Majette's loss. These include her late start, her valuable time and money spent in the runoff, larger conservative turnout from a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages (which Majette opposed), the popularity of President George W. Bush in Georgia, and her lack of experience (being a one-term congresswoman).
Debates
Complete video of debate, October 31, 2004
Results
References
Category:2004 Georgia (U.S. state) elections
Georgia
2004
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
}
|
Price as reviewed:
I first got my hands on this delightful custom Beretta in the April 2015 issue of Shooting Gazette. On first look the differences are purely aesthetic: the Classic we tested last year had fully scroll-engraved side plates, but this month’s gun is engraved with game scene vignettes. And despite almost identical specifications between the two guns, one small difference ticked on the options list has had a marked impact, creating a gun with almost unrecognisable handling characteristics. More on that later.
The intervening months have done little to dull the appeal of this Beretta – it remains a tempting prospect as an entry into the world of high-end guns. Somewhat puzzlingly, variants with game scene engraving as seen on our test gun are actually significantly cheaper than the scroll-engraved gun reviewed previously, to the tune of £725. It seems likely that many sportsmen and women will be very happy indeed with the vignettes on display here – two ovals on each side of the action featuring highly detailed scenes of game birds including pheasants and flushing ducks.
Fulsomely engraved
Elsewhere, the gun is fulsomely engraved, with almost every part of the expansive action body and sideplates given plenty of attention. There is some extremely tight and neat foliate scroll engraving alongside large patches of deeply carved acanthus, tight border work around the shoulders of the sideplates, carved fences and attractive rose-style designs carried out on the hinge-pin and various screws.
Underneath, the gun is no less impressive, with attention given to the fore-end release lever and trigger guard, and screws on the extended trigger guard tang. The engraving gives a good impression of depth, has been well finished and is striking, though arguably a little busy when taken as a whole. The more expensive scroll engraving option gives the gun a rather more cohesive and refined overall look to my eye. Ironically, however, the cheaper game scene engraving option probably gives the impression of being a more expensive gun.
Quality of construction and wood remain hallmarks of Beretta guns, and this is brought to bear impressively on these higher-end models. Wood-to-metal fit is astonishingly good for guns that must be produced in fairly prodigious numbers. The quality of the wood chosen is also high, with lovely fi guring on display alongside tight and strait grain through the rounded semi-pistol grip. The stock and fore-end have an appealing deep oil finish to them, a clear jump in quality over Beretta’s mass-produced guns and quite fitting for something likely to making an appearance on the best shoots around the country.
Chequering is astonishingly fine and feels superb in the hand but looks particularly handsome on the wooden butt plate on the stock, where it surrounds the Beretta logo. However, this is where I have my only real complaint with the finishing, as the retaining screws in the butt plate stand out like a pair of sore thumbs and might have been hidden by some wooden plugs.
Visually, then, the 687 EELL Classic remains successful – but what of it in the field? In our previous review Bill Elderkin suggested potential buyers steer clear of ticking the multichoke option for fear of ‘upsetting the balance of the gun’, and indeed the addition of multichokes to this otherwise identical gun totally changes its handling characteristics.
Though this month’s test gun had the same 30” barrels as the Classic we tested previously, on handling alone you would be hard pressed to recognise these Berettas are related, with the point of balance now being well forward of the hinge pin. Where previously I praised the gun for its neutral handling, noting the particular pleasure in faster, more instinctive shooting, here it rewards deliberate, thoughtful shooting and needs sustained effort and concentration for success.
One should note this is not necessarily a criticism, rather a description of how a seemingly small change can make a startling a difference to a gun’s character.
The 687 EELL Classic from Beretta remains an eminently desirable item. It is competitively priced, very much looks the part, and is likely something that any sportsman or woman could take great pride in owning. However, like buying a new car, a test drive is essential before heading for the sales counter to make sure you get the right model for you.
Beretta 687 EELL Classic in the field
The handling was a real surprise to me and the instructors at Grange Farm Shooting School, as it was clearly barrel heavy. While this could have been down to the multichokes, there was some speculation as to the impact of the density of the wood in the stock. Though you might expect to find the point of balance forward of the hinge-pin, here it was a good 2” forward.
As a result, this gun required a deliberate style to shoot well, with a strong forward movement needed for a consistently clean mount. It felt quite different from the Classic tested previously.
Once in the shoulder the gun moved extremely well and certainly did not feel its 7lb 4oz weight. It dealt with recoil impressively and muzzle flip was not noticeable, though on the day we were only shooting with relatively light loads.
The trigger was weighted excellently and added to an overall feeling of quiet security when shooting. I do, however, prefer my guns to be a little more lively in the hand and this variant required a not insignifi cant amount of concentration for continued success. Although interestingly, where I had struggled with long crossing targets when testing the previous Classic, this model was defi nitely easier to keep on line, and the same targets were far more easily and consistently broken.
I wouldn’t describe this model as having inferior handling to the previously-tested Beretta; rather it simply felt quite different.
It was an interesting illustration of the impact a seemingly small change can have on a gun’s handling, and a reminder that properly testing a gun before buying it is always highly recommended.
View from the gun shop, by Bill Elderkin
As an introduction to the world of premium guns you can certainly do a lot worse than the Beretta 687 EELL Classic. Staying within the world of Beretta guns, the next model in the range starts at a heady £14,750, and once you move up into the world of sidelock guns you are looking at spending the better part of £40,000 for the SO6 and over £70,000 for the SO10. A pair of 687 EELL Classic guns, meanwhile, have a premium of about £1,000 per gun, meaning you could get yourself a pair of beautiful guns fi t for the best shooting in the land for under the price of just one Jubilee shotgun.
For guns with custom dimensions and those who shoot left-handed, there is about a six-month lead time, increasing to a year for pairs. Generally the 687 EELL is quite readily available, though those opting for shorter 28” barrels or the scroll-engraved gun previously reviewed are likely to have to wait a bit longer.
These are very popular and it is not difficult to see why. At first glance they look very special thanks to the excellent quality of wood and intricate engraving. This example has some tremendous figuring and has been given a delightful finish, with the oil providing a deep, natural shine – I would be surprised to see anything better than this on a Jubilee shotgun. The side plates give plenty of room for engraving, and the work on display, while generally not being particularly deep, has been well executed.
The supplied case is a particularly welcome feature, being well lined and featuring excellent leather detailing along with three locks. A boon is the presence of handles on both the end of the case and the side – very handy when loading or unloading your car. It certainly makes a difference.
Essentially, this is a well-thought-out product and is a very fine package for a good price. Beretta Classics are popular with a variety of sportsmen and women and won’t look out of place next to the best English guns on shoot day. Indeed, you might well ask what the difference is between this gun and a Silver Pigeon, since so many of Beretta’s firearms are built on the same action, but this is just as true of a gun from Purdey or Holland & Holland as it is of Beretta or Browning.
Verdict
Compares favourably with its competitors and the next model in the Beretta range, the Jubilee.
Please keep me up to date with special offers and news from Shooting UK and other brands operated by TI Media Limited via email. You can unsubscribe at any time.
We'd also like to send you special offers and news just by email from other carefully selected companies we think you might like. Your personal details will not be shared with those companies - we send the emails and you can unsubscribe at any time. Please tick here if you are happy to receive these messages.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Writing to get published.
Writing for publication is an important way to contribute to the knowledge base for professional nurses. This paper reviews the process of writing a professional paper from identification of a topic to the time the paper appears in print. Web-based resources to facilitate the writing process are highlighted.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
Schott
Schott may refer to:
Schott (surname)
Schott Dscherid Salt Plain near Nafta, Tunisia
Schott AG, a German glass products manufacturer
Schott frères, a Belgium music publisher, now part of Schott Music
Schott Music, a German music publisher
Schott NYC, a New York clothing company
The Jerome Schottenstein Center ("Schott"), a multi-purpose arena in Columbus, Ohio, United States
5312 Schott (1981 VP2), a main-belt asteroid
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
}
|
Many people have been trying to get the Canadian Premier League up and running for a while, but it looks like they are now targeting a 2018 kickoff.
The Canadian Premier League has been in planning for a few years now but just hit its stride with an expected kickoff date in 2018. This idea of Canada’s own professional soccer league was started in 2013. The intention of this new league is to foster Canadian talent and develop their own coaches.
Since the whole idea of the Canadian Premier League is to foster Canadian players, there is a rumor going around that there would be a quota of 75% Canadian players on every team. That would give Canadian professional players much more time on the field in a competitive mindset than they are getting now.
Current teams in the MLS (Vancouver Whitecaps, Montreal Impact and Toronto FC) and in the NASL (FC Edmonton and Ottawa Fury FC) will not be required join the new league but the new Canadian Premier League officials are hopping that the NASL teams will join to help strengthen the league.
Though the Canadian Premier League is pushing to be a tier 1 league along side the MLS, it might take a while for this league to have the experience to play at such a high level. This league could be great, though, for the Canadian National Team as they try to take more of a foothold in the international side of the sport.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
CoolerMaster MasterCase 5 and Pro 5 Review
Introduction and Technical Specification
| Source: CoolerMaster Price: £89-£109 Author: Gary Wain
Introduction
In a break from the norm this is actually going to be two reviews in one. Why? Well because the brand new MasterCase5 from CoolerMaster is available in vanilla form and as the Pro 5 which offers additional features. Not only that, but if you've purchased the base model and want to upgrade at a later date you can, in theory at least, buy the accessories pack, and using the free form modular system, upgrade it to a Pro 5. We like the idea of a modular case, a case that you can change and alter to suite your needs or whims, let's just hope this modular concept isn't just a concept, and CoolerMaster are able to put some meat on the MasterCase bones. So without further ado, let's have a look at the spec sheet for the case.
Technical Specification
Dimensions 235x512x548mm (WxHxD) Materials Steel chassis and Plastic trim Motherboard Support ATX, M-ATX, M-ITX 5.25" 2 3.5" 2 2.5" 2+2 PCI slots 7 Cooling Front: 3x120/140 (1x140 installed) Top: 2x120/140 Rear: 1x120/140 (1x140 Installed) Water Cooling support Front: 240/280mm up to 40mm thick Top: No Support Rear: 120/140mm Max CPU cooler Height 190mm Max GPU length 412mm (296 with HDD cage)
1 - Introduction and Technical Specification 2 - Up Close: Exterior 3 - Up Close: interior 4 - Rear, Stripped, and in the Nip 5 - In The Nip Continued 6 - The Build 7 - Cooling Options 8 - Pro 5 and Pro 5 Accessory Pack 9 - Pro 5 and Pro 5 Accessories Continued 10 - Conclusion «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next»
Most Recent Comments
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
using System;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Logging;
using Xunit;
namespace SIPSorcery.Net.UnitTests
{
/// <summary>This class contains parameterized unit tests for SessionParameter</summary>
[Trait("Category", "unit")]
public partial class SessionParameterUnitTest
{
private Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILogger logger = null;
public SessionParameterUnitTest(Xunit.Abstractions.ITestOutputHelper output)
{
logger = SIPSorcery.UnitTests.TestLogHelper.InitTestLogger(output);
}
[Fact]
public void ConstructorTestEnumParams()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
foreach (var e in Enum.GetValues(typeof(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams)))
{
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create((SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams)e);
Assert.NotNull((object)sessionParameter);
Assert.Equal<SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams>((SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams)e, sessionParameter.SrtpSessionParam);
}
}
[Fact]
public void ConstructorTestFecKey()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.fec_key);
Assert.StartsWith(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.FEC_KEY_PREFIX, sessionParameter.ToString());
}
[Fact]
public void ConstructorTestFecOrder()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.fec_order);
Assert.StartsWith(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.FEC_ORDER_PREFIX, sessionParameter.ToString());
}
[Fact]
public void ConstructorTestWsh()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.wsh);
Assert.StartsWith(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.WSH_PREFIX, sessionParameter.ToString());
}
[Fact]
public void ConstructorTestKdr()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.kdr);
Assert.StartsWith(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.KDR_PREFIX, sessionParameter.ToString());
}
[Fact]
public void ConstructorTestUNEnums()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNAUTHENTICATED_SRTP);
Assert.Equal(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNAUTHENTICATED_SRTP.ToString(), sessionParameter.ToString());
sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTCP);
Assert.Equal(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTCP.ToString(), sessionParameter.ToString());
sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTP);
Assert.Equal(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTP.ToString(), sessionParameter.ToString());
}
[Fact]
public void WshTest()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.wsh);
try
{
sessionParameter.Wsh = 0;
throw new Exception
("expected an exception of type ArgumentOutOfRangeException");
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException)
{
}
try
{
sessionParameter.Wsh = 1;
throw new Exception
("expected an exception of type ArgumentOutOfRangeException");
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException)
{
}
try
{
sessionParameter.Wsh = 3;
throw new Exception
("expected an exception of type ArgumentOutOfRangeException");
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException)
{
}
sessionParameter.Wsh = 64;
Assert.Equal(sessionParameter.ToString(), $"{SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.WSH_PREFIX}64");
}
[Fact]
public void KdrTest()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameter = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.kdr);
try
{
sessionParameter.Kdr = 100;
throw new Exception
("expected an exception of type ArgumentOutOfRangeException");
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException)
{
}
sessionParameter.Kdr = 2;
Assert.Equal($"{SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.KDR_PREFIX}2", sessionParameter.ToString());
sessionParameter.Kdr = 4;
Assert.Equal($"{SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.KDR_PREFIX}4", sessionParameter.ToString());
sessionParameter.Kdr = 3;
Assert.Equal($"{SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.KDR_PREFIX}3", sessionParameter.ToString());
}
[Fact]
public void ParseTest()
{
logger.LogDebug("--> " + System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
logger.BeginScope(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameterKdr = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.kdr, 4);
string sKdr = sessionParameterKdr.ToString();
Assert.Equal(sKdr, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sKdr).ToString());
Assert.Equal("KDR=4", SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sKdr).ToString());
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameterWsh = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.wsh, 64);
string sWsh = sessionParameterWsh.ToString();
Assert.Equal(sWsh, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sWsh).ToString());
Assert.Equal("WSH=64", SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sWsh).ToString());
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameterFecOrder = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.fec_order, (uint)SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.FecTypes.FEC_SRTP);
string sFecOrder = sessionParameterFecOrder.ToString();
Assert.Equal(sFecOrder, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sFecOrder).ToString());
Assert.Equal(sFecOrder, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse("FEC_ORDER=FEC_SRTP").ToString());
sessionParameterFecOrder.FecOrder = SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.FecTypes.SRTP_FEC;
Assert.NotEqual(sFecOrder, sessionParameterFecOrder.ToString());
sFecOrder = sessionParameterFecOrder.ToString();
Assert.Equal(sFecOrder, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sFecOrder).ToString());
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameterFecKey = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.fec_key);
sessionParameterFecKey.FecKey = SDPSecurityDescription.KeyParameter.Parse("inline:MTIzNDU2Nzg5QUJDREUwMTIzNDU2Nzg5QUJjZGVm|2^20|1:4");
string FecKey = sessionParameterFecKey.ToString();
Assert.StartsWith(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.FEC_KEY_PREFIX, FecKey);
Assert.EndsWith("1:4", FecKey);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameterUn1 = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNAUTHENTICATED_SRTP);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameterUn2 = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTCP);
SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter sessionParameterUn3 = SessionParameterFactory.Create(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTP);
string sUn1 = sessionParameterUn1.ToString();
string sUn2 = sessionParameterUn2.ToString();
string sUn3 = sessionParameterUn3.ToString();
Assert.Equal(sUn1, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sUn1).ToString());
Assert.NotEqual(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTP, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sUn2).SrtpSessionParam);
Assert.Equal(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.SrtpSessionParams.UNENCRYPTED_SRTP, SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(sUn3).SrtpSessionParam);
Assert.Null(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(null));
Assert.Null(SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse(""));
Assert.Throws<FormatException>(() => SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse("wsh=64"));
Assert.Throws<FormatException>(() => SDPSecurityDescription.SessionParameter.Parse("ĀĀ\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"));
}
}
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
infected
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Robert Hugh Willoughby
Robert Hugh Willoughby (June 6, 1921 – March 27, 2018) was an American classical flute player and flute teacher. He played both Baroque and modern flute. He has been described by Flute magazine as the "American grandmaster of the flute".
Willoughby taught for many years at Oberlin College, where he was the first Robert Wheeler Professor of Performance. He taught for ten years at the Peabody Institute, and later at the Longy School of Music of Bard College. He received the Alumni Achievement Award from Eastman School of Music and in 1996 he received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Flute Association.
Students
Among his many students is the jazz flute player Paul Horn.
Selected discography
The Oberlin Woodwind Quintet:
Robert Willoughby, flute
James Caldwell, oboe
Lawrence McDonald, clarinet
Robert Fries, french horn
Kenneth Moore, bassoon
Saturday, January 14, 1984 8:00 p.m. in Hamman Hall, Rice University Digital Scholarship Archive http://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/76867
Personal life
He married author Elaine Macmann Willoughby in 1957.
Publications
"The Flute Practice Techniques", Conn-Selmer Keynotes, 1974.
References
Further reading and listening
“Robert Willoughby – Seeking Variety” (interview with William Montgomery). Flute Talk (October 1984): 2-6.
“Robert Willoughby: Combining the Best of Schools” (interview with Kerry Walker). Flute Talk (December 1994): 8-10.
"From Mariano and Kincaid to Decades of Fine Teaching" (interview with Vanessa Mulvey and Vanessa Holroyd). Flute Talk (February 2001): 18-20
Jictoria Jicha, "Robert Willoughby Combines the Wisdom of Three Masters". Flute Talk (November 2003): 4-11.
Leonard L. Garrison, "Happy Birthday, Bob: A Tribute to Robert Willoughby" The Flutist Quarterly XXVI (2, Winter 2001): 57-61
Leonard L. Garrison, "90th Birthday Celebration for Robert Willoughby". Flute Talk 31 (4, December 2011): 12-13
"A Conversation with Robert Willoughby" (interview with Patricia George). Flute Talk 31 (4, December 2011): 14-17
Aralee Dorough, "Robert Willoughby: The Next Decade". The Flutist Quarterly XXXVII (4, Summer 2012): 30-33.
"Robert Willoughby, Noted Traverso Teacher, Feted at Oberlin". Early Music America 18 (3, Fall 2012): 39
"Robert Willoughby", The Growing Bolder Radio Network (June 22 2014)
Leela Breithaupt, Katherine Borst Jones, "Robert Willoughby 95 Lessons". Flute Talk 36 (September 2016): 24-27
External links
https://www.flickr.com/photos/oberlin/6280583505/
http://robertwilloughby.com/
http://www.bostonrecords.com/robert-willoughby-1/
Category:American classical flautists
Category:1921 births
Category:2018 deaths
Category:Eastman School of Music alumni
Category:Oberlin College faculty
Category:Peabody Institute faculty
Category:Longy School of Music of Bard College faculty
Category:New England Conservatory alumni
Category:20th-century classical musicians
Category:20th-century American musicians
Category:21st-century classical musicians
Category:21st-century American musicians
Category:United States Army Air Forces pilots of World War II
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
}
|
/* +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | PHP Version 5 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Copyright (c) 1997-2012 The PHP Group | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | This source file is subject to version 3.01 of the PHP license, | | that is bundled with this package in the file LICENSE, and is | | available through the world-wide-web at the following url: | | http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt | | If you did not receive a copy of the PHP license and are unable to | | obtain it through the world-wide-web, please send a note to | | license@php.net so we can mail you a copy immediately. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Author: Ruslan Osmanov <osmanov@php.net> | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+*/#ifndef PHP_EV_PRIV_H#define PHP_EV_PRIV_H#include "types.h"#include "macros.h"externconstzend_function_entryev_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_loop_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_watcher_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_io_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_timer_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_periodic_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_signal_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_child_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_stat_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_idle_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_check_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_prepare_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_embed_class_entry_functions[];externconstzend_function_entryev_fork_class_entry_functions[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_test_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_loop_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_watcher_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_io_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_timer_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_periodic_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_signal_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_child_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_stat_property_entries[];externconstphp_ev_property_entryev_embed_property_entries[];externconstzend_property_infoev_test_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_loop_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_watcher_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_io_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_timer_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_periodic_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_signal_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_child_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_stat_property_entry_info[];externconstzend_property_infoev_embed_property_entry_info[];zval*php_ev_default_loop(TSRMLS_D);voidphp_ev_io_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_timer_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_periodic_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_child_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_stat_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_idle_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_check_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_prepare_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_embed_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);voidphp_ev_fork_object_ctor(INTERNAL_FUNCTION_PARAMETERS,zval*loop,zend_boolctor,zend_boolstart);#endif /* PHP_EV_PRIV_H *//* * Local variables: * tab-width: 4 * c-basic-offset: 4 * vim600: fdm=marker * vim: noet sts=4 sw=4 ts=4 */
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
I was born in 1946, just when the boomer wave began. Bill Clinton was born that year, too. So was George W. So was Laura Bush. And Ken Starr (remember him?) And then, the next year, Hillary Clinton. And soon Newt Gingrich (known as “Newty” as a boy). And Cher. Why so many of us begin getting born in 1946? Simple. My father was in World War II. He came home. My mother was waiting. Ditto for the others.
Sixty years later, we boomers have a lot to be worried about because most of us plan to retire in a few years and Social Security and Medicare are on the way to going bust. I should know because I used to be a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Those of you who are younger than we early boomers have even more to be worried about because if those funds go bust they won’t be there when you’re ready to retire.
It’s already starting to happen. This year Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. The tipping point came sooner than anyone expected because the recession has kicked so many people off payrolls. But it was coming anyway. And it adds new urgency to reforming Social Security — a task the president’s commission on the nation’s debt is focusing on.
So what’s the answer?
Fed Chair Ben Bernanke this week listed the choices. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits,” he said in a speech on Wednesday, “the nation must choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”
Bernanke is almost certainly right about “some combination,” but he leaves out one other possible remedy that should be included in that combination: Immigration.
You see, the biggest reason Social Security is in trouble, and Medicare as well, is because America is aging so fast. It’s not just that so many boomers are retiring. It’s also that seniors are living longer. And families are having fewer children.
Add it all up and the number of people who are working relative to the number who are retired keeps shrinking.
Forty years ago there were five workers for every retiree. Now there are three. Within a couple of decades, there will be only two workers per retiree. There’s no way just two workers will be able or willing to pay enough payroll taxes to keep benefits flowing to every retiree.
This is where immigration comes in. Most immigrants are young because the impoverished countries they come from are demographically the opposite of rich countries. Rather than aging populations, their populations are bursting with young people.
Yes, I know: There aren’t enough jobs right now even for Americans who want and need them. But once the American economy recovers, there will be. Take a long-term view and most new immigrants to the U.S. will be working for many decades.
Get it? One logical way to deal with the crisis of funding Social Security and Medicare is to have more workers per retiree, and the simplest way to do that is to allow more immigrants into the United States.
Immigration reform and entitlement reform have a lot to do with one another.
Add/view comments on this post.
------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Images leak for the Sony C6603 ‘Yuga’
We reported about a new Sony beast dubbed the “Odin” or C650X (the X gets replaced with a number) from a leaked agent profile and shortly after, an image leaked. Now we have images of a C6603 compliments of German site Android Schweiz, with a codename “Yuga”. I am assuming this is the same phone, but with a new bump in the model number. The specs seem the same as anticipated, 5-inch 1080p display, 1.5GHz quad-core Snapdragon S4 Pro processor, 2GB of RAM, and running Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. They are claiming the camera is 12MP, but you would think it would be the 13MP Exmor RS. Who knows, that could still change. Another tidbit is that it will sport a unibody design so that means no removable battery, but they will include a microSD slot and microHDMI port. Could we see this at CES? More pics after the break.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
NATION SHOULD LEARN FROM ENACTMENT AND REPEAL OF CLAUDE PEPPER'S MEDICARE CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE ACT THAT REPEALS AND CUTS ONLY RECREATE NEED TO ENACT HEALTH CARE AGAIN, SAY WEINER AND GLADDEN
WASHINGTON, July 27, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- National issues strategist Robert Weiner, former White House spokesman and chief of staff of the U.S. House Aging Committee and Health Subcommittee under Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.), and policy and research analyst Nakia Gladden are highlighting the similarities between Rep. Pepper's Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act – a bill that was enacted into law in 1988 but repealed 16 months later – and the current 39 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the many "defund and destroy" outright and nickel-and-dime cutbacks. Weiner and Gladden assert, "We should learn from the repeal of Claude Pepper's Catastrophic Coverage Act and not again enter the cycle of having reform blocked by insurance industry-driven repeal. Repeals and cuts only recreate the need to enact health care again."
In an article in the Palm Beach Post today, "Resist Push to Repeal or Cripple Affordable Care Act," Weiner and Gladden say, "This was the headline across cable TV news shows on July 23: "Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, threatens a government shutdown over Obamacare." Opposition to the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") – with 39 House-passed repeals but none in the Senate — but the administration agreeing to delays and funding cuts -- are reminiscent of opposition to the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, originally written by former Florida U.S. Senator and Congressman Claude Pepper."
Weiner and Gladden assert, "Pepper's bill was enacted in July 1988 and repealed 16 months later. We should have learned from that lesson. Instead, Affordable Care Act supporters are battling not just attempts to repeal the law but a more subtle, bit-by-bit 'defund and destroy' strategy."
The authors declare, "Pepper believed that catastrophic protection, which he introduced in 1987, was necessary to protect persons who suffered from long-term illness, treatment for which could deplete their families' savings. The bill capped out-of-pocket expenses, expanded nursing facility and hospital benefits, and offered outpatient prescription drug coverage. The bipartisan bill was signed by President Reagan. It created The Pepper Commission to address the issue of long-term care and home care. Mr. Pepper was chairman until he died in May 1989."
Weiner and Gladden say, "Health care lobbyists and insurance companies put their PR machines in motion to repeal the law. They organized hundreds of protests and bombarded members of Congress with irate mailers. As now, they converted seniors' support to opposition. Seniors were told they were paying too much, and they mobilized. The pressure drove Congress to repeal the bill on Nov. 22, 1989."
They state, "Fast-forward to Obamacare. The health industry is conducting a similar lobbying campaign, and has targeted seniors to repeal or defund the law."
They remind the public that, "Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sarah Palin first pushed the notion that the bill would create 'death panels' for senior citizens, to determine if they were too old or too at-risk to receive benefits, ignoring that insurance companies do exactly that. Claiming, 'We don't want government in our health care,' opposition leaders forgot to tell seniors that's what Medicare is, and seniors love it. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex., stated, 'How much more socialist can you get than a government telling everybody what they can do?'"
Weiner and Gladden explain, "Whether out of common sense or a desire for money, some former opponents have come around. Rick Scott became one of seven Republican governors to favor the law's Medicaid expansion, saying, 'While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost, I cannot, in good conscience, deny Floridians that need it access to health care.'"
They cite as another example that "Florida's 22nd congressional district, which includes parts of Palm Beach and Broward counties and is represented by Democrat Lois Frankel, has 147,000 residents who lack health care insurance but are now eligible for it. According to Rep. Frankel, 'The Obamacare plan is going to take 33 million (uninsured) people and put them into the insurance market' across the nation."
Weiner and Gladden contend, "Supporters need to remain firm. In December, as part of the 'fiscal cliff' deal, the administration agreed to take out the CLASS Act, which provided long-term care insurance benefits to employees: Mr. Pepper's dream. Last month, President Obama delayed the Obamacare employer mandate. Republicans earlier required the administration to bar educational funding for the bill, forcing Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to do outside fund-raising to inform people they are eligible. Twenty-four Republican governors are refusing to authorize the law's optional insurance exchanges or Medicaid expansion – denying any coverage to over 15 million Americans."
The authors point out, "Last week, President Obama re-launched an effort to keep the law in place, and stated that it helps to 'deliver more choices, better benefits, a check on rising costs, and higher quality care. We're already seeing those effects take place.' The law has already put millions of young people on parents' plans, covered patients with pre-existing conditions and given families insurance rebates from overcharges."
Weiner and Gladden conclude, "It is a myth to say we have the best health care. The U.S. spends almost twice as much as the rest of the world while ranking 51st in life expectancy and 52nd in infant mortality, according to the CIA World Factbook. If we ever want to catch up, it's important that we learn from the repeal of Claude Pepper's Catastrophic Coverage Act and not have reform blocked by insurance industry-driven repeal."
Robert Weiner was a White House spokesman and Chief of Staff for Rep. Claude Pepper's House Aging Committee and Health Subcommittee. Nakia Gladden is policy and research analyst for Solutions for Change.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Jackass, TheDudesons, America’s Funniest Home Videos. Normal people get paid every day by TV networks wanting to get a hold of stunts, pranks and home videos that tickle your funny bone. Question is, how do these non celebrity everyday people form relationships with the TV execs and what exactly are those execs looking for? I had the opportunity of interviewing some key people in the world of video licensing to explore how the industry works.
Making TV shows using home videos is one of the cheapest types of shows to make so it is very sexy to the networks as their chances to gain a higher return on investment increase with the lower overhead. In 2007 there was a huge surge of home video clips airing on TV along with docu-style shows, aka reality TV, eventually taking over the airways and knocking out professional actors one by one. Networks are constantly looking for new material and are spread thin when having to scour the internet sea to find these tiny gems.
Teresa Tubera has worked as a show clips producer for huge networks such as TRU, TMC and MTV. Her job has been to find great home videos to air on television. In her search for content Teresa discovered a company called JukinVideo, founded by Jonathan Skogmo. “JukinVideo and businesses like JukinVideo have changed the industry and made my life a lot easier. For producers every season we’re looking for 5000 clips and individual material. It’s completely changed the business so now we can have a library. So we can say we are looking for Jack Ass stuff now and JukinVideo can send me 20 clips. It’s made my life easier and made the process faster.”
Videos also need to be licensed for TV shows to safely use the footage as the network needs “worldwide all media perpetuity” rights so that it can air indefinitely and globally, anywhere, and without further consent. Getting a license is covering the network legally. Additionally networks need personal releases so that the network has everyone in the clips permission, if someone extra in the video doesn’t want to be on TV they can be blurred. So a video licensing company becomes the middle man between the people who made the video and the TV producers. They work to find great videos and form relationships with the content creators so when the TV producers are ready they have a one stop shop to go to for material to use on their TV show. If someone has the right clip JukinVideo and companies like it can sell it to 10 different shows. One girl was filming herself talk backwards and tons of people wanted to have her on their shows so every time that clip was aired she got a licensing fee.
In regards to income , Teresa says for most people, “It’s a good college part time job, not pizza money, but if they were dedicated and had the right representation it’s a side hustle. People who do make insane amounts of money, like ‘DavidAfterDentist’, are super lucky.”
Glen Wacker of WillIMakeIt.com, is a content creator utilizing video licensing to turn his weekend hobby into a full time revenue stream. He calls himself, “the Jackass of cars.” People donate really good cars that just need some mechanical loving like Lexus, Mercedes, Jaguars. Glenn and his father fix it, drive it around for a couple months then destroy it. He says, “We’re red neck top gear.” For instance he has tested how a car can run with soup in the engine. At first he was surprised he got paid for one of his clips as he was just doing it for fun. He said, “ I didn’t expect it to become what it has become now.”
Here are the types of homemade content TV networks are looking for; stunts and pranks (!!keep in mind nobody wants to buy clips where someone would intentionally hurt themselves, so keep it safe!!), cute baby clips, sports mishaps (again, has to happen naturally), elderly people and pets
*the Girl who Gets it Done* Espree created WeAreLATech which unites LA Tech founders, investors, engineers and creatives via incredible offline activities, the 1st LA Tech podcast "WeAreLATech" featuring LA Startups fueling this city to become a top destination for tech and innovation and a calendar of all the Los Angeles tech events (updated weekly) which can be found both via WeAreLATech mobile app. Additionally she produces and hosts the #womenintech Podcast and "Hello Customer" podcast.
In addition to being a contributing journalist and panel moderator for TechZulu she has provided seminars in entrepreneurship and technology to many corporations and universities including CBS, SXSW, Disney and USC Executive MBA. On her blog, SaveBusinessTime.com, she enjoys curating and reviewing the best Productivity Tools for Startups
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 14-3805
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTHONY J. MUNCHAK,
a/k/a A. J. Munchak
Amthony J. Munchak,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 3-10-cr-00075-002)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 9, 2015
BEFORE: VANASKIE, NYGAARD, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Filed April 26, 2016)
__________
OPINION*
__________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Anthony Munchak appeals the District Court’s order denying him a new trial
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim P. 33. He asserts that the District Court made numerous errors
by rejecting his motion premised on a claim of newly discovered evidence. We will
affirm the District Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
This opinion does not have any precedential value. Therefore our discussion of
the case is limited to covering only what is necessary to explain our decision to the
parties.
In 2005, Munchak, a Commissioner for Lackawana County, Pennsylvania, joined
a fellow commissioner in demanding payments of monies from Highland Associates, an
architectural and engineering firm that was doing work for the County. The partners of
Highland—Don Kalina, Dom Provini, and Kevin Smith—agreed to pay the demand of
$30,000—each contributing $10,000—as well as two additional demands of the same
amount over the next six months.
The Government conducted an investigation and indicted Munchak and a fellow
Commissioner on numerous charges arising from Highland’s payments to the
Commissioners. A jury convicted Munchak on June 21, 2011, of conspiracy to commit
theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds (18 U.S.C. § 371); two
counts of theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds (18 U.S.C. §
666(a)(1)(B)); conspiracy to commit extortion under color of right (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a));
two counts of extortion under color of right (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)); filing a false tax return
2
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)); and, attempted income tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201). The
District Court sentenced Munchak to 84 months of imprisonment.1
In January 2014, Munchak filed a Rule 33 motion for new trial, on the basis of
newly discovered evidence that, he says, proves Smith, Provini and Kalina lied about the
amount the County owed Highland.2 At Munchak’s trial, the partners were questioned
about why they paid the extortion rather than report it to the authorities. Smith said they
feared any such report would become “our word against their word,” putting their work
with the county in jeopardy. J.A. 97. He said that,
[I]t was kind of an interesting time for the request to
come, and I think at that time I think we were owed
1.3 million dollars fees. We had probably 40 percent of
the people in the Clarks Summit office were working
on county contracts that were cancelable at any time.
J.A. 95. He went on to say that, with their large payroll and overhead, they felt
particularly vulnerable to negative cash flow consequences if the County began to slow
its payments, or cancel the contract. After the third payment, Smith noted that they were
“heading down on some of these contracts, but we were still –we had a lot of money out
there.” J.A. 103.
Provini was also questioned about their decision to pay money to the
Commissioners. He said:
1
We affirmed the conviction on appeal. United States v. Munchak, 527 Fed. App’x. 191
(3d Cir. 2013).
2
The District Court convicted a co-defendant, Robert Cardaro, and we affirmed it. He
joined Munchak in the filing of the Rule 33 motion and appeal of the District Court’s
decision, but he withdrew his appeal.
3
A. “We reviewed alternatives. I happen to have the
financials on my desk. I pretty much knew what the
oldest, which was 1.2 or 1.3 million dollars.
Q. Who owed you 1.2 or 1.3 million dollars?
A. The county. At that particular time we were out
that money. So that was all our cash out.
J.A. 146. He went on to say:
We looked at the amount of manpower we had on the
project, what would we do with that manpower if the
project was stopped or delayed or slowed. And then it
became a problem of trying to place that many people
on work that we really didn't have a contract in other
areas.
J.A. 149.
Finally, Kalina said the following: “[A]t that time we had a significant amount of
labor expended into the projects that we were working on. It was approximately 1.3
million dollars, in that area, that the county owed us.” J.A. 198. He said in another part
of his testimony: “We had 1.3 million dollars of money that was due to us as we
progressed forward with the work.” J.A. 214. He also testified: “We just [had] too
much to lose. If we lose these contracts we can’t afford it, we’d be losing people, we’d
be laying people off, and there’s too many families involved.” J.A. 199. He noted that,
at the time of their last payment, “We did collect some money. Excuse me. Our
receivables was still rather high in November of ’05.” J.A. 208.
In his motion for new trial, Munchak focuses on one exchange between the
prosecutor and Smith during trial.
Q. When you say there were 1.3 million invoices
outstanding, who were those invoices with?
A. They were with the county.
4
J.A. 96. Munchak is convinced that this is an assertion by Smith that Highland had
already submitted invoices to the County at that time, in that amount. His motion is an
attempt to proffer “new evidence” that he says refutes this claim.
In support of his argument that Smith, Kalina and Provini lied about the amount of
money the County owed Highland, Munchak produces a statement by Thomas Durkin,
County Chief Financial Officer, attesting that there was no outstanding invoice from
Highland in mid-May 2005 in the amount of $1.3 million.3 He also proffers a chart from
a trade journal reporting that Highland Associates had $23.8 million in revenue for 2005.
This, Munchak asserts, demonstrates an exaggerated or false claim by Smith, Provini and
Kalina that the loss of the County’s contract would have produced dire consequences for
the firm.4
Motions for a new trial “are not favored and should ‘be granted sparingly and only
in exceptional cases.’” United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1005 (3d Cir. 2008)
(quoting Gov’t of the V.I v. Derricks, 810 F.2d 50, 55 (3d Cir. 1987)). We, first, conclude
that the District Court did not err by relying upon a five-factor test to assess the motion:
3
“At no time during that period [August 20, 2004, through July 25, 2005] did the County
owe $1.3 million to Highland Associates. . . . In mid-May 2005, only three invoices from
Highland Associates to the County were unpaid, resulting in an outstanding balance of
$95,807.32. Highland later submitted to the County a $64,511.97 invoice for the period
ending March 25, 2005, but Highland did not submit that invoice until October 2005.”
J.A. 320.
4
In a second statement, Durkin states: “I do not know the total amount of receivables
from the County Highland was carrying on their books in mid-May 2005. . . .” He goes
on to say: “Highland submitted invoices totaling $681,546.76 on May 27, 2005. The
following month, Highland submitted invoices totaling $536,544.11.” J.A. 338.
5
(a) the evidence must be in fact, newly discovered, i.e.,
discovered since the trial; (b) facts must be alleged from
which the court may infer diligence on the part of the movant;
(c) the evidence relied on, must not be merely cumulative or
impeaching; (d) it must be material to the issues involved;
and (e) it must be such, and of such nature, as that, on a new
trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce
an acquittal.
United States v. Cimera, 459 F.3d 452, 458 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v.
Iannelli, 528 F.2d 1290, 1292 (3d Cir. 1976)). Moreover, we conclude that the District
Court’s analysis of the evidence presented by Munchak was well within its discretion.
Even if we ignore Munchak’s dubious assertion of diligence regarding the
evidence he proffers,5 he has a problem. The District Court correctly concluded that
Munchak’s motion does not expose false testimony. The evidence he proffers—Durkin’s
statement—is completely undermined by the clarification Durkin gave to the Prosecution.
As Durkin’s later statement makes evident, Highland was billing the County for large
sums of money throughout that period of time. This is completely consistent with the
partners’ testimony that, due to the large amount of work they were doing for the County
in that period of time, they feared the business consequences of reporting Munchak to the
authorities. We would have to ignore the larger context provided in Durkin’s subsequent
statement to attach any significance to Munchak’s evidence that on one particular date,
Highland had not invoiced the County for precisely $1.3 million.
Likewise, a vague reference to 2005 revenues listed in one trade journal chart,
listing revenue numbers of unknown provenance, is insufficient to help his cause. Even
5
We by no means imply that the record supports Munchak’s diligence.
6
if we assume that the number is accurate, Munchak does not give us anything beyond
conclusory statements to enable us to understand how it discredits the partners’
testimony. A revenue figure, without more, does not satisfy his burden to substantiate his
argument that the partners gave false testimony. None of this, as Munchak claims:
“dramatically weaken[s] the partners’ claim that they acceded to the demand for cash out
of fear.” Appellant Brief, p. 45.
Ultimately, Munchak was required not just to convince us that the witnesses’
testimony is not credible, but rather to make the case that evidence of their false
testimony creates a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial. 6 Since, as the
District Court correctly concluded, his “new evidence” does not discredit the partners’
testimony, it is impossible to conclude that it creates a reasonable likelihood (or, indeed,
any rational chance) of a different outcome by the jury. This conclusion proves fatal to
his claim, no matter how it is framed.
Under a due process review, “a conviction obtained by the knowing use of
perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is any
reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the
jury.” See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). A new trial grounded in
newly discovered evidence requires the party to show the evidence is “of such nature, as
that, on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal.”
United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1108 (3d Cir. 1985) (quoting Iannelli, 528 F.2d
6
Because of this, Munchak would have failed on this element even if the Larrison test
had been used. United States v. Massac, 867 F.2d 174, 178 (3d Cir. 1989).
7
at 1292). A Brady violation occurs when material evidence favorable to the defense is
suppressed. Simmons v. Beard, 590 F.3d 223, 234 (3d Cir. 2009). “Evidence is
‘material’ where ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed
to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). Munchak fails to meet his
evidentiary burden on any of these. Because of this, we conclude that the District Court
did not err by denying the motion.
For all of these reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
8
|
{
"pile_set_name": "FreeLaw"
}
|
Destructive dilemma
Destructive dilemma is the name of a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if P implies Q and R implies S and either Q is false or S is false, then either P or R must be false. In sum, if two conditionals are true, but one of their consequents is false, then one of their antecedents has to be false. Destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens. The disjunctive version of modus ponens is the constructive dilemma. The destructive dilemma rule can be stated:
where the rule is that wherever instances of "", "", and "" appear on lines of a proof, "" can be placed on a subsequent line.
Formal notation
The destructive dilemma rule may be written in sequent notation:
where is a metalogical symbol meaning that is a syntactic consequence of , , and in some logical system;
and expressed as a truth-functional tautology or theorem of propositional logic:
where , , and are propositions expressed in some formal system.
Natural language example
If it rains, we will stay inside.
If it is sunny, we will go for a walk.
Either we will not stay inside, or we will not go for a walk, or both.
Therefore, either it will not rain, or it will not be sunny, or both.
Proof
Example proof
The validity of this argument structure can be shown by using both conditional proof (CP) and reductio ad absurdum (RAA) in the following way:
References
Bibliography
Howard-Snyder, Frances; Howard-Snyder, Daniel; Wasserman, Ryan. The Power of Logic (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill, 2009, , p. 414.
External links
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DestructiveDilemma.html
Category:Rules of inference
Category:Dilemmas
Category:Theorems in propositional logic
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
}
|
POST /upload HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:8080
Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=----TLV0SrKD4z1TRxRhAPUvZ
Content-Length: 178
------TLV0SrKD4z1TRxRhAPUvZ
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="upload"; filename="plain.txt"
Content-Type: text/plain
I am a plain text file
------TLV0SrKD4z1TRxRhAPUvZ
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Discovery of potent and selective phenylalanine derived CCR3 receptor antagonists. Part 2.
Highly potent CCR3 antagonists have been developed from a previously reported series of phenylalanine ester-based leads. Solution-phase, parallel synthesis optimization was utilized to identify highly potent, functional CCR3 antagonists.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
This figure is based on the Evation mode Optimus but with several improvements.
I find this to be a perfect representation of movieverse Optimus Prime! It is a perfect figure!
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Commentary: Black GOP can learn from old South
8:48 AM,
Mar. 24, 2014
Written by
Charles McKinney
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Black Republicans, today and throughout U.S. history, have joined the struggle for the soul of the party, and its current leadership might learn a few lessons from George Washington Lee and the American South in the early 1960s.
This was a time when Republican conservatives began successfully wooing Southern Democrats, who were increasingly discontented with federal Democratic involvement in the civil rights movement. Lee, a political operative and activist from Memphis, embodied the struggle of black Republicans to maintain their foothold in a party that ...
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Enzymatic inactivation of major circulating forms of atrial and brain natriuretic peptides.
We compared the enzymatic inactivation of major circulating forms of atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Both ANP and BNP induced a significant increase in cyclic GMP (cGMP) formation in cultured epithelial cell line derived from porcine kidney, LLC-PK1. The cGMP formation stimulated by ANP in LLC-PK1 cells was significantly decreased by pre-treatment of the peptide with rat renal brush-border membranes, and the inactivation of ANP was inhibited by neutral endopeptidase inhibitors, phosphoramidon and S-thiorphan. BNP exhibited greater resistance to enzymatic inactivation than did ANP. In addition, phosphoramidon potentiated the natriuresis with a low dose (7.5 pmol min(-1) kg(-1)) of ANP but not of BNP in rats. These results suggest that enzymatic degradation of natriuretic peptides is highly dependent on peptide structure, and that the affinity of BNP to neutral endopeptidase is less than that of ANP.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
SneakySex – Alina Lopez Its Your Turn To Drive The Sitter Home
642 50%
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Cabinet organizers – Cabinets are a popular choice for home organization and can be used in any room in your home. If you do not have customized cabinets in your home, there is a good chance that your cabinets are not ideal for the items you need to store. Cabinets usually ...
Modern computer desk – Most standard desktops have been decidedly outdated and inconvenient. Hardly enough space for anything other than home computers. Corner computer desk solve this problem by providing double surface space while utilizing space that otherwise is not uti...
Curved Sectionals – Possessing a couch professionally upholstered isn’t inexpensive, but labor accounts for the majority of the price tag. A fainting couch is a sort of sofa or couch. Otherwise, you’ll have a lovely, but uncomfortable new couch. The Tried and Tr...
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Q:
Construction of Peltier tiles
I'm learning about the construction of Peltier tiles from Wikpedia. However, some of the statements in the article are not at all clear.
Here's the extract:
Two unique semiconductors, one n-type and one p-type, are used because
they need to have different electron densities. The semiconductors are
placed thermally in parallel to each other and electrically in series
and then joined with a thermally conducting plate on each side. When a
voltage is applied to the free ends of the two semiconductors there is
a flow of DC current across the junction of the semiconductors causing
a temperature difference. The side with the cooling plate absorbs heat
which is then moved to the other side of the device where the heat
sink is. Thermoelectric Coolers, also abbreviated to TECs are
typically connected side by side and sandwiched between two ceramic
plates. The cooling ability of the total unit is then proportional to
the number of TECs in it.
What does "thermally in parallel to each other and electrically in series" mean for semiconductors? Also, why should they be arranged in this fashion?
Why does flow of DC current across the junction of semiconductors cause a temperature difference? Which "junction" are they talking about?
A:
If you look at your diagram, it shows the N and P semiconductors connected in pairs (look at the lower layer - the "interconnect"). So the electrical path is in series : the sum of the junctions to work on probably 12v.
And the heat transfer is through all the N and P junctions ie in parallel.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
}
|
36 F.Supp.2d 1166 (1999)
Ronald S. DEICHMANN and Usher's Waterworks, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
The BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.
No. 4:97CV1913-SNL.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
March 3, 1999.
*1167 Henry W. Cummings, Henry W. Cummings, St. Charles, MO, for plaintiffs.
Robert G. Lancaster, Associate, David A. Roodman, Associate, Daniel A. Crowe, Associate, Bryan Cave L.L.P., St. Louis, MO, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LIMBAUGH, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Boeing's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 81) filed February 10, 1999, as part of a Motion Package pursuant to Local Rule 4.05. This Court previously dismissed Counts II and IV of plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This motion seeks summary judgment on the remaining Counts I and III. Count I claims breach of an express contract. Count III states a federal statutory claim for correction of inventorship.
Summary Judgment Standard
Courts have repeatedly recognized that summary judgment, like dismissal, is a harsh remedy that should be granted only when the moving party has established his right to judgment with such clarity as not to give rise to controversy. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Null, 554 F.2d 896, 901 (8th Cir.1977). Summary judgment motions "can be a tool of great utility in removing factually insubstantial cases from crowded dockets, freeing courts' trial time for those that really do raise genuine issues of material fact." Mt. Pleasant v. Assoc. Elec. Coop., Inc., 838 F.2d *1168 268, 273 (8th Cir.1988). But there must be absolutely "no genuine issue as to a material fact and the moving party [must be] entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467, 82 S.Ct. 486, 488, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962).
The burden is on the moving party. Mt. Pleasant, 838 F.2d at 273. After the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must do more than show that there is some doubt as to the facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the nonmoving party bears the burden of setting forth specific facts showing that there is sufficient evidence in its favor to allow a jury to return a verdict for it. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and give that party the benefit of any inferences that logically can be drawn from those facts. Buller v. Buechler, 706 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1983). The court is required to resolve all conflicts of evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chem. Interchange Co., 541 F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir.1976). With these principles in mind, the Court will now turn to the facts.
Undisputed Facts
As an initial matter, the Court deems admitted all the facts as outlined by defendant. Local Rule 4.01(E) states that the following:
Every memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.
Plaintiffs failed to identify the paragraph numbers from defendant's statement of The Uncontroverted Facts for any issues which they contend are in dispute. Rather, plaintiffs identify certain facts which they believe a jury could find which would result, they argue, in a verdict in their favor. However, "[a] district court is not required to speculate on which portion of the record the nonmoving party relies, nor is it obligated to wade through and search the entire record for some specific facts that might support the nonmoving party's claim." Barge v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 260 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting White v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 904 F.2d 456, 458 (8th Cir.1990)). Once defendant met its burden of demonstrating a lack of genuine issues of material fact, plaintiffs were required to designate specific facts creating a triable controversy. Plaintiffs' mere allegations that issues remain in dispute are insufficient to meet the requirements of Local Rule 4.01(E), and they are deemed to have admitted all facts which were not specifically controverted. See Ruby v. Springfield R-12 Pub. Sch. Dist., 76 F.3d 909, 911 n. 6 (8th Cir.1996). The Court will now outline the facts identified by defendant.
Since 1973, McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC)[1] has designed, manufactured and used Automated Ultrasonic Scanning Systems (AUSS) to non-destructively inspect airplane parts for structural flaws. Defense Exhibit 1. While this originally required submerging the entire part in a tank of water, the current state of the art involves emitting an ultrasonic wave through a stream of water which can be moved slowly over the surface of the part being tested. See Defense Exhibit 13, United States Patent 5,431,342 (the '342 patent). Prior to 1989, MDC used ordinary nozzles to produce the necessary stream of water. However, MDC found that a stream of water emitted from an ordinary nozzle quickly becomes non-laminar or diffused. Id. As a result, it was necessary to keep the testing device very close to the part being tested. Id. This posed difficulty in the testing of oddly-shaped parts. Id. For that reason, *1169 MDC began contemplating the use of nozzles capable of producing a more laminar or coherent flow.
Sometime prior to 1989, designers of ornamental fountains began using laminar flow nozzles in their displays. On July 2, 1987, California fountain designer Mark Fuller applied for a patent on a laminar flow nozzle. Defense Exhibit 8, United States Patent 4,795,092 (the Fuller patent). That patent application described a nozzle utilizing a "cylindrical enclosure ... having ... a substantially sharp edge [outlet] orifice," and a "turbulence reducing means compris[ing] an open cell foam member...." Id.[2] On January 3, 1989, that patent numbered 4,795,092 issued. Id.
In July, 1989, MDC's AUSS engineers learned that plaintiff Usher's Waterworks, Inc. (Usher's), a St. Louis area fountain design firm, used laminar flow nozzles for ornamental fountains. Rich Lawson of MDC contacted Usher's to determine whether or not technology in the fountain nozzles would be adaptable for ultrasonic testing systems. Prior to this contact, no one connected with Usher's had any experience with ultrasonic testing applications or the use of laminar nozzles in such applications. Deichmann Deposition p. 69 ln. 16; Kuykendal Deposition pp. 127-28.
David Usher, who worked for Usher's at that time, claimed that they in fact possessed the technology to produce a long and extremely coherent stream of water. Usher Deposition p. 49 ln. 20. Plaintiffs agreed to demonstrate this technology for MDC representatives immediately. Id. at lns. 23-24. However, prior to this demonstration, plaintiffs insisted that MDC enter a non-disclosure agreement (the Non-Disclosure Agreement) to protect plaintiffs' assertedly confidential information. Defense Exhibit 3. The agreement defined confidential information as "all information both written, oral, and as represented by viewing the external and internal mechanisms of the nozzle(s), which [Usher's] deem[s] to be confidential and proprietary, relating to the coherent flow nozzle (including, but not limited to mechanical operation, data, know-how, technical and non-technical materials, parts, and specifications"). Id. The agreement required MDC to maintain such information in confidence and prevented MDC from engaging in any communication with any third parties regarding the information for five years. Id.
Representatives of both MDC and Usher's signed the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and Usher's demonstrated a laminar flow nozzle at their Fenton facility. Deichmann Deposition p. 137 ln. 16 p. 139 ln. 18. Apparently MDC was impressed enough with plaintiffs' nozzle that it ordered production by plaintiffs of a prototype coherent flow ultrasonic nozzle. Defense Exhibit 9. In exchange for the prototype nozzle, MDC agreed to pay Usher's $18,500.00. Id.
In March or April, 1990, plaintiffs advised MDC that they had completed a prototype nozzle which was available for demonstration at MDC's facility. Unfortunately, MDC was unhappy with the results achieved at the testing of the prototype. Lawson Deposition p. 34 ln. 12. The prototype nozzle that plaintiffs brought to MDC for testing apparently produced a laminar stream without MDC's additional requirements applied. Lawson Deposition p. 37 lns. 8-9. However, when the transducer was installed and the device placed in motion, the results were not satisfactory. Lawson Deposition p. 35 lns. 6-7; Usher Deposition p. 137 lns. 10-19. MDC informed plaintiffs the prototype nozzle yielded unusable data. Deichmann Deposition p. 157 lns. 21-22; p. 159 24. When Usher's personnel left MDC that day, they took the prototype nozzle with them. Deichmann Deposition p. 160 ln. 9. As Usher's had never provided any drawings, blueprints or schematics, this effectively ended the working relationship between Usher's and MDC. Deichmann Deposition p. 161 lns. 2-8.
MDC's development of laminar flow nozzle technology for application in ultrasonic testing *1170 did not end with the failure of plaintiffs' prototype. In March of 1991, Rich Lawson contacted another MDC engineer, Kondala Saripalli, regarding the AUSS nozzles. A group of MDC engineers including Saripalli, David Parekh and others began working on the problem. This group ultimately designed a successful prototype nozzle which produced a laminar stream without the ultrasonic transducer interference previously experienced.
On December 3, 1992, MDC applied for a patent on this nozzle, claiming (1) the introduction of water into a side-flow entry plenum chamber which results in the radial and uniform entry of water through a porous medium along the entire length and circumference of the main nozzle plenum chamber; and (2) the use of an angled knife-edge orifice plate which causes ultrasonic waves to reflect towards the porous membrane instead of being reflected back at the ultrasonic transducer. Defense Exhibit 13. On July 11, 1995, the '342 patent was issued for this nozzle, listing Kondala Saripalli, Eugene Myers, and Richard Lawson as inventors. On September 15, 1997, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.
Discussion
I. Count I: Breach of Non-Disclosure Agreement
Count I of plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint states a simple breach of contract claim.[3] Plaintiffs allege that Usher's and MDC entered a contract regarding the disclosure of information surrounding the nozzle in controversy here.[4] Both sides provided valuable consideration:
Usher's agreed to demonstrate a laminar flow nozzle and MDC agreed not to disclose any confidential information it received. The terms of the contract were written and both parties signed the agreement. In a contract case, summary judgment is appropriate where, as here, the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous and the meaning of the portion of the contract in issue is so apparent that it may be determined from the four corners of the document. See Betz v. Fagan, 962 S.W.2d 432, 436 (Mo.App.1998).
Plaintiffs allege that they kept their end of the bargain by demonstrating for MDC's agents a laminar flow nozzle at Usher's facility in Fenton, Missouri. They allege MDC breached the contract by disclosing confidential information. Specifically, plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint alleges that defendant disclosed to certain third-parties information regarding "the concept of introducing water in a radial direction inwardly in a cylindrical plenum chamber through a porous wall of permeable material and then to allow the water to exit through a knife-edged orifice in which the angle of the orifice was of the order of 30 degrees...." Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, Factual Allegations ¶ 9; Count I ¶ 1.
Plaintiffs' claim of breach by defendant has no merit. The language of the contract, drafted by plaintiffs, clearly and specifically excludes from coverage any information that defendant could demonstrate was "at the time of disclosure or thereafter [became] public knowledge through no fault or omission of [MDC]." Defense Exhibit 3 ¶ 5(b). It is undisputed that on January 3, 1989, the United States Patent Office issued to Mark Fuller of Studio City, California, a patent for a Laminar Flow Nozzle. That nozzle utilized a "cylindrical enclosure ... having ... a substantially sharp edge [outlet] orifice," and a "turbulence reducing means compris[ing] an open cell foam member...." Defense Exhibit 8. Plaintiffs' witnesses all admitted in their depositions that these are essentially the concepts plaintiffs alleged constituted confidential information.
*1171 Patented information falls squarely under the contractual language "public knowledge." This particular patent was public knowledge at the time of the alleged disclosure in controversy here. Therefore, the Court concludes that defendant did not breach the non-disclosure contract as alleged by plaintiffs. Defendant is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. Count III: Correction of Inventorship
Count III is a claim for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.[5] That count seeks to add Mr. Ronald S. Deichmann as co-inventor of U.S. Patent 5,431,342, and to name plaintiff Usher's Waterworks as part owner of the patent.
"The patent laws provide that whoever `invents' patentable subject matter is entitled to a patent thereon, 35 U.S.C. § 101, and that when an `invention' is `made by two or more persons jointly they shall apply for [a] patent jointly.' 35 U.S.C. § 116 (1994)." Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 106 F.3d 976, 979 (Fed.Cir.1997). "Section 256 provides that if `through [inadvertent] error an inventor is not named in an issued patent ... the Commissioner [of Patents] may ... issue a certificate correcting such error,' and that `[the] court ... may order correction of the patent ... and the Commissioner shall issue a certificate accordingly.'" Id.
Inventorship is a question of law. Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed.Cir.1998). Because conception is the touchstone of inventorship, each joint inventor must generally contribute to the conception of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed.Cir. 1994). "Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice." Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460 (quoting Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed.Cir.1986) (internal citation omitted)). An idea is sufficiently "definite and permanent" when "only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation." Burroughs Wellcome, 40 F.3d at 1228.
"The conceived invention must include every feature of the subject matter claimed in the patent." Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460 (citing Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed.Cir.1994)). Nevertheless, for the conception of a joint invention, each of the joint inventors need not make the same type or amount of contribution to the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 116. "On the other hand, one does not qualify as a joint inventor by merely assisting the actual inventor after conception of the claimed invention." Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460. One who simply provides the inventor with well-known principles or explains the state of the art without ever having a firm and definite idea of the claimed contribution as a whole does not qualify as a joint inventor. Id., 135 F.3d at 1460 (citing Hess, 106 F.3d at 981).
The Federal Circuit recently summed up the three elements which constitute joint inventorship. A joint inventor must (1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention, (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art. Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.Cir.1998).
In order to succeed in this claim, the plaintiffs must be able to prove their contribution to the conception of the claims by clear and convincing evidence. See Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1461. A claim of co-inventorship cannot rest merely on the plaintiff's testimony respecting the facts surrounding a claim of derivation or priority of invention. Fina Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1474 (Fed.Cir.1997). Without corroborating evidence, such as contemporaneous documents *1172 prepared by a putative inventor, circumstantial evidence about the inventive process or oral testimony by some third-party, a plaintiff in an action of this sort simply cannot meet the clear and convincing standard. Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1461.
This rule rests on important policy considerations. "[T]he temptation for even honest witnesses to reconstruct, in a manner favorable to their own position, what their state of mind may have been years earlier, is simply to great to permit a lower standard." Hess, 106 F.3d at 980 (quoting Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 756, 514 F.2d 1041, 1047 (Cl.Ct.1975)). "This language is similarly applicable to claims of co-inventorship made after a patent has been issued particularly where, as here, the patent has been outstanding for a considerable time and the patented device has been successful. In that situation, too, there is an equally strong temptation for persons who consulted with the inventor and provided him with materials and advice, to reconstruct, so as to further their own position, the extent of their contribution to the conception of the invention." Hess, 106 F.3d at 980. In such a situation, the Court must insist that plaintiffs be able to prove their case by a very high standard of proof.
Plaintiffs have not once disputed that MDC first approached them with the concept of applying existing fountain nozzle technology in the non-destructive, ultrasonic testing field. Plaintiffs may be able to establish that they recommended certain existing nozzle technology which ultimately proved useful to MDC's engineers. However, there is absolutely no evidence currently in the record that plaintiffs contributed in any significant manner to the conception of the invention, made a significant contribution to the patented idea or ever did anything more than merely explain to MDC personnel the then current state of the art. See Pannu, 155 F.3d at 1351.
Plaintiffs contend that their conceptual contribution was "[i]ntroducing water through a porous wall of permeable material, and then to allow the water to exit from a knife edged orifice in which the angle of the orifice was of the order of 30 degrees. Plenum chamber is cylindrical, and non-tapered." Answer to Interrogatory No. 6. Plaintiff Deichmann stated in his deposition that the confidential material he disclosed to MDC included only the cylindrical shape, the use of a foam diffuser material, and the knife edge orifice. Deichmann Deposition pp. 173-74. It is clear that all of those elements were known in the prior art. In fact, Mark Fuller, an individual not a party in this lawsuit, had discussed each and every one of those concepts in a patent issued before MDC ever contacted plaintiffs.
In their Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition, plaintiffs attempt to present a somewhat different argument than that stated in their Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs argue not that they invented the concepts erroneously claimed as confidential information in the complaint, but rather that they conceived of applying those concepts in the ultrasonic testing environment. This argument is totally inconsistent with the factual allegations section of plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint as well as the Facts section of the same memorandum in which they bring this argument for the first time. This argument is further belied by plaintiff Deichmann's testimony that prior to MDC's contacting Usher's, no one at Usher's had any knowledge or experience in the ultrasonic testing field.
It is undisputed that MDC personnel first conceived of the idea of applying ornamental fountain technology in the ultrasonic testing field. This explains the initial phone call to Usher's, a local firm engaged in the design and manufacture of ornamental fountains. All Usher's did after that was demonstrate the use of an existing nozzle design. The particular design characteristics of that nozzle were virtually identical to those described in Fuller's patent. Explaining existing art is not co-inventorship.
Not only did MDC first contact Usher's, but they also refused to disclose to plaintiffs any extraneous information beyond what Usher's would need to know in order to adapt the existing nozzle to MDC's specifications. See Usher Deposition p. 87 lns. 4-18. This further demonstrates that plaintiffs' contribution amounted to nothing more than supplying existing art. It may be that the nozzle ultimately designed by MDC's engineers *1173 incorporated many of the same principles as the failure prototype produced by Usher's. However, as those principles were undisputedly general knowledge in the ornamental fountain industry, this supply of existing art cannot form the basis of a claim of co-inventorship.
The Court finds that plaintiffs have simply failed to allege facts sufficient to create an issue as to whether they were sufficiently involved in the conceptualization of the final and definite idea described in the patent at issue here. Even if the testimony of Deichmann and the other Usher's employees who gave depositions in this case could create such an issue, plaintiffs have provided no contemporaneous documentation that they invented these concepts. Apparently plaintiffs provided no schematics or drawings to MDC at the time of their negotiations. Plaintiffs ultimately kept the only prototype nozzle ever produced. With no documentation, nor any other evidence whatsoever that they conceived the idea for the patent at issue, plaintiffs could never prove their claim to a jury by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both inventorship and ownership of the '342 patent.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs' fail to state a viable claim of breach of contract. Their Third Amended Complaint identifies very specifically the information they considered confidential, and which plaintiffs allege MDC wrongfully disclosed. However, defendant has established beyond any issue whatsoever that plaintiffs' claimed confidential information was public knowledge before the rocky relationship between these parties even began. The contractual language drafted by plaintiffs themselves unambiguously excluded such information from coverage by the Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Plaintiffs' argument for correction of inventorship is similarly doomed by the undisputed facts. Plaintiffs admit that the concepts they claim as original in their complaint were actually patented by Mark Fuller before MDC ever contacted them. They attempt to salvage their claim by arguing that it was their idea to apply fountain technology in the ultrasonic testing environment. But this argument is wholly inconsistent with the undisputed fact that MDC contacted plaintiffs first with the express intention of learning state-of-the-art fountain technology for use in ultrasonic testing. Plaintiffs' incredible argument is further weakened by their admission that prior to their involvement with MDC they had no knowledge or experience in the ultrasonic testing field. A claim of co-inventorship cannot arise from the mere explanation of existing art to a party who wishes to apply that art in a different field. It is clear beyond dispute that that is what happened here. Therefore, summary judgment for defendant is correct in this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 81) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
NOTES
[1] Since the events in controversy occurred, MDC has been acquired by defendant Boeing.
[2] In the Fuller nozzle, water was introduced in a tangential direction. The concept plaintiffs claim involves the introduction of water in a radial direction. However, the Court believes this difference does not constitute an unobvious, original design as the Fuller patent discusses the introduction of water in a radial direction as used in the prior art. The Fuller patent rejects radial injection in favor of tangential injection.
[3] The Non-Disclosure Agreement included a clause selecting the law of Missouri as the controlling law. Since the parties do not dispute the enforceability of that choice of law clause, the Court will apply Missouri law to this contract.
[4] In their Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs allege various illegal actions by defendant including violation of Missouri's version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mo. Rev.Stat. § 417.450 et seq., misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of fiduciary duty. However, no allegations of these sorts are anywhere to be found in Count I of the Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, any such arguments are completely irrelevant to this motion.
[5] Again, their Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment strays incredibly far afield from the scope of plaintiffs' complaint. The complaint alleges that plaintiff Ronald E. Deichmann should be added to the patent in issue as a co-inventor. In their Memorandum, plaintiffs argue for the addition of David Usher as well. David Usher is not even a party in this lawsuit.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "FreeLaw"
}
|
Activation by stress of the habenulo-interpeduncular substance P neurons in the rat.
Substance P levels were significantly decreased in the ventro-tegmental area and the interpeduncular nucleus of rats submitted for 20 min to electric foot-shocks. Substance P levels in the substantia nigra and in the prefrontal cortex were not affected. These results are discussed in light of the selective activation of the mesocortico-prefrontal dopaminergic neurons induced by this stress situation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
}
|
"Very pretty" "Everybody!" "I'm sorry to you." "It'll be OK soon" "Sorry...sorry" "Granny, you can't light it up in this way" "You've just got the oil but you haven't got a lampwick" "I know that" "But I've lost the lampwick I can do nothing about it" "Byy a new one" "It's reasonable..." "Miss, excuse me if it is the lamp of Buddha where to buy a new lampwick for it?" "Show your real image!" "The Four Kings from the Nantian Gate and Erland God" "Zixia." "Your sister Zixia and you is the lampwick inside the lamp of Buddha" "You left Heaven without permission" "You told the public that the one who can pull your Magic Sword out is your best love" "You're an immortal You can't love any ordinary man" "If a devil pulls your sword out we'll become the laughing-stocks" "No matter who he is an immortal or a devil the sword can only be pulled out by me and my lover" "I will stand by him forever" "I will stand by him forever" "If I can't be with the one who I love" "I won't be happy even if I were Heaven Emperor" "How dare you are" "You're this stubborn" "I'm gonna kill you" "You're gonna vanish" "That's fine I don't wanna be a lonely immortal" "Look oyt!" "No need to say anything" "I'll kill whoever speaks it out" "I've said it's not permitted to speak it out" "I wanna tell you" "Your beloved dog is doing that with a bitch" "How dare it is!" "Ok, I'll kill it." "Let's eat it" "Ok..." "We've decided to do so for a long time" "Jing Jing" "Jing Jing" "Jing Jing, where are they?" "Immortals?" "Devils" "Thank you" "Please go into the Spider Web Cave" "Spider Web Cave?" "Don't cheat me!" "It is the Waterfall Cave" "Spider Web Cave, what a nice name" "Just call it Spider Web Cave" "I live at here" "Hold it" "Listen to me all things here belong to me!" "Including you!" "Me?" "Yes just like a donkey let me make a mark on you" "You're my guy now" "Don't scare of anyone Just tell them you know me" "I'm called Spider Web Immortal now" "Spider Web Immortal?" "500 years ago?" "You hasn't turned back into the Monkey King because you haven't met the guy who'll give you the 3 birthmarks" "Open the door" "Close the door" "I can't believe it..." "I don't wanna be the Monkey King" "I have to save Jing Jing" "Give me back the Box" "Open the door" "I have heard that she said "open the door"" "Open the door" "How dare you are?" "Let's go there through another way" "Be carefyl" "That way" "Open the door" "Who?" "Is it necessary?" "It's great!" "We needn't scare of Qingxia since we've got the box" "Come out!" "Are you really this shy?" "this Box is..." "It's me!" "I've said that all things here are mine" "What do you want?" "Nothing..." "I've heard that you wanna go" "Can you bring me with you?" "Are you also chased after by someone?" "I'm going to save someone" "Save whom?" "Save my wife" "It's Pak Jing Jing." "You know her" "I don't know her" "I know that." "Byt you'll know her soon" "Becayse she'll be your disciple" "And this Box..." "It's mine!" "I know that" "But in fact, I gave you this" "Then, you gave me back at that time" "So I come back and give it back to you again now" "Do you ynderstand?" "Yes, you're crazy Yes" "And you have to bring me with you" "Why need I do so good to you?" "This is because you're my master" "It's meaningless if you leave me here" "Really?" "Sit down" "Ground" "Give me your hand" "I'll byy a new clothes for you later" "Bark!" "Wow!" "Loyder!" "Wow..." "Immortal..." "Be qyick, the moon has come oyt" "Go!" "Where to go?" "Are you leaving?" "If you aren't, give me the Box I'm leaving" "What Box?" "Listen to me" "I won't wait yntil tomorrow" "Be qyick, shyt yp" "Then your bitch sister will come here" "Shit, how dare you tell the others that I do bad to her" "What?" "I'm that bitch's sister" "Don't listen to her nonsense words" "Joker" "Joker" "Why didn't tell me to wake up last night?" "What?" "Where have you been?" "Stand still" "Sit down" "Chair" "What about you?" "Why are you looking at me in this way?" "What did you see?" "Did you see her?" "Did you see my sister?" "She's come" "What did she tell you?" "don't trust her, she's crazy!" "Maybe she had a fierce fight with me in our past lives" "So Buddha turned us into a lampwick told us to practise more" "Solve our disputes" "Byt we coyldn't do that" "We are still fighting with each other don't say that anymore" "Let's go" "Do you think that I'm crazy?" "No." "That's really my sister" "Don't you believe me?" "Come on, come on" "Let's tie our hand up" "You will know that tonight" "I don't think the moon will come out tonight" "Really?" "Bitch" "You can't escape from me" "What's you name?" "My syrname is Lin?" "You're Lin Qingxia My brother talks about you usually" "Your brother?" "The guy who you beat up is called Joker" "How aboyt you?" "I'm his twin brother Broker" "Joker?" "Broker?" "You tell lies" "You're so smart" "My brother is called Qin Han" "I'm called Qin Xiang Lin" "What are you doing?" "I admire you" "You admire me?" "Not only admire, I don't want to lose you" "So I tie myself with you" "Please accept my love" "Let's go together" "You have to pay something for my love" "You hate your sister so much" "I've lied to her that I woyld kill you tonight" "Then you have nothing to worry" "So I have to take a thing as a sign" "Do you have valyable thing sych as... jewels or Pandora's Box... ok, but they are useless" "Give her my Magic Sword tonight" "She'll believe it" "Fine" "It's him" "Bring me to the market since it's not dark yet" "What?" "What's up?" "My heart is poynding" "What to do?" "Follow me" "Now Big Brother has turned back into human face and he's with Zixia Immortal" "Did Zixia has a part in the capture of Master?" "We should keep it secret" "My martial arts skills and IQ is better than him" "Byt there is Zixia Immortal now" "She's better than me, I think" "I'm here" "She's better than me because" "I've got a burden, it's you" "Give me half of this pig head, thanks" "I don't sell pig head Do you like pig penis?" "What?" "My lover is nearby" "Did you see him?" "No because my Magic Sword is beeping" "Where does the beeping sound come from?" "Do...do...do...right?" "you made this, not the sword" "I know you didn't hear that So I made it for you" "I'm scared!" "I'm really scared!" "What?" "It's fate." "So don't be afraid" "Come again?" "My heart is poynding" "My heart is beeping" "What?" "How shoyld I tell him?" "Just tell him it is fate" "If he doesn't like me, what to do?" "If he has wife, what should I do?" "It's fate." "It's God's order He has to accept this" "Really?" "It's fate!" "He has to accept this" "Yes!" "Yes..." "He's come" "It's me?" "It's you." "How do you know?" "It's you" "I didn't know how to tell you" "You're so smart" "Byt I have a wife" "I know, but I can do nothing about it" "This is fate." "You have to accept this" "You just need to leave your wife" "And then follow me" "That's great!" "Fine?" "That's fine" "Let's start oyr affair" "Ok, let's start" "Kiss me first" "Fine, come to me" "Come!" "Give me!" "You deceive me" "You don't wanna kiss me" "You deceived me!" "You lied to me!" "I'm serioys." "Give me the Box first" "Should I show you my heart?" "No, I do this" "Wow!" "Your heart looks like a coconut" "Miss, I'm ugly" "But I'm a gentleman" "Tell me honestly does she love his wife?" "I'll kill the one who're gonna block my way" "Granpa Buddha, look" "Look!" "He doesn't move" "I know that" "Let's go" "Brother, what is this mean?" "I know you've got good figure so I touch you" "Yes, please go on" "That's fine." "Touch me again" "Whose hand is it?" "What are you talking about?" "Take away" "Devil" "Have you finished?" "Don't get angry, I just do that for fun" "Take care of sister" "She will give you back" "Sister, I won't angry at you" "We should regard you as Goddess and worship you" "It's dark." "I will go to find sister" "Good luck" "It's really lycky" "Qingxia" "Where are you?" "Come out" "I've killed your sister" "Monkey King" "You bastard" "You wanted to marry the King Bull's sister" "But you regarded the Longevity Monk as a wedding gift" "And you invited all devils to eat his flesh" "Do you admit your gyilt?" "Bitch!" "She's chased me for 3 whole days" "I didn't beat you up because you're a woman" "Don't think I'm scared of you" "Monkey King" "Don't say that to Goddess" "Shut up!" "You scare me again!" "Monkey King, Longevity Monk?" "Do you know you've committed offences" "You've grabbed Zixia Immortal's Pandora's Box" "You don't want to see me" "Now, I can't escape" "I'm gonna fight against you!" "What's up?" "Monkey King, you're so nayghty" "I've told you don't throw things" "It's wrong to throw things" "I haven't finished yet You've thrown away the stick" "The Box is a treasure" "You'll pollute the environment!" "What to do if kids are hurt?" "It's still bad if you hurt plants" "What are you doing?" "Let go!" "What do you want?" "Tell me if you like it" "I will give you that if you like it" "Of course, I will give you if you like it" "I won't give you if you don't like it" "I'm pretty sure that I won't give you if you don't like it" "We're reasonable" "I'll coynt to 3" "Tell me if you want it!" "Monkey King" "You know him now" "This guy is very annoying" "Ver disturbing" "Just like a fly" "Sorry, not a fly but a swarm of flies" "Fly into your ears" "Help..." "Help!" "So I tear the fly's belly open" "Tear out its intestines" "Put them around its neck, then pull them" "Then its tongue comes out and I use my blade to cut!" "The world's silent then" "We all know this now why I kill it" "Really?" "So many excuses" "You don't want to get scriptures" "I won't forgive you because you're so cruel to your master" "Sister you're wrong" "The Monkey King wanted to eat me" "It's just a thought" "Not a fact" "You haven't got any evidence" "He's not guility!" "Just wait, when he's eaten me up you can prove him guilty" "Longevity Monk, I know you're annoying" "Byt I don't know you're this annoying" "I gave you the Gold Ring to control this monkey" "Byt you don't yse the ring" "The size of that ring doesn't suit him" "He can't wear it" "It makes him very yneasy" "He can't sleep at night It disturbed me, too" "Although it is just a monkey you cannot do that do it" "I'll be indicted animal abused if the government knows it" "That Gold Ring..." "I met iron-smith last year at the Chan's village" "His skill is wonderful and the price is low" "Really fair price" "I think you should buy a new one from him" "Shut up!" "Shut up!" "It's a sin..." "Now, I think you know my pain!" "Answer me!" "It's Ok!" "I've told you not to throw things" "Look!" "Monkey devil, go to hell" "You can't defeat me!" "You're not Buddha" "No more fighting..." "Goddess" "Please let the Monkey King go don't hurt him" "No more fighting" "I'm gonna kill him!" "Goddess, stop!" "It's normal to make mistakes" "He's my disciple" "I have to take the responsibility" "Goddess, please let him go" "If I won't kill him" "I can't report to Heaven Emperor" "I know that" "Please tell Heaven Emperor that" "I'm gonna sacrifice my life to him" "What?" "It is a master's responsibility" "Goddess, please listen to me" "I just wanna teach him... in order to show my spirit" "That's great..." "Monkey King, I hope you'll learn your master's spirit!" "Namonitabhaya" "Dreaming again?" "It's big trouble" "I always have nightmares" "Where is Qingxia?" "Not here" "Qingxia..." "Everybody, how are you?" "It's cold!" "Have you worn more clothes" "I've lost my way" "I wanna find a place to stay at night" "Go there to sleep" "Thank you very much" "Wish you all long live" "I saw him come here" "Where is he now?" "Why did you go to pee?" "You have to take the blame" "It won't hyrt you" "Is it illegal?" "Old Black Mountain Devil?" "Monkey King" "You turn into human face again" "Do you still recognise me?" "You are the fly" "Monkey King..." "Impossible, I must be dreaming" "It is still early to make dreams, byt..." "I dream of you when I was travel through time and space" "Do you miss me?" "The Box is at your side?" "Yes, it is." "Do you want it?" "Who?" "What's up?" "Soldier" "Soldier" "My dad also wanna stay here" "No problem" "It's your dad!" "Yes, dad, come out to say hello to all bros" "Where does he come from?" "From India" "India?" "Where is it?" "I need to carry on tomorrow." "Sleep there" "Thanks" "It's really noisy" "Annoying" "Sleep inside" "It is the problem of time difference" "I have just slept in India Now you tell me to sleep again" "You go to sleep" "Where is the Pandora's Box?" "Monkey King, can you behave yourself?" "Look, just keep calm" "What is he doing?" "He's breathing in life" "Pretend to sleep" "I hope that he won't breath in ours" "Go to sleep!" "Do you know me?" "That Indian..." "You like it, take it" "My disciple is calling me, bye bye" "Don't play with fire again bye" "Please don't follow ys." "I don't know you" "It's great to see you" "Where is the Box?" "The Box?" "The King Bull?" "Bro. catch the Longevity Monk and give him to me" "Miss, handkerchief" "It's wedding day, why are you weeping?" "I'm not weeping." "My mouth is watering" "It's a very happy day" "What?" "It's not only the wedding day of my sister but also the day of my marriage with my concubine" "Concubine?" "What does sister-in-law say about this?" "That bitch" "She's now at the Flame Mountain" "She can do nothing about this even if she knows it" "Bull, how did you know this new wife?" "I passed the desert yesterday" "I saw a pretty girl" "She's dying" "Master, what to do now?" "Fine!" "No problem..." "Really?" "We sycceed now!" "Zixia, what a nice name you've got" "Let me introduce my sister and my brother-in-law to you" "Xiang Xiang, Bro" "Come here, follow me" "This my brother-in-law" "This is my sister Xiang Xiang" "Zixia!" "How can you get marry here?" "I can!" "How aboyt your wife?" "My wife?" "Do you know her?" "You've got a wife?" "We're divorced" "I haven't heard you say that before" "Sister..." "It's normal that a man has many wives" "Take it easy" "Bro, do you think so?" "Yes..." "Zixia, be honest" "I think I've fallen for you after these two days" "I wanna show my sincerity" "Thus I'm gonna request you to marry me in front of my bros" "This Pandora's Box is my gift to you" "I hope you'll marry me" "I object this marriage!" "Why?" "Let me speak..." "What a good couple they are!" "You're a devil you're not qualified to object" "You have to pass Zixia's test first" "If you can pass it" "I won't object it anymore" "What test?" "She has sworn that she would marry the guy who could pull out" "her Magic Sword" "Listen to me" "It's yntrye" "It's just a joke" "What joke?" "It's not important who can pull out the sword" "Stop nagging in my place!" "I'm gonna kill the ones who block my way" "I'm gonna kill the ones who blcok my way" "King, Iron Fan Princess has come" "Why are you here?" "At this time, the sword is close to me 0.01cm I think" "Byt after 0.01 seconds the owner of the sword will fall for me" "This is because I've decided to tell lies" "Although I have told many lies before this is the best, I think" "You're gonna kill me if you step forward again" "You should do that" "I deserve to die" "I have had my best love before but I didn't treasure her" "When I lose her" "I fell regretful" "It is the most painful matter in this world" "Just cut my throat!" "No hesitation" "If God can give me another chance" "I will say 3 words to her" "I love you" "If you have to give a time limit to this love" "I hope it is 1 0 thousand year" "Byt how will you tell your wife?" "I have to tell her" "So I must get the Box back" "Tell her clearly and go back with you" "I won't listen to the others opinions" "I won't listen to the others objections" "I will take all those on my own" "Don't lie to me!" "Byt I hate myself because I can't get back the Box" "I" "I'll help you" "No!" "it's dangerous" "You don't want" "I want" "I won't hide a woman" "It's just rumour" "I won't tryst you anymore..." "What are you doing here?" "Who's he?" "I'm asking you, who's he?" "He" "Bro, who's he?" "Tell me" "He's my wife" "Bro, it's too much of you" "Bros" "You marry your sister to him!" "So his wife pointed a sword at him" "You follow me I have something to ask you" "You've got a wife" "I've lost my feeling to her" "Tell me what's going on" "I've told you..." "Sister-in-law" "Sister-in-law?" "Sorry, Madam Bull" "When you watched the moon with me in the past you called me Sweetie" "Now you yet your new lover!" "Call me Madam Bull?" "Sweetie?" "Do you think that I come here for that ugly Bull?" "I come here for you, heartless monkey" "Bro, thank you" "It's none of bysiness" "Sorry wait for me here at midnight" "I have something to tell you" "If I were you" "I'll die when my husband decides to get a concubine" "Really?" "Yes!" "But I'll castrate you first" "Follow me" "Zixia, I..." "I tryst you" "I'll get the Box today" "Wait for me here at midnight" "Bro..." "Let me go to see my bros first" "See you tonight" "Damn monkey, it's midnight now Where is he?" "Big Brother!" "I've told you that" "Big Brother won't do so to us" "He'll come to save Master" "Gout at night, wanna pee?" "No need to praise me" "I'm just better than you a little bit" "Stop nagging, go to save Master" "I can't take this anymore" "I'm syre that Master is inside" "Right..." "He's very annoying I can't take this anymore" "You go in, I stay back..." "Go!" "You at the middle" "This way..." "Master is here, go in" "Master" "Master, master" "We come to bring you out" "I won't go" "Really?" "Why?" "No" "There're full of obstacles in the way of getting scriptures" "This is because we're not united enough so the devils can do bad to us" "Ok, now it is the case" "Staying in this prison or not is just the same" "The outside world is just a larger prison to me" "You go out first I have something to talk to Big Brother" "Master" "Piggy, you're naughty again" "No, Master" "I go out and protect you" "Sandy, follow me." "Yes" "You stand aside" "Blow up and blow up the ball" "You've dropped your thing" "Bro, keep it" "Why should I keep it?" "Because I'm stronger than you" "Stronger than your shit!" "Come in and have a sit" "Honestly, I'm not your bro" "I don't want to be your disciple" "Master, be kind to me" "Please let go of me, alright?" "Do you know what "Dong, Dong..."is?" "What "Dong, Dong, Dong"?" "Only you..." "can take me to get scriptures in the west" "Only you... can kill the devils" "Only you... can protect me" "No need to eat by the monster" "Only you are that strong" "Only you..." "don't blame the master so talkative" "Wear the ring back" "Don't scare the death" "Don't scare the shit" "Do your best, if you scare I'll be with you..." "Namonitabhaya" "I can't take this anymore!" "Oh your shit!" "Stop it!" "I've said I can't take this anymore" "Byt you still sing" "You disregard my feelings" "I'll kill you if you sing again" "Monkey King, you kill you again" "Life and death are minor" "You'll sing this song with me when you know making sacrifices is so meaningful" "Namonitabhaya..." "Zixia" "Bro, why are you taking a woman with you?" "Master has gone" "He said we had to wait for him at the forest 300 miles away" "Go there quickly, please" "Hold it!" "What?" "Ambush at the front" "I can see it, no need to listen" "Stupid" "Hold you" "Xiang Xiang!" "Why are you here?" "Wow!" "Why is there so much blood on your hand?" "This is the blood of the woman you're holding" "Her blood?" "Yes!" "It's hers" "I stabbed her when she's sleeping" "If this woman is still alive you won't come back to me" "You have to let it be" "It is fate" "Byllshit!" "If it is fate that you love Piggy will you love him?" "If this is God's order" "I have to accept it" "Great!" "You don't have to wait for God's order" "Wow!" "What are you going to do?" "Go, go..." "Changing Image Magic!" "I will tyrn you into a rock" "Let go of me!" "Grab your breasts!" "Zixia...!" "Wake up" "Big Bro, why are you embracing me?" "Piggy?" "Yes!" "Where is Zixia?" "Qin Xianglin..." "Qingxia?" "Wow!" "Please don't play joke!" "I'm also hyrt!" "My chest muscles nearly touch my stomach" "Do you hate me?" "No!" "You hate me!" "Fine!" "End now!" "Stop!" "Give me some time" "I just vomit." "I'll vomit all things out soon" "Fine!" "I tryst you" "Give you some time" "Try to get used to it now" "I'm ysed to it already" "Fine, I'm OK" "I wanna vomit!" "You're so disgusting!" "If you're not, he won't vomit" "Please be good to me" "I will marry him" "I'll give him a warm family" "Give birth to many kids" "Xianglin" "I will kill you!" "Kill you" "Bro, you're also hurt?" "Turn me back!" "Shut up!" "Listen to me!" "Change me back!" "I also want to do so!" "I've ysed my power once" "I need 49 days to recover 49 days!" "I..." "Xianglin, face the reality!" "Use your energy!" "Use your energy!" "Stop playing!" "Be qyick!" "Who is inside you?" "I don't know where I am" "Two voices?" "Who are you?" "I'm Piggy." "Who are you?" "I'm Zixia" "Xianglin" "Joker" "Bro" "Zixia" "Ziaxia, you're still here" "You bitch!" "I find you at last" "What are you doing?" "Long time no see, and you become this" "Where's the Pandora's Box?" "I didn't take it" "Kidding" "Give me" "Wait" "What will you do to the Box?" "Go with me!" "Fat woman!" "Don't hang around with me" "Xianglin will go away with you..." "The King Bull" "Don't dream you ask him if you don't believe it" "You said you love me because you wanna take this and go away with her?" "Wait..." "It's not trye" "Don't want you to throw it away" "Great!" "You should not do that" "Look at you" "Don't deny it!" "I'll throw that away!" "Bro..." "What a man!" "Shut up!" "I love that!" "You can't leave anymore" "Bull, you're seriously hurt" "Do you think that bitch hyrt lesser?" "Have a look!" "You've deceived me so long" "In fact, I'm not" "Xianglin, who's that woman?" "I won't listen to you!" "Bastard!" "I'll leave you" "You affairs are none of my business" "You get yours!" "And I get mine!" "Help Zixia, you have a part in the body" "Beat it up, make it hurt!" "Then you can do nothing about it even if you" "Yes!" "Wanna go?" "Explain it clearly or you can't leave!" "Don't hit him!" "Bitch" "Bitch, stand aside it's none of your business" "Stop it!" "I'm afraid that she'll hyrt my body" "I won't help you" "Shut up!" "I'll help her and beat you up" "Have a try!" "I'm a woman." "Please don't hit her strongly I'll kill you" "I won't give help I just wanna see your fight!" "Go!" "No" "I'll take the Box for you" "And you can explain to your wife" "Wow, you're great!" "Perfect!" "Really?" "You're as perfect as possible" "Wait!" "You!" "Bitch, don't hit my girl" "I like to do it" "Your man has gone" "How cool he is!" "I'm a lycky woman!" "Ok, I can play jumping down from the cliff" "Go nearer" "Monkey King" "Don't jump!" "I don't want to do so" "You prefer jumping down to seeing me" "Ok I'd better go back to the Flam Mountain" "I won't do this case if I know this before" "I don't know stealing grapes will make me suffer such punishment" "If I know that, I won't be a robber" "Yes, sure" "Like me, being a soldier you have no chance yet unless immortal comes to save you" "I won't be a soldier" "Immortal has come" "Immortal!" "Jing Jing" "Granpa Buddha" "He steams byns" "None of your bysiness!" "Jing Jing!" "Don't flirt me!" "I flirt you becayse I love you" "Listen, if you want to be my wife don't do bad anymore in the future" "Sure!" "Let's go" "Drink tea" "Thank you!" "You're welcome" "Why bring me back to this cave?" "I didn't bring you back" "It's you who broyght ys back" "It may be because I miss Jing Jing very much" "Yes!" "When you fainted you spoke out the name Jing Jing 98 times!" "Jing Jing is my wife and a name Zixia" "You repeated 784 times" "784 times" "She must have owed you lots of money" "I want Spider Web Cave Immortal to be my master" "She's changed Waterfall Cave into Spider Web Cave" "You tell me there's no such person!" "We don't know" "Son of a bitch, you're still here!" "Why did you do that to me?" "Jing Jing" "Jing Jing, it's nice to see you" "What?" "You've got thinner" "I'm not the Monkey King" "Byt I don't how to tell you because you won't believe in it" "I will" "Because that damn monkey won't be so gentle to me" "Who are you?" "I'll be your hysband 500 years later 500 years later you will give up this affair because of me" "What I did is totally just for you" "Jing Jing, I miss you" "I miss you mych and mych" "I miss you mych and mych and mych" "Don't you tryst me?" "No!" "I can't blame you" "Let me see what's going on" "Byt I think I know you" "Absolutely" "Very and absolutely" "Very and absolutely and extremely!" "How will we meet 500 years later?" "At a pitch-dark night" "I'm Joker, you're Pak Jing Jing" "Fantastic love starts from a fire at the bridge" "When I turn back you point at me with your finger then my hand gets burning you rush to me and hit me!" "Hit and hit and hit!" "No..." "look at me... yes, can you see it!" "there are many twists and turns" "Suddenly, the King Bull comes to us" "I fight with him with a bone" "He grabbed me to the Spider Web Cave" "It's right that time flies" "The following is the main content" "On the cliff, we reach the climax" "At that time, I touch you" "You touch me too" "We make promise that we won't separate" "But happiness is always a flash of time" "We only have endless pain!" "Why will you die?" "So I use the Box to travel back to the past" "I discover that you kill yourself" "At the last moment" "I save your life!" "Byt at the last time of time travel the Box doesn't work properly" "I go back to 500 years ago" "That is the story" "What are you gonna do now?" "I've foynd you, I needn't go back now" "Let's get married!" "I..." "I just wake up" "I have nothing to do" "So I come here." "I wanna be a disciple" "You request marriage suddenly" "I...haven't bryshed my teeth!" "I know you're syspecting..." "If I can give you my heart you'll know I'm not cheating you" "it's very simple!" "You look like a thing" "Coconut?" "A girl said that to me" "Oh, coconut are his words all true?" "No need to think!" "You search the bottom!" "Coconut, thank you very much" "Please tell you, am I his best love?" "You've come back for a long time" "You just wanna get the Pandora's Box" "What do you mean?" "I'm asking you when we will get marry" "Byt you keep saying no" "Will you marry me?" "I do!" "Is your sister crazy?" "She keeps speaking nonsense all day long" "She's not crazy She's something wrong with the brain" "If she promises... she has promised to marry him 7 days later" "you have made up your mind?" "I cheated him" "I'm waiting for my man to pick me up!" "You think that bastard will come to pick you up?" "Congratulations!" "Byt even if he comes back he can't get you back from the King Bull" "It is fate that he can pull out my Magic Sword" "He myst be an inordinary man" "I'm syre" "I know he'll come back one day appear in public wearing golden armour and stepping on colorful cloud come to marry me" "You are crazy!" "I'm not crazy!" "This is jyst my hope" "Promise me!" "Little psycho" "No!" "Bro, things are always unpredictable" "I can't think you'll get marry with Miss Pak so soon" "Yes, me too" "We're happy for you!" "Thank you!" "You made dreams last night" "You repeated the name Zixia 785 times" "One time more than last night" "6 days have passed You'll get marry tomorrow" "He will come?" "I don't think so" "Yesterday, I told a spider to tell you" "Told you I missed you much" "Do you know?" "You don't know again" "I am cheating you" "That's fine!" "Just like a moth it flies to fire even it knows it'll get hurt" "Moth is so silly!" "Come out, grapes" "I don't want to watch you" "I just want to study the interesting relationship among humans" "Bro, you're a robber" "Don't pretend to be a scholar" "Even a robber has its own knowledge" "Stop it, go to sleep" "In your mind is Zixia an exclamation mark?" "Or she's a full stop?" "Is your mind fyll of qyestion marks?" "Zixia is just a girl who I know" "I lied to her in the past" "I'm just feeling a little bit regretful" "I hate him" "I'll get marry today." "What do you want?" "When you discover that you've fallen in love with a man you hate this affair is really hurting you" "But how can I fall in love with a person I hate?" "Please give me a reason." "Please!" "We don't need any reason to love a person" "Don't we?" "Do we?" "Don't we?" "Do we?" "Don't we?" "Let me stydy it for you" "Why are you so serious?" "Need we?" "Who?" "Time's up" "How many brothers and sisters do you have?" "Are you parents alive?" "Speak up!" "I just wanna make a new friend when I'm going to die" "How to save Master?" "Being a devil is the same as being a human" "We should be kind" "If we are kind we are not a devil, we are a hybrid" "He ynderstand?" "do you understand?" "No one will come to pick you up" "Your letter" "Thank you" "Your conscience told me that" "I'm not your best love" "Your best love is another woman" "When I saw the thing left by her in your heart" "I know that you came back not for me but for her" "This is God's order" "It is also called fate" "Jing Jing's gone" "I know" "I've read the letter" "Granpa Buddha" "What's going on with her?" "Have you read this letter?" "No" "You read it" "Good" "Wanna go?" "I know my sister Pak Jing Jing has been here" "Where is she now?" "Speak up!" "Does she owe you this mych?" "You don't let your sister go" "Just tell me" "I don't know" "I don't know it is heard that you're kind" "They are your friends?" "No!" "Do you know?" "Kill me if you myst kill someone" "They don't know your sister" "All of them are innocent" "I agree!" "I admire bold people very much" "If you're one of them" "I can fylfill your desire!" "Wait!" "I really think that you aren't scared of death!" "I'm gonna die." "Please do me a favor" "I've heard that if you cut fast and accurately the man got hurt won't die at once when he's cut open" "He can still see" "Help me, do it as fast as you can" "Tear out my heart" "Let you see it clearly" "What are you talking about?" "A friend of mind" "left something in my heart" "I want to know what's that" "It's strange" "Humans and devils are born by their mothers" "Different person acts as a different mom" "A devil's mom is a devil's mom" "I can take this" "What's your name of your mom?" "Kowtow to Heaven and Earth" "Let's marry" "Wait!" "Look!" "Now, she is the younger sister and she'll save her elder sister" "The elder sister will save the younger sister" "What do you want?" "We're married today." "Let my sister go" "I won't break my promise" "I don't want to fight anymore" "You go!" "I just have one sister in my life" "Sister" "King Bull!" "I won't let my sister marry you" "Sister" "What are you talking about?" "I just have one sister in my whole life" "Come on!" "I'm right" "Faster than me you're so great" "It's time" "Changing image" "Xiang Xiang?" "I'm not your sister" "Xiang Xiang, what are you doing?" "Brother" "Brother, my Changing Image Magic..." "Xiang Xiang" "Turn me into a dog" "Who are you?" "I'm Qingxia!" "Sister..." "I will kill you" "Go to save Master!" "Don't hit my sister!" "Come to save us" "Kill that girl!" "No!" "It's you!" "..." "Go away!" "I'll kill the one who block my way" "Goddess" "I'm aboyt to ynderstand your words" "I yse my eyes to see" "When I'm dying" "I yse my heart to see this world and all things" "I see it clearly" "That girl..." "left a drop of tear in my heart" "I felt her sorrow" "Have you given yp all things in human world?" "Yes" "Life and death is minor" "Great, great" "Congratulations" "Bro, what's up?" "Come on, have a sit" "Have a sit" "It's unlucky that 3 friends of mine were get involved" "It's none of their bysiness!" "Byt I don't ynderstand" "Why can human hatred lasts 1 0 years 50 years and even 500 years?" "What hatred is it?" "So the Longevity Monk went to the west and got scriptures which clean our heart" "Understand" "I wanna stay." "There are many things waiting for me to do" "You go to have your next lives as soon as possible!" "Good!" "You're slashed because of me" "I hope I can pay you back in my next life" "Pay back more" "I can do what I can do, grapes" "Goodbye" "We're leaving" "I wanna warn you again" "After wearing the Gold Ring you're no longer a normal human" "You can't touch human desires anymore" "If you do so the Gold Ring will get smaller and smaller" "It's very yncomfortable" "Ok!" "Before wearing this Ring what do you wanna say?" "I had my best love" "Byt I don't treasyre her" "When I lost her, I felt regretful" "It is the most painful thing in this world" "If God can give me another chance" "I will say "I love you" to her!" "If there is a time limit" "I hope...it is 10 thousand years" "Kowtow" "Kowtow" "Kowtow to the forefather drink wedding wine" "Now you're a member of the Byll Family" "Colorful clouds..." "Look like mashmallow" "Really?" "Be carefyl!" "Thundering" "It's raining, get the clothes" "Damn monkey, you flirt with my life" "Although we are friends" "I'll indict you slander if you repeat again" "Kill him" "Sorry!" "This sneeZe may make you disappointed" "Joker" "Are you satisfied this time?" "Master" "It's the Monkey King" "I just thought it's a piece of cloud" "Master, I committed many offences in the past" "It's lucky that Goddess show a right road to me" "Now I'm gonna worship Buddha whole-heartedly" "I won't feel reluctant to give up human desires" "Master" "I will take the responsibility" "Great" "You're now on the right road" "Joker" "Joker, you're here eventually" "Miss!" "I... know a friend called Joker" "He ask me to tell Zixia Immortal something" "Is it you?" "Joker" "Stop!" "I'm asking you, is it you?" "Is it you?" "Speak up" "Yes" "He said he had went back to the starting point" "And he hoped that she would find her best love as soon as possible" "Don't kid me, Joker" "Let me tell you again" "I'm the Monkey..." "King" "Don't make any mistake" "I'm gonna kill you today" "Change!" "Beat you to death, damn monkey" "Look oyt my fork" "I like barbecued chicken wing!" "Use my fork to make barbecued chicken wing?" "I nearly forget it" "I'm a vegetarian" "Give me back!" "Is it fynny!" "Tell me!" "Tell me..." "Why are you so quiet?" "Help me" "Sorry" "I don't want you lose face in front of your bros" "Let me help you" "Give back to you" "Great!" "Look out" "Super bugs" "I'm scared, so many bugs" "It's lycky that I have many little monkeys" "Kill all the monkeys" "Let him kill" "Are you the Monkey King?" "Will you go to the west to get scriptures?" "bring me with you" "Yes!" "She can act as a whore if she goes with me" "That's great..." "I can't take this anymore" "Come here, hold me tight!" "You can't take me anymore" "I can" "I can't take you anymore" "You're so ugly, we're immortals please no more sexual harassment" "Why did you do that to me?" "Are you angry?" "I would get angry!" "Cry if you want" "I'll kill you all bastards" "Magic Fan" "Help me" "So troublesome!" "Master!" "Monkey King, help me!" "I can't believe that you do that to me" "You two protect Master" "I know" "Zixia, no" "What are you doing?" "Will you come?" "Why are you so concerned about me?" "Let me die" "I'm not concerned aboyt oyt" "We'll treasure our lives" "You are no immortals" "Monkey King, you can't defeat me" "What a wide ditch" "It's coming!" "Stop kidding" "Pyt the whole city to the side of the syn" "Whom can you save now?" "Don't bother me, you go to hell" "Wait!" "Lie to me again?" "Damn monkey how dare you stop my attack!" "Go!" "Go back!" "Shit, burning" "Stupid!" "Bitch!" "What do you want?" "Stupid!" "you're stupid!" "You're not human" "You're not human" "Don't get mad" "Do you ynderstand what I've told you?" "Do you know I'm not an immortal now?" "I only ynderstand one thing" "Love means pain" "Don't byllshit with me" "You've mistaken me!" "Where did you buy these gold rings?" "Be carefyl!" "Zixia" "Master, look out!" "Zixia" "My lover is a hero" "One day he'll come with a cloud come to me and marry me" "I've guessed the start" "But I haven't guessed the ending" "Master..." "I want your life!" "It's very hot!" "you'll be a roast pig" "It'll explode" "We have to get the help of Pandora's Box" "Go" "The sun is coming, hurry up" "Bring Master go" "Hyrry yp!" "Qingxia" "My sister is not here" "I think I should go back to be Buddha's lampwick again" "Goodbye" "Big Brother, you get up so early!" "What's happened?" "Big Brother, you've forgot it" "I met a storm last night" "You brought me here!" "Go!" "Master, where are we going now?" "India" "Why does Master speak in this way?" "Master is a clear cut guy." "Let's go" "Master, walk slowly please" "Bro, be careful!" "Thanks!" "It is said that this was the Waterfall Cave 500 years ago" "It's the living place of the Monkey King" "Since he's killed the King Bull and saved the Longevity Monk there are no devils in the world" "After that, many people came here fooling around" "That guy put on a pig head and say that he's Piggy" "Bro" "There is only make-upon your face" "Please be more professional" "Look at your hair" "There are two cakes on your head" "You should pay more money to make yourself up" "What's up?" "Your image is really disgusting" "Don't angry at me I'm always an honest guy" "I won't get angry" "Cut me if you like" "You son of bitch!" "Do you think I daren't do so?" "Thanks" "This is really sage" "Big Bro" "Bro, let's go" "Byddha Cave" "Fine, thanks" "Thanks..." "Big Bro, what are you looking at?" "Both girls who know Piggy" "Who?" "Beancyrd Beayty" "It is heard that they sell beancurds" "They have earned much money for their husbands to attend the civil service exam" "The Highest Graduate" "Mei!" "Congratulations!" "You husband has become the Highest Graduates of the exam" "Go to welcome him" "Honey" "Honey Honey" "Go away, no one of your business" "Honey, Ah" "You work so hard in making beancurds" "You work so hard in making beancurd" "Honey" "Honey" "I know ow to make beancurds, too" "Go!" "Go!" "Blow the ball" "I blow the ball up" "Blow the ball up and up" "Come here!" "It's crowded!" "Monkey King" "Master" "Have a look" "Ok!" "They've stood there for 3 days" "They didn't" "Look, devil" "I think I shoyldn't come" "It's too late" "Leave some memories, Ok?" "I don't need memory" "I want you" "You can just get my body instead of my spirit" "I've got a lover already" "We won't have godd result" "Let go of me" "I'll let you go" "But you have to kiss me before you've left" "Have a kiss..." "Kiss..." "I'm just a powerless warrior" "If kiss you my image will be ruined" "You're lying" "You daren't kiss me" "Becayse you still love me" "I'm telling you" "If you reject me you'll regret for you whole life" "I won't kiss you even if I regret" "It's fate" "I will stay here for my whole life" "I love you" "What's up?" "That guy looks strange" "I know" "He looks like a dog!"
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenSubtitles"
}
|
DIY - Homemade Bubbly Cocktails
This time of year sparkling wine and champagne are in high demand. We love to toast with champagne and we love to mix it up too. Light and fruity wine cocktails are the perfect complement to any celebration. When you have some bubbles, a bit of spice, and some succulent fruit, you can't go wrong.
How to choose good wines to use in cocktails?
Look for sweet wines that can combine well with spice and fruit for complexity, and bubbles, which aerate the wine for a sparkling fizz that is festive and fun. These wines are sturdy enough to stand up to ice, and the preparations are simple enough to whip up for a crowd. L’Chaim!!
Sparkling Sangria
A bottle of Jeunesse Cabernet Sauvignon poured into a pretty pitcher is the start of a fruity batch of this Sparkling Sangria. The bright wine with its berry and floral fragrances combine well with all kinds of fruits. The dried apricots, plums, and apples complement and suggest a Middle Eastern flavor profile; adding the spice and bubbles of Ginger Ale contribute the “wow” factor.
Passion Fruit and Ginger Cocktail
Morad Vineyard’s fruity wine distilled in Israel from passion fruit is a newcomer to the party. Light and sweet, it is great on its own, but mixed with ginger and vodka in this cocktail, it makes the party.
Sparkling Cocktail
Bartenura makes its fruity sparkling Moscato and Rose in the Monferrato hills in the south of the province of Asti, Italy. The bold bubbles and natural sweetness makes for a great cocktail mixer with any kind of fruit. Chill the wine well in advance and feel free to substitute with any juice you fancy.
As seen in Joy of Kosher with Jamie Geller Magazine (February/March 2013) - Subscribe Now
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Check out our new site Makeup Addiction
add your own caption
add your own caption
On a first date? Proactive, trojan, KY, and single hotline commercials ONLY
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
// *** WARNING: this file was generated by the Pulumi Terraform Bridge (tfgen) Tool. ***
// *** Do not edit by hand unless you're certain you know what you are doing! ***
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections.Immutable;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using Pulumi.Serialization;
namespace Pulumi.Aws.WafV2.Inputs
{
public sealed class WebAclRuleStatementOrStatementStatementNotStatementStatementRegexPatternSetReferenceStatementFieldToMatchSingleHeaderArgs : Pulumi.ResourceArgs
{
/// <summary>
/// The name of the query header to inspect. This setting must be provided as lower case characters.
/// </summary>
[Input("name", required: true)]
public Input<string> Name { get; set; } = null!;
public WebAclRuleStatementOrStatementStatementNotStatementStatementRegexPatternSetReferenceStatementFieldToMatchSingleHeaderArgs()
{
}
}
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
The Stik
The Stik Pro
The Stik Extreme
Jay Dyer
JMB Precision is extremely proud to announce the addition of Jay Dyer to its staff of certified athletic trainers and strength and conditioning coaches.
Jay believes "The Stiks" are an invaluable tool to be used by athletes of any age or either sex who participate in any sport in which the elbows, arms, wrists, hands, and fingers are used. A few minutes a day will take your game to another level.
Jay also uses "The Stiks" to help people of all ages and either sex who are suffering with Arthritis, tennis/golfers elbow or are in rehabilitation/therapy after breaks, sprains or trauma to the elbows, arms, wrists, hands or fingers.
Jay joins Jim McCrossin, the head trainer and strength and conditioning coach of The Philadelphia Flyers professional ice hockey team. Jim is recognized as one of the premier head trainers and strength and conditioning coaches in all of collegiate and professional sports.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Spacious 5 bedroom villas in Kayalar village of north Cyprus offering ultimate privacy, breathtaking sea views, very large private garden and tranquil location. The villas are finished to a high stand...
This superb sea front property is located in one of the most beautiful areas along the Kayalar coastline. This wonderful home has one of the most amazing views on the island, is built to highest speci...
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Implementation of the carbon footprint indicator in the network of Agro-environmental District Offices
Status:
Finalized
Solution:
CO2
Client:
Government of Aragon
Dates:
2017
Following the line of work that the Government of Aragon has been developing in recent years in terms of climate change and, in particular, carbon footprint, this project aims to calculate the carbon footprint of the network of District Offices Agro-environmental (OCA for its acronym in Spanish) of the Government of Aragon and implement this indicator for its proper management in the future.
For this purpose, in this project the carbon footprint of the office network was calculated, a strategy for reducing GHG emissions was drawn up and, finally, the footprint was integrated into the Registry of the Spanish Office of Climate Change.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
During a recent visit to Arlington, Seattle manager Scott Servais repeated his contention that in the American League West "everybody in the division is going to beat up on everybody else."
That will happen for four teams but not the division-leading Rangers.
They are running roughshod through the division, winning at a rarely seen pace.
A 5-1 win at Oakland on Thursday put the Rangers at 26-13 in the West, with 37 division games remaining. If the Rangers continue at this pace, they would go 51-25 and win the division title for the second consecutive season with ease.
With a division full of weak sisters, the Rangers could have a better record than that.
Houston, Oakland and the Los Angeles Angels have three of the five worst records in the AL. The Rangers have 31 more games against them.
A year ago, the Rangers became only the fourth team in the three-division era, which began in 1994, to finish first despite a losing (36-40) division record. In this season, they could establish a benchmark for division dominance.
The 1995 Cincinnati Reds had the best divisional record in this period, at 35-14 for a .714 winning percentage.
For teams with at least 70 divisional games, the 2005 Chicago White Sox had the best divisional record at 52-22 for a .703 winning percentage. The 2003 San Francisco Giants had the most wins at 53-23. The Rangers could challenge both marks.
What does this mean? Is a team better off reaching the postseason after slogging through a demanding division or running away in an easy division?
History suggests playing a collection of weak sisters during the regular season does not set up a club for postseason success.
Of the top 11 teams -- 2005 St. Louis and 2011 Milwaukee tied -- for division records in this century, only two reached the World Series. The White Sox swept Houston in 2005. The New York Yankees lost to Arizona in seven games in 2001.
Six of the clubs reached a league championship series, the most recent Detroit in 2011. Three teams failed to get beyond a division series, the most recent the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2014.
It is a moot point for the Rangers over the next month. The do not play in the West again until July 18, with the opening of a series against the Halos. The final month could be memorable. The Rangers play 22 of their final 28 games against the West.
A look at MLB teams with the top division records since 2000
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Sebastian Vettel was penalised for deliberately driving into Lewis Hamilton in a chaotic and incident-packed Azerbaijan Grand Prix but the German still extended his title lead as a loose head restraint cost the Briton victory.
A remarkable race that featured three safety cars and several crashes, including clashes between team-mates, was won by Red Bull's Daniel Ricciardo.
Vettel was given a 10-second stop-go penalty for swerving into Hamilton's Mercedes as they prepared for a restart at the end of one of three safety car periods in Baku.
But the time Hamilton lost being forced to pit for a new head restraint put him behind Vettel. He followed him past a number of cars as they recovered positions, and closed up as the race entered its final lap, but the Englishman was not able to pass.
Hamilton ended up finishing fifth, a place behind Ferrari's Vettel, and lost two points to the German. He is 14 points behind after eight of 20 races.
Hamilton's Mercedes team-mate Valtteri Bottas, who was last and lapped after the first lap, passed Williams driver Lance Stroll for second on the final straight as the 18-year-old Canadian scored his first podium in his eighth race after a mature drive.
Hamilton v Vettel gets tasty
Road rage: The moment Hamilton and Vettel collided for the second time
The controversial incident between Hamilton and Vettel happened as they prepared for the restart after the second safety car period.
Vettel ran into the back of Hamilton as he accelerated out of Turn 15, the penultimate corner, damaging his front wing. The German then pulled alongside Hamilton's Mercedes and drove into it, banging wheels.
Vettel told his team over the radio that he believed Hamilton had deliberately slowed, saying: "He brake-tested me. What the hell is going on?"
Hamilton told his Mercedes engineers: "Vettel literally just came alongside me and hit me."
When he was told of the penalty, Vettel said: "Tell me when I did dangerous driving." Ferrari told him they would discuss it after the race.
Hamilton said over the radio, addressing his remarks directly at race director Charlie Whiting, that he believed a 10-second penalty was "not enough for driving behaviour like that - you know that, Charlie."
The race slips away from Hamilton
It was a cruel end to Hamilton's Baku race
Before the stewards delivered their verdict on Vettel's driving, Hamilton's race had already fallen apart.
He had controlled it from the start, despite the chaos behind him, and was leading Vettel by 2.5 seconds after 28 of 51 laps when the cockpit head restraint padding that protects the drivers from impacts began to lift on the straight.
His race engineer asked him to try to push it back down again but he was unable to force it into position and Mercedes were ordered to pit Hamilton to fix a restraint into position.
He rejoined in eighth place and fought his way up past Esteban Ocon's Force India, McLaren's Fernando Alonso and Haas driver Kevin Magnussen before the end.
Safety car after safety car
Ricciardo was handed victory by the problems of Hamilton and Vettel but he also had to earn it.
He dropped to 17th early in the race with an unscheduled pit stop to clear debris from his brake ducts - but fought his way back up to 10th by the time of the first safety car period.
The chaos of the next two promoted him to fifth, thanks to some aggressive overtaking by the Australian, between Stroll and the other Williams of Felipe Massa, then he passed Stroll into Turn One at the final restart as Massa dropped out with a broken damper.
Stroll hung on for a few laps but Ricciardo eventually edged away to win by four seconds as Stroll was caught by Bottas on the final straight after a superb recovery by the Finn.
The red flag was shown in lap 23 with debris strewn over the track after multiple collisions
Bottas had been lapped at the end of the first lap following a collision between himself and Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen at the second corner, Bottas bouncing over the kerb and into his fellow Finn, damaging both cars.
But the first safety car period allowed him to un-lap himself and he drove well to pick his way through the field after that.
The first safety car period happened because of a mundane reason - Daniil Kvyat's Toro Rosso had broken down and stopped in a dangerous place and needed to be recovered.
But it set up a domino effect at the restarts.
At the first attempt to restart on lap 17, Vettel was challenged for second by Force India's Sergio Perez, and behind them the second Force India of Esteban Ocon and Raikkonen were side by side with the Finn losing some bodywork.
That and a number of other brushes between cars left debris on the track and the race was immediately stopped for it to be cleared.
The marshals had a job to keep up with the number of incidents
The safety car was out for another two laps, but just before the second restart Hamilton and Vettel clashed.
Then, as the race restarted, the Force India drivers collided as they tried to accelerate out of Turn two side by side, creating a whole load more debris, and the safety car was immediately deployed again.
The incident is likely to cause further recriminations at the team, where there was a dispute about team orders at the previous race in Canada.
Two laps later, Alonso went on to the radio to say the race should be red-flagged because there was so much debris. "This circuit is too fast to have this risk," he said.
Shortly afterwards, the red flag was thrown and the race stopped for 15 minutes.
At the restart Nico Hulkenberg looked set for a strong finish in the Renault, running sixth and threatening Magnussen, but he made a critical error in misjudging Turn Seven, breaking his right front wheel on the inside wall.
Ocon recovered from the clash with Perez to take a solid sixth ahead of Magnussen, Toro Rosso's Carlos Sainz and Alonso, who scored McLaren-Honda's first points of the season despite losing battery power in the closing laps.
Ricciardo's team-mate Max Verstappen retired early from fourth place with an engine failure.
Welcome to the podium: Pipped to second by Valtteri Bottas, rookie Lance Stroll still enjoys the champers
At least Mariah Carey came out of the day unscathed
Some corners of the tight and twisty circuit in Baku are only 7.6 metres wide
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
/*
* Copyright (c) 2016-2018 VMware, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*
* This product is licensed to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License").
* You may not use this product except in compliance with the License.
*
* This product may include a number of subcomponents with separate copyright notices
* and license terms. Your use of these subcomponents is subject to the terms and
* conditions of the subcomponent's license, as noted in the LICENSE file.
*/
package com.vmware.admiral.common.util;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.junit.runners.Parameterized;
import org.junit.runners.Parameterized.Parameters;
/**
* Test for DockerImage parsing methods
*/
@RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class DockerImageTest {
private final String description;
private final String fullImageName;
private final String expectedHost;
private final String expectedNamespace;
private final String expectedRepo;
private final String expectedNamespaceAndRepo;
private final String expectedTag;
@Parameters
public static List<String[]> data() {
List<String[]> data = new ArrayList<>();
data.add(new String[] { "all sections", "myhost:300/namespace/repo:tag", "myhost:300",
"namespace", "repo", "namespace/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "repo and tag", "repo:tag", null, null, "repo", "library/repo",
"tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "implicit registry, repo and tag", "library/repo:tag", null,
"library", "repo", "library/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "repo without tag", "repo", null, null, "repo", "library/repo",
"latest" });
data.add(new String[] { "namespace and repo", "namespace/repo", null, "namespace", "repo",
"namespace/repo", "latest" });
data.add(new String[] { "host with dot and repo", "host.name:443/repo", "host.name:443",
null, "repo", "repo", "latest" });
data.add(new String[] { "host with colon and repo", "host:3000/repo", "host:3000", null,
"repo", "repo", "latest" });
data.add(new String[] { "host with colon, repo and tag", "host:3000/repo:tag", "host:3000",
null, "repo", "repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "official repo with default namespace",
"registry.hub.docker.com/library/repo:tag", "registry.hub.docker.com", "library",
"repo", "library/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "official repo with custom namespace",
"registry.hub.docker.com/user/repo:tag", "registry.hub.docker.com", "user", "repo",
"user/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "official repo with default namespace",
"docker.io/library/repo:tag", "docker.io", "library", "repo", "library/repo",
"tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "official repo with custom namespace",
"docker.io/user/repo:tag", "docker.io", "user", "repo", "user/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "host and three path components of repo",
"host/namespace/category/repo", "host", "namespace/category", "repo",
"namespace/category/repo", "latest" });
data.add(new String[] { "host, port, three path components of repo and tag",
"host:5000/namespace/category/repo:tag", "host:5000", "namespace/category", "repo",
"namespace/category/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "host, port, three path components containing dash, repo and tag",
"host:5000/namespace-project/category/repo:tag", "host:5000",
"namespace-project/category", "repo", "namespace-project/category/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "host with dot, two path components of repo and tag",
"host-123.local/library/repo:tag", "host-123.local", "library", "repo",
"library/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "host, two path components of repo and tag",
"host-123/library/repo:tag", "host-123", "library", "repo",
"library/repo", "tag" });
data.add(new String[] { "host, repo and tag",
"host-123:443/repo:tag", "host-123:443", null, "repo",
"repo", "tag" });
return data;
}
/**
* @param expectedHost
* @param expectedNamespace
* @param expectedRepo
*/
public DockerImageTest(String description, String fullImageName, String expectedHost,
String expectedNamespace,
String expectedRepo,
String expectedNamespaceAndRepo,
String expectedTag) {
this.description = description;
this.fullImageName = fullImageName;
this.expectedHost = expectedHost;
this.expectedNamespace = expectedNamespace;
this.expectedRepo = expectedRepo;
this.expectedNamespaceAndRepo = expectedNamespaceAndRepo;
this.expectedTag = expectedTag;
}
@Test
public void testDockerImageParsing() {
DockerImage dockerImage = DockerImage.fromImageName(fullImageName);
assertEquals(description + ": host", expectedHost, dockerImage.getHost());
assertEquals(description + ": namespace", expectedNamespace, dockerImage.getNamespace());
assertEquals(description + ": repository", expectedRepo, dockerImage.getRepository());
assertEquals(description + ": namespace and repo", expectedNamespaceAndRepo,
dockerImage.getNamespaceAndRepo());
assertEquals(description + ": tag", expectedTag, dockerImage.getTag());
}
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
{
"name": "league/uri-hostname-parser",
"description": "ICANN base hostname parsing implemented in PHP.",
"homepage": "https://github.com/thephphleague/uri-hostname-parser",
"support": {
"issues": "https://github.com/thephphleague/uri-hostname-parser/issues",
"source": "https://github.com/thephphleague/uri-hostname-parser"
},
"license": "MIT",
"authors": [
{
"name": "Jeremy Kendall",
"homepage": "http://about.me/jeremykendall",
"role": "Developer"
},
{
"name": "Ignace Nyamagana Butera",
"homepage": "http://nyamsprod.com",
"role": "Developer"
},
{
"name": "Contributors",
"homepage": "https://github.com/phpleague/uri-hostname-parser/graphs/contributors"
}
],
"bin": [
"bin/update-psl-icann-section"
],
"keywords": [
"Public Suffix List",
"ICANN",
"domain parsing"
],
"require": {
"php": ">=7.0",
"ext-intl": "*",
"psr/simple-cache": "^1"
},
"require-dev": {
"phpunit/phpunit": "^6.3",
"mikey179/vfsStream": "^1.6",
"friendsofphp/php-cs-fixer": "^2.7"
},
"suggest": {
"ext-curl": "To use the bundle cURL HTTP client",
"psr/simple-cache-implementation": "To enable using other cache providers"
},
"autoload": {
"psr-4": {
"League\\Uri\\": "src"
},
"files": ["src/functions_include.php"]
},
"autoload-dev": {
"psr-4": {
"League\\Uri\\Tests\\": "tests/"
}
},
"scripts": {
"post-install-cmd": "\\League\\Uri\\Installer\\ICANNSection::update",
"post-update-cmd": "\\League\\Uri\\Installer\\ICANNSection::update",
"test": "phpunit --coverage-text; php-cs-fixer fix -vv --diff --dry-run --allow-risky=yes",
"phpunit": "phpunit --coverage-text",
"phpcs": "php-cs-fixer fix -vv --diff --dry-run --allow-risky=yes"
}
}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Github"
}
|
Previous record highs are expected to melt away Thursday as residents across the province continue to bask in warm sunny weather.
Coastal areas of Vancouver were on pace to meet the record high of 16.1 degrees set in 1941, while inland temperatures across the region are slated to smash that figure, reaching a peak of up to 21 degrees Thursday, according to Environment Canada.
The average maximum temperature for Vancouver on March 31 is just 11.4 degrees while the minimum is 4 degrees, according to the national weather service.
Pitt Meadows is forecast to edge out its high of 20.8 degrees set in 2013 Thursday, Hope is set to hammer its 12.6 degree record, and Abbotsford could come within a degree of its 22 degree high set in 1987.
Meanwhile, records are slated to fall across the north Thursday, with all-time highs in Williams Lake, Prince George, Smithers, Prince Rupert, Dease Lake, Sandspit, and Fort St. John, among other locations.
Temperatures on Vancouver Island and through the Okanagan and Kootenays are forecast near record highs.
Sunny weather is expected to continue into the weekend for much of the south coast, but rain clouds are forecast to blanket some cities by Sunday.
mrobinson@vancouversun.com
|
{
"pile_set_name": "OpenWebText2"
}
|
Bloomberg aims to help the young black and Latino men he has been throwing in jail for a decade
Just how big is the force of School Safety Agents? If they made up a stand-alone police department, Lieberman says, they'd comprise "the fifth-largest in the nation . . . There are more School Safety Agents than there are cops on the streets of Baltimore, Newark, Detroit, Boston, [or] Washington, D.C."
To put in perspective how absurd their power is, how zero tolerance can go awry, and how out-of-touch the mayor is regarding the effect this has on boys of color, Lieberman tells the story of a student named Biko Edwards.
Biko was a student at Samuel J. Tilden High School, which Lieberman characterizes as "the worst school on the list. It was an educational disaster."
Drug Policy Alliance and Harry Levine/marijuana-arrests.com
Bloombergs annual average of low-level pot arrests is greater than all of Kochs, Dinkinss, and the first two years of Giulianiscombined.
"Biko and his mom came in because he was beaten and arrested for being late to class," Lieberman says. "He was staying late to talk to his math teacher, and he didn't get a pass, and he was running to chem lab. And he got nabbed, beat up, Maced," by a School Safety Agent, Lieberman describes. "He was arrested, sent to central booking, and then suspended for four days. And his grades went from decent to plummet."
Lieberman says she found out Biko was a good soccer player, and said to him: "'Look, how do you feel about this school? Are you comfortable going back to school?' And he said, 'I'm scared.' And we arranged for him to look at other schools, and he ultimately transferred to MLK, which has the premier soccer team in the city."
Biko, she says, "was a star player on the team. He's in college now . . . and he played on the farm team for the MetroStars," the New York region's professional soccer club (now the Metro Red Bulls).
While still in high school, Biko had the chance to go to Gracie Mansion the year MLK won the championships.
There's a picture of the team posing with the mayor there. Bloomberg is kneeling, surrounded by handsome young black and brown boys. He grins awkwardly like Daddy Warbucks, an oblivious great white hope enveloped by people he wouldn't normally hang with (but whom his white man's burden would, years later, compel him to aid).
And standing right next to him, smiling just as awkwardly, is Biko.
"The mayor has no idea that his school 'safety' policies put this kid in jail overnight and left him battered and forced out of his high school," Lieberman says quietly.
There is a lot exciting in the Young Men's Initiative. But judging from what it leaves out, it seems that Bloomberg is still just as oblivious about how his policies harm the very population he now wants to help as he was when he was grinning next to Biko.
As always, the problem in this society is the SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW by white police. If we are to have racial harmony in this society this problem needs to be stopped by police, prosecutors, judges, and politicians. This notwithstanding the idiocies of the Fox network which continues to insist that the only form of racism in America is reverse racism.
If you think Bloomberg's sudden philanthropy has nothing to do with a desire to stay in the political spotlight, you need to stop smoking weed yourself. Speaking of breaking the law, having screwed NYC into three terms as mayor, Bloomberg has set his political sights higher, and he knows he needs to build a base of goodwill among black and brown voters. So he's attacking from two sides: disenfranchising as many black people as possible with felony convictions, while simultaneously promoting himself as a good guy with his very public charity.
If Bloomberg was soooo concerned with the plight of black men, you would think he would start by paying Dennis Walcott the same salary he paid Walcott's unqualified predecessor.
Please take a moment to follow this link and sign the petition which requests that all those arrested for marijuana only related offenses to be granted a full pardon. In addition to releasing those currently incarcerated, this would also reinstate the rights lost by those with previous convictions, such as the right to vote. Here's the link: http://wh.gov/gRZ.
Please take a moment to follow this link and sign the petition which requests that all those arrested for marijuana only related offenses to be granted a full pardon. In addition to releasing those currently incarcerated, this would also reinstate the rights lost by those with previous convictions, such as the right to vote. Here's the link: http://wh.gov/gRZ.
At first, the self-congratulatory rollout of this program made me angry because Bloomberg refuses to raise taxes on his fellow millionaires (what rich guy wants to make an anonymous donation?) and would rather have a "public-private partnership" where all the rich donors can have their name on a stop-and-repeat. Now I'm angry about it for a whole bunch of other reasons.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.