text:
The Doha climate talks (COP18) reached an agreement on Saturday night. They're calling it the "Doha Climate Gateway". To me it looks like a gateway to probable inaction and climate catastrophe.
Delegates blatantly ignored the urgent warnings being screamed at them from all directions, and put off consideration of ramping up ambition until next year, or the one after that. They agreed an extension of Kyoto with meaninglessly weak 2020 targets and enough carried-over surplus permits to lock in business-as-usual for many countries until at least 2020. They failed to agree a pathway for global emissions or significant finance for poor countries. Meanwhile, our governments still expect us to wait until 2020 for a possible global binding regime. In the showdown between developed countries and small island states in Doha, rich countries won hands down. Ultimately, we all lose.
One of the most depressing parts of humanity's annual cycle of procrastination on the climate crisis is that after the conference fails to achieve much of significance, 195 government spin machines kick into action to sell the outcome as a step forward. This time the main justification is that Doha "crossed the bridge" to a new regime. Ministers say things like "where would we be if we had failed to agree and the process had collapsed?" While of course I don't want the climate talks to collapse, I don't think it has ever been likely and it occurs to me that it would have a bright side: there would no longer be a false sense of security that the climate crisis is being addressed.
The message that progress is being made is seductive to those of us desperate for climate action, but one we must see through. After the high-profile failure of Copenhagen, governments have gone into Cancun, Durban, and Doha conveying low expectations, which in many cases I suspect was a deliberate public relations strategy so that at any hint of incremental progress they could reemerge proclaiming they met or exceeded those expectations. It's a psychological manipulation technique called "under-promise and over-deliver". Judging outcomes relative to the expectations governments set for themselves is playing into the hands of the delayers. Instead outcomes must be judged on real-world merit, and in this context the Doha Climate Gateway is worse than nothing.
The climate talks have gone on my entire life, yet despite the negotiators' constant claims they are making progress, the situation has deteriorated at an accelerating rate. Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions have risen by 58% since 1990 and 2.6% this year (with most of the recent growth in China), and the Earth is headed for a catastrophic 4-6°C global warming by 2100, plus potentially large feedbacks and post-2100 warming. If we allow anywhere near that level of warming, humanity faces a very uncertain future. To be sure of preserving a habitable climate and avoiding feedbacks that could send climate change spiraling out of our control, we must aim to reduce CO2 to ~350 ppm (limiting warming to ~1°C). That means we must phase out fossil fuels globally as fast as possible. Politically, this has never looked more impossible.
Let's go through the outcomes, by negotiation stream, in the order I prioritized them beforehand.
Adequate ambition adjourned
Negotiating track name: Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) Workstream 2
Negotiating track purpose: Launched in 2011 to raise the ambition of voluntary pledges
What I wanted from Doha: Pledges increased before Kyoto 2 targets are decided, ideally by enough to close the ambition gap to limit global warming to <1.5°C
What Doha delivered: Ambition was the elephant in the room, sidelined in favor of competing negotiating streams. The ADP outcome did no more than plan future negotiations – what a waste of 12 months! It decides "to identify and explore in 2013 options for a range of actions that can close the pre-2020 ambition gap with a view to identifying further activities for its plan of work in 2014 ensuring the highest possible mitigation efforts under the Convention". I am pleased this time the decision clearly specifies pre-2020, but the vague timeline inspires little confidence that governments will treat 2014 as a solid deadline for ramping up ambition, let alone closing the gap. Any increase in pre-2020 ambition would remain non-binding for countries outside Kyoto. For some reason, a mention in a draft decision of sector-specific ambition was removed.
No major emitters made new emissions pledges or increased the inadequate ones they made in 2009 (though to their credit Monaco and the Dominican Republic did). If anything ambition went backwards in Doha, with some countries backing away from their existing pledges, as we shall see.
Obligatory objectives obstructed
Negotiating track name: Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP)
Negotiating track purpose: Launched in 2005 to negotiate a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (the first period ends this year)
What I wanted from Doha: A binding and enforceable five-year Kyoto 2 that covers as many countries as possible, does not lock in low ambition, and is not sabotaged by loopholes like dubious offset mechanisms, surplus permits, and the Australia clause
What Doha delivered: Delegates officially closed Kyoto 2 negotiations, amending the Kyoto Protocol to create a second period beginning next year. Kyoto 2 institutionalizes meaningless targets for its few remaining participants, further diluted by loopholes.
Countries that will have binding targets under Kyoto 2 encompass only 14% of global emissions: the 27 members of the EU, Australia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Switzerland, Norway, Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Monaco. The US, Russia, Japan, Canada, Turkey, and New Zealand are out; their excuse is Kyoto excludes developing countries, a complaint hard to take seriously coming from countries refusing to be covered themselves. Kyoto 2 will drag on until 2020, with mostly the same pathetic targets pledged in 2009; the aggregate target is only 18% below 1990. Several countries say they remain open to moving to the high end of the ranges they pledged in 2009, but their conditions for doing so will not be binding. Fortunately those targets are not set in stone: in 2014 there will be a ministerial roundtable where each party "may" raise its ambition toward at least 25-40% below 1990 by 2020. However, I fear the targets set in Doha will now be seen as the default pathway.
If future meetings fail to raise ambition, what emissions cuts will Kyoto deliver? Ukraine's, Kazakhstan's, and Belarus's targets to "cut" their emissions relative to 1990 actually allow their emissions to rise because their present levels are far below 1990 (in Doha, Kazakhstan further weakened its target). The EU's target of 20% below 1990 has already been achieved in 2012, allowing eight years of inaction. Croatia and Iceland intend to meet their targets jointly with the EU, and Australia will link to the EU ETS. Australia's target is a mere 0.5%below 1990 averaged over 2013-2020 (equivalent to 5% below 2000 in 2020). The most ambitious Kyoto targets are Switzerland's 15.8% below 1990 during 2013-2020 (20% below 1990 in 2020), Liechtenstein's 16% below 1990 during 2013-2020 (20% below 1990 in 2020), Norway's 16% below 1990 during 2013-2020 (30% below 1990 in 2020), and Monaco's 22% below 1990 during 2013-2020 (30% below 1990 in 2020). These four countries bound to make real emissions cuts account for less than 1% of global emissions.
These targets are further diluted by a long list of loopholes including offsets, land-use creative accounting, and surplus permits. Australia refused to sign up to Kyoto 2 unless these loopholes were preserved, and appears to have secured everything it wanted (though as we shall see, the role Australia played on surplus permits is complex and surprising). The "Australia clause", which allows creative accounting on land use, remains in effect.
Kyoto's market mechanisms remain in operation, allowing rich countries to avoid decarbonizing at home by importing dubious offsets (indeed, this seems to be Australia's main motivation for staying in Kyoto). This Wednesday, the prices of two types of Kyoto offsets crashed to record lows (15 cents and 31 cents respectively). Fortunately, despite the efforts of New Zealand, they will no longer be accessible to countries not bound by Kyoto 2. Strangely, New Zealand climate change minister Tim Groser claims they will stay open until 2016, something I can't find in the decision. Either way, the LCA decision agrees to develop a global market mechanism which would presumably be open to all countries.
Countries with surplus permits from the first period can choose to carry them over (three guesses what choice they're likely to make), albeit only if they have second period targets. I hope that means Russia will lose its surplus, the majority of the world's, but others with sizeable surpluses will keep them. Much has been made of the decision that countries will be allowed to trade only 2% of their surplus permits, and the promise to not buy them by the EU, Australia, Japan, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, and Switzerland. But what is far more important than such trade restrictions is that countries will be allowed to use their surplus permits to meet their targets, sabotaging not only Kyoto but potentially also a post-2020 regime.
In the final hours of Doha, the negotiations stalled when it transpired Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Australia – all countries with surplus permits – had neglected to submit the relevant paperwork. EU ministers retreated to another room to persuade Poland to support the text, while Australia (as leader of the Umbrella Group) persuaded Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. They succeeded in isolating Russia, and the Qatari COP18 President gaveled through all the decisions at 7pm Saturday, ignoring Russia's objections. Then UN climate chief Christiana Figueres claimed what Russia wanted is actually in the decision that was adopted.
The Kyoto amendment is not legal yet, and the decision merely "recognizes" countries "may" provisionally apply it before it is ratified and legally enters into force. I am pleased that targets in the second period, after being oddly referred to as "objectives" in Durban, are now again called "commitments", removing any ambiguity about whether they are legally equivalent to targets in the first commitment period. But even the original Kyoto was evidently not sufficiently enforceable, because Canada was able to completely flout its target and drop out last year without consequences. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to prevent such a situation recurring in the second period. Indeed, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are already considering not ratifying the amendment because of a clause added by AOSIS penalizing countries who do not cut emissions below 2008-2010 levels.
Discretionary deeds dawdled
Negotiating track name: Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA)
Negotiating track purpose: Launched in 2007 to negotiate by 2009 a global "agreed outcome" including a global emissions pathway, finance and technology for poor countries, and binding emissions targets for rich countries (which morphed into a system of voluntary 2020 pledges by willing rich and poor countries)
What I wanted from Doha: Completion of the LCA mandate, including a shared vision that global emissions will peak soon and clear commitments on climate finance
What Doha delivered: Delegates officially closed LCA negotiations, and the content of the decision is similarly underwhelming to Kyoto 2. It fails to specify a timeframe for peaking and declining global emissions; launches a review which is intended to assess progress toward existing voluntary pledges and consider raising ambition but will not be completed until 2015; fails to even mention accounting rules (apparently because the US, Canada, and New Zealand blocked progress on the topic); plans a new market mechanism; fails to agree on intellectual property; and handballs unresolved issues on assisting poor countries to institutions like the Green Climate Fund.
Voluntary pledges for 2020 remain inadequate. The US and Canada have each pledged to cut their emissions 17% below 2005, equivalent to returning to around 1990 levels. In Doha Russia backed away from its pledge to "cut" its emissions 25% relative to 1990, which in any case allows its emissions to rise from their present level of 34% below 1990. Japan has made no unconditional pledge and Turkey no pledge at all. New Zealand has pledged 10% below 1990. Of big developing emitters, only South Korea has pledged an unconditional absolute emissions cut. China's emissions are set to grow from 10 Gt CO2e today to 11-14 Gt in 2020, India's from 2 Gt to 3-5 Gt, Iran and Saudi Arabia have not made pledges, South Africa is unlikely to meet its pledge to approximately stabilize its emissions, Mexico and Brazil have pledged absolute emissions cuts conditional on finance, and Indonesia's emissions (mostly from forestry) are highly uncertain. Small island states are leading the world, pledging to cut their emissions by a collective 45% by 2030. In Doha the Dominican Republic pledged 25% below 2010 by 2030.
There was minimal progress on climate finance for developing countries, with several European countries making pledges totaling US$6 billion over the next three years. Developing countries wanted US$60 billion per year which, they pointed out, is the same amount Obama is seeking from Congress to deal with a single storm, Hurricane Sandy. Yet in Doha the richest countries in the world cried poor because of the global financial crisis, and Canada said it will not provide any climate finance until there is a global agreement. The LCA decision merely "urges" rich countries to "announce climate finance pledges when their financial circumstances permit" and "encourages" just US$10 billion per year, while "reaffirming" their promise, now described as a "goal", to scale up finance to US$100 billion per year by 2020. This is getting ridiculous.
A surprise victory by developing countries was an agreement acknowledging a need to talk about loss and damage, and agreeing to establish at COP19 a mechanism to address it. The US, Australia, and Canada fought hard against it, concerned it could open up rich countries to litigation. US delegate Todd Stern was allegedly overheard saying: "I will block this. I will shut this down." Small island states threatened to walk out if they did, saying the reason loss and damage is now being discussed is because rich countries have refused to cut their emissions. In the end the US made certain the decision did not include the word "compensation" or imply legal liability. Though thin on detail, it is important in that it opens the door.
I'm not sure what I think about the issue of loss and damage. I too am leery of potentially unlimited compensation claims. While I agree we rich countries have some obligation to help developing countries deal with a problem we caused, I don't want my country to bankrupt itself in the process. If anyone must pay for loss and damage, it should be fossil fuel companies. In any case, we should never have let global warming get to the stage where loss and damage is being discussed – yet another reason it is time to finally wake up and cut our emissions.
Pact participation procrastinated
Negotiating track name: Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) Workstream 1
Negotiating track purpose: Launched in 2011 to negotiate by 2015 "a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties" to begin in 2020
What I wanted from Doha: Implementation date brought forward
What Doha delivered: As with its other workstream, the ADP outcome did no more than plan future negotiations. Last year's promise to agree a possibly binding global regime "as early as possible but no later than 2015" is now definitely delayed until COP21 in 2015, and the implementation date remains 2020, which the UN itself says is too late to wait. Negotiations will continue at COP19 in 2013 and one or more interim conferences between now and then, and world leaders will attend COP20 in 2014 so a negotiating text can be available by May 2015.
There is still no clarity on the legal form or content of the post-2020 regime. We don't know how much legal force the outcome will have, or whether all countries will be equally bound, or how it will apply differently to rich and poor countries, or even whether it will include emissions targets. There were tantalizing signs the US might be shifting in its willingness to negotiate on the interpretation of "common but differentiated responsibilities", though the ADP decision again contained no mention of the principle.
Alternative action agreed
The US and several other countries agreed to act through a Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to cut short-lived climate pollutants, which are more powerful at trapping heat than carbon dioxide but do not linger in the atmosphere for as long (including methane, soot, ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons). This is good as far as it goes, but should not be considered a substitute for urgently phasing out fossil fuel CO2 emissions, a proportion of which will stay in the atmosphere for millennia.
Heroes and villains
Who were the heroes and villains of Doha?
- Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus insisted on keeping surplus permits and growing their emissions.
- The US, Canada, Russia, Japan, and New Zealand refused to raise their ambition or be bound by Kyoto, while continuing to play a blocking role on many issues. The US mostly stuck to its traditional obstructionism, though later appeared to soften slightly on CBDR.
- The EU and Australia refused to raise their ambition and took on meaningless Kyoto targets. The EU allowed itself to be held ransom by Poland, though some European countries made finance pledges. Australia advocated loopholes. However, the EU and Australia ultimately tried to isolate Russia.
- Big developing emitters kept a low profile. They demanded ambition from rich countries, but like the rich countries they did nothing to raise their own ambition.
- Qatar does not seem to have been a very helpful host. Seriously, why was such a fossil-fuelled country selected to host COP18?
- Small island states strongly advocated real ambition, plus loss and damage.
The Climate Action Network (CAN), which keeps delegations accountable with "Fossil of the Day" awards, gave New Zealand the year's "Colossal Fossil" award. New Zealand won 5 Fossils, followed by the US (5), Canada (4), the EU (2), Poland (2), Russia (2), Japan (2), Qatar (1), and Turkey (1). As was the case last year, I am frustrated Australia was not awarded any Fossils; while I'm sure there are plenty of candidates to choose from, I wish Australia's fossil-addiction would get more attention.
Common but differentiated responsibilities
The principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) acknowledges developed countries are responsible for the majority of carbon already in the atmosphere, have high per capita emissions, and have the means to act, obliging them to cut emissions first and fastest and help poor countries follow in their footsteps. I support this principle and oppose the unjust anti-CBDR position of the US and many other rich countries. However, the hardline developing country position, now personified by the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), has become equally unhelpful.
The LMDC demands rich countries take on ambitious binding targets without loopholes while poor countries are allowed to continue growing their emissions. Developing countries have legitimate grievances. They are by definition poor and most have low per capita emissions. Developed countries have flouted their obligations to lead or even to keep their promises. Rich countries are acting inequitably, but both they and big developing emitters are acting inconsistently with intergenerational justice.
As Nicholas Stern put it recently, arithmetic demands that emerging economies act. The majority of annual emissions now originate from developing countries; China in particular is responsible for 28% of global emissions, its per capita emissions are about to overtake the EU's, and its emissions are growing by 10% per year. Even the cumulative emissions of developing countries are projected to overtake developed countries within a few years. The situation is so urgent that all countries' emissions must peak and decline as soon as possible so global emissions can approach zero. Of course, I'm not saying poor countries should cut emissions as fast as rich ones. Rich countries should rapidly decarbonize their economies to buy some time for the emerging economies, but for sustained deep reductions in global emissions China and other large developing emitters must also start making absolute emissions cuts very soon. Maybe rich countries can help to pay for it, but the cuts must be made.
CO2 emissions by country type from 1990-2011. "Annex B" = developed countries; "Non-Annex B" = developing countries. (Source)
CO2 emissions from the current top four emitters during 1960-2011. (Source)
Many environmental groups back the LMDC position, yet it increasingly looks like an attempt to perpetuate deadlock rather than advance action, especially considering the LMDC's membership includes China, India, and oil-producing states. As important as justice is, sticking to entrenched positions will not save the climate. We don't have time to argue about it. The two sides on CBDR need to meet in the middle. We cannot compromise on ambition; we must compromise on CBDR.
The need for leadership
As I said after Durban, the present system of voluntary pledges will not work. Ambition is unlikely to be determined by science, with most countries continuing to cite the inaction of others as cover for their own. We need a global binding treaty which decides on a top-down target, preferably 350 ppm, and divides it up among all nations. A global problem requires a global solution. And the UN process is the only forum giving a voice to the greatest advocates of action, the small island states.
Having said that, since the climate talks have postponed a global treaty until it will be too late, radical unilateral action is needed to get a momentum for multilateral agreement. Willing countries should not limit themselves to pursuing a top-down treaty and implementing their inadequate existing targets, but instead use every lever at their disposal to accelerate climate action from the bottom up. Australia should aim for zero emissions unconditional on international action, start phasing out its fossil fuel exports, and play a constructive role in climate talks.
It is clear that what is holding back ambition in global climate talks is the fossil fuel lobby's stranglehold on the domestic politics of most countries. Instead of democratic government by the people for the people, we have undemocratic government by the corporations for the corporations. Business lobbyists have privileged access to the political system, and the fossil fuel industry is using it to sabotage climate policies. People power is urgently needed to counter corporate power. We must find ways to reduce and counter the influence of money in politics, and demand radical climate action from our governments.
We cannot sit and wait for the politicians to decide our future. We must pressure our governments to close the ambition gap at COP19… in Warsaw, Poland.


text:
Delhi Men Say Sorry
By Joanna Sugden
Before Yohan Sudheer put up his banner apologizing to Delhi women for the behavior of Indian men, a security guard stepped in to share his opinion on the matter.
"He took me aside and said 'You know, in that rape case that it was the woman's fault because of the way she was behaving on the bus,'" said Mr. Sudheer, recalling the conversation at the small gathering at Jantar Mantar, a popular protest ground in New Delhi, Saturday.
Mr. Sudheer, 20, says the security guard was trying to convince him that men should not be held responsible for sexually assaulting women, including in the Delhi rape case, because they should dress more conservatively.
"This is what we're up against," said Mr. Sudheer.
India for Integrity, the campaign group of which he is part, met this weekend along with Delhi Bikers, local motorbike enthusiasts, to offer what they called "a public apology from Delhi men to Delhi women" and to commit to change men's attitudes towards females.
"In the protests after the Delhi gang rape everyone was talking about punishment for the perpetrators but no one was asking 'How can I change and make Delhi better and respect women more?'" said Jonathan Abraham, 30, one of the founders of India for Integrity.
The group was set up by friends in the wake of the anti-corruption movement in India in 2011.
"The idea of this event is to get men to think more introspectively and to take responsibility," added Mr. Abraham who is a corporate trainer in the city.
On International Women's Day earlier this month a significant number of men joined mainly female protesters calling for greater safety and freedom for women in India.
But Saturday's event was entirely male as 50 or so men gathered in New Delhi and posed with signs saying "Delhi women, I'm sorry, I'm changing" and wrote out their own pledges including "I will change my views on Delhi women."
Among those issuing an apology was Shorya Bisla, 23, dressed in a black biker vest and red neckerchief. "I might never consciously have disrespected women, but I feel that I have been mute when the people around me have," said Mr. Bisla who works in marketing.
Paul Narjinary, 38, said he was taking part as an example to other men. "If hard core bikers can humble themselves and respect women, other men will start realizing that their own attitudes need to change," Mr. Narjinary said.
Sanjay Kumar, a newspaper distributor, said he saw the men's demonstration and decided to join in. "I saw the topic and thought there had been so many protests but this one was different," Mr. Kumar, 34, said.
"Instead of pointing the finger at each other you have to look at yourself and it's really important for men to start by saying sorry," he added.
Numbers at the protest were lower than hoped but the organizers said this was to be expected.
"We get messages on our Facebook page asking why men needed to apologize and saying women should change what they're wearing," Mr. Abraham said.
"Taking responsibility and saying sorry is going head to head with a completely different mind set held by many men in the city," he added.
Geom Abraham, 31, who works for a healthcare NGO, said he was not disheartened by the small turn out. "The ripple will not end here," he said. "People will hear about it on the Internet and the conversation will continue."
Joanna Sugden is freelance journalist living in Delhi. Before coming to India in 2011 she spent four-and-a-half years as a reporter at The Times of London, covering religion and education. You can follow her on Twitter @jhsugden.
Follow India Real Time on Twitter @indiarealtime.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
It takes a lot to upstage John Malkovich in a movie, but his fashion-victim outfits as veteran trainer Lucien Laurin in "Secretariat" come pretty close.
PopcornBiz just had to ask the legendary actor, after seeing his various outlandish outfits, if he had kept even one from the wardrobe department. The response was a simple, forlorn "nooo" given with downcast eyes.
"It's unbelievable how ugly those things were," he says. Really? We thought they were kind of sharp.
During the press conference for the film, Malkovich continued to talk about the Secretariat-era fashion. To summarize, 1973 was a great year for a great tale about faith, courage and horse-racing in the retelling of Secretariat's triple-crown achievement.
But it was a terrible year for clothing.
"It seems 1973 was really the nadir of this history of fashion," he said. "When you watch the races on YouTube, you are sort of blown away by the astonishing ugliness of it all."
"It just blinds you."
He even admits that his outfits for the film (out on Friday), however crazy, were relatively tame compared to the real thing.
"They were actually kind of conservative," he admits.
So while he didn't line his wardrobe, Malkovich says the movie gave other benefits to his lifestyle.
"Unlike my grandfather and my older brother, I've actually been able to make some money at the racetrack," he says. "That's a family first. So it has great meaning to me."


text:
Louboutin's last stand: reply brief claims YSL's only excuse is "fashion made them do it"
This could be a big week for fashion law. On Tuesday, Christian Louboutin S.A. filed its reply brief in -- oh, you know which case...
And tomorrow, the district court is scheduled to decide whether to grant Louboutin its requested preliminary injunction. For reasons explained by LAW OF FASHION last week, a decision in favor of either Louboutin or Yves Saint Laurent could effectively end the case. So what does Louboutin have to say for itself? Like last time, let's skip the small talk and go straight to the brief (italics, bold, hyperlinks, and [bracketed portions] mine, except where noted):
- Louboutin is not, "as YSL misleadingly argues, [trying] to claim a monopoly over the color red . . . . But when YSL ignores countless color choices, including other reds, and apes the famous signature of the LOUBOUTIN brand[, it destroys] the goodwill painstakingly built in the Red Sole Mark. Other competitors will likely join YSL with their own red soles. Unless this court enjoins [i.e., stops] YSL, the floodgates will open, and the Louboutin business will be devastated."
- Louboutin has engaged in "substantially exclusive use" of the Red Sole Mark for "over 19 years." Against a "tsunami of undisputed evidence, YSL [makes a] bogus argument that [the relevant consumer] does not connect 'red soles exclusively with Louboutin'" [when that] is exactly what the undisputed evidence proves." (Emphasis Louboutin's.)
- YSL cites "random internet offers to show that [non-Louboutin] red-soled shoes are available in the United States" but this is merely "an attempt to mislead this Court. The shoes shown are for the most part eBay offers, which are one and two-offs and [thus] meaningless." Further, "[v]irtually all of the shoes shown [by YSL] have been either rejected as non infringing by Louboutin or [are] the subject of policing actions, which are ongoing . . . . The presence of copyists in the marketplace is in fact an affirmation of strong secondary meaning [among consumers.]"
- The Trademark Office has "warn[ed] of potential confusion in using the term 'aesthetic functionality.'" Color is protectible as a trademark whenever it "is not 'essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it does not affect the cost or quality of the article,' that is, if exclusive use of the feature would not put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.'" The mere fact that Louboutin uses role soles because they are "engaging" or "flirtatious" does not make the Red Sole Mark aesthetically functional. If the court denies YSL the right to use bright-red soles, the company will not suffer a significant aesthetic disadvantage because it will still be able to make its shoes "engaging" and "flirtatious" by using "[e]ven Louboutin's red . . . on other, more visible, parts of the shoe." And of course, a "trademark for a shoe's outsole also does not prevent use by others of many shades of red (as well as other colors)."
- "The world of fashion is no exception; [past cases demonstrate that] color marks are protectible against infringers." [Ed. Recall that YSL framed the issue more narrowly: "we are unaware of any case in which a court has upheld trademark protection to a mark consisting solely of a single color on a portion of an article of apparel." This sort of issue-framing is a big part of what litigators do: strategic spin to get away from bad precedent, get closer to good precedent, or win the judge over when there is no precedent on point.]
- "Contrary to claims in [YSL's materials]," Louboutin's survey "showed actual street conditions and was not 'leading'; many features of the shoe were on display." [Ed. YSL argued that Louboutin's survey was flawed, in part because it focused "unnaturally" on the sole of the shoe.] "[I]t is not surprising that fewer identified the YSL shoes as Louboutin [in YSL's survey, because the defendant gave] respondents only a fleeting glance at the trademark (only a few of the 17 seconds of video) and made no effort to determine if respondents had seen the red soles."
- "Unable to refute the evidence, YSL proffers an excuse: fashion made them do it. . . . But fashion creates no need to copy Louboutin's red sole on a shoe, 'monochrome' or otherwise, when so many choices of color and color placement exist."
Louboutin and YSL basically talk past each other on the post-sale confusion and "fair use" issues. It's probably safe to say that judges (or at least the overburdened clerks who take the first pass at reading briefs, and have to research critical issues dodged by the parties) usually don't like this. In LOF's view, Louboutin's perfunctory treatment (just eleven lines of text) of YSL's "fair use" claim is misguided, since -- as indicated in the previous post on the case -- the judge could potentially avoid answering some of the thornier questions raised by this dispute simply by disposing of it on fair use grounds.
In any event, we don't have long to wait to see whose arguments will carry the day; as WWD reports, the court will decide whether to grant the preliminary injunction tomorrow. Sadly, the ruling will be issued too late in the day for inclusion in this writer's Friday fashion law roundup on Styleite.com, CATWALK JUSTICE. But naturally, LOF will let you know what happens... after all, the fate of red-soled shoes hangs in the balance.
[This post does not constitute legal advice or form an attorney-client relationship with any person or entity. The parties' briefs have intentionally been chopped apart and pieced back together, for ease of reading. Although it should go without saying, the parties may not have intended the passages in the manner LOF has characterized them here. To see the court filings in their entirety, go to Scribd.]


text:
Alzheimer's disease is the nation's sixth-leading cause of death. An estimated 5.4 million Americans are living with the disease and nearly 15 million are acting as caregivers. It's time to take action and change the course of this epidemic!
That's why I'm taking the field with the Association Blondes vs. Brunettes®, a nationwide women's flag-football league created to advance the care, support and research efforts of the Alzheimer's Association. My teammates and I are training and preparing for game day, but win or lose, our true goal is a world without Alzheimer's.
I need your support to do my part! Please make a donation to help the Alzheimer's Association advance research to discover methods of prevention, treatment and ultimately, a cure for Alzheimer's. For the millions already affected by the disease, the Association offers care, education, support and resources in communities nationwide.
Thank you in advance for your generosity – together, we can tackle Alzheimer's disease.


text: Dellorto pilot jets for 19-21mm PHBG - PHBD carburettors. The pilot jets are responsible for the mixture at low revs. Problems can occur if the item ordered is in any way wrong. If the pilot jets are too small, the engine will cut out at lower revs. In some cases, adjusting the idle can be problematic and the engine can be prone to cutting out. If the jets are too large, the engine will stutter and have poor pickup and run too rich. Different pilot jets are available and the size is generally stamped on the jet. You will receive the size indicated by the product description.


text:
Joedward wrote:A pre-emptive apology if this is a dumb question, but would it be considered cheating to make a ship that was longer than 48 studs, if it fit inside the baseplate limitations diagonally?
I don't know, but I think they would say no. They've already said that "48 studs is large enough" and I think they might not deal with any longer.
Also, can we post a WIP on other websites for feedback/suggestions?


text:
Border security in immigration bill
In a direct appeal to Republicans, the Senate Judiciary Committee made the first major change to the bipartisan immigration bill, agreeing Thursday to require the government to achieve "effective control" of the entire Southern border, not just high-risk areas.
This one amendment alone isn't likely to sway undecided Republicans and guarantee Senate passage, but it helps the Gang of Eight build a case that it's addressing GOP demands for an open committee process and tighter border security measures.
Story Continued Below
( PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform)
Supporters of the amendment said it wouldn't delay the path to citizenship, but it could add to the cost of the measure by requiring another $2 billion to be spent on securing the border over the next decade.
Gang of Eight members say they agreed to the proposal from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to show they are willing to making changes. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a key member of the Gang of Eight, has said the bill needs stronger border provisions or it would struggle to pass the Senate and fail in the House.
( Also on POLITICO: GOP sharpens knives for immigration)
The amendment passed on an unanimous voice vote, signaling that it was uncontroversial to the committee. But if the legislation moves much further to the right, negotiators risk losing support from Democrats, who view spending more money along the border as unnecessary after years of significant investments.
"This improves it," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leader of the Gang of Eight.
In another bipartisan boost, the committee cleared a plan backed by its chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) intended to give the Department of Homeland Security more flexibility in how it uses funds set aside for fencing.
The first day of the bill's markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on border security triggers and other enforcement measures — a nod to Republicans pressuring colleagues for tougher measures before a pathway to citizenship opens for immigrants living without documents in the country.
Thus far, the four members of the Gang of Eight who sit on the committee have held together to turn back amendments that they view as poison pills.
A more restrictive border security amendment that would have required "effective control" of the southern border before allowing illegal immigrants to apply for the registered provisional status failed by a 6-12 vote.
Reform backers argued that doing so would substantially halt the legalization process for unauthorized immigrants. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) called it a "wrong approach," and Schumer said the legalization process would be delayed, "probably forever." Another aggressive move by Republicans — led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — to bolster security by multiplying agents and other resources along the border was also defeated.
The Grassley amendment that passed the committee would set up more requirements for the government to meet before it can begin issuing green cards to undocumented immigrants, and makes it more likely that the Southern Border Security Commission would be established.
The measure would require"effective control" of the entire Southern border, which means the government must catch at least 90 percent of border crossers and maintain "persistent surveillance." If the benchmark isn't met in each of the first five years after the bill is enacted, the commission of governors and congressional appointees would make recommendations to the president on how to achieve the border security goals. Another $2 billion would also be made available.
The chief authors of the 844-page bill opened Thursday's markup by defending the plan while urging skeptical colleagues to propose fixes to the bill.
"Be constructive. We are open to changes," Schumer said. "But don't make an effort to kill a bill that is the best hope for immigration reform [we've had] in this country."
Critics cited several flaws in the legislation — particularly in the area of border security.
"If we pass the bill as is, there will be no pressure on this administration or a future administration or those … in Congress to secure the border," said Grassley, calling enforcement mechanisms in the legislation "weak."
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) criticized the bill's "extraordinarily rushed process."


text:
Harnessing the Power of Symbols
You may not even realize it, but your life is shaped by symbols that are passed to you or inherited from your culture, your race, your peer and social groups, and your family. Newspapers, magazines, TV, and movies have a similar impact. Discovering how these symbols affect your life is essential to understanding how the tarot works. These symbols or archetypes — ideas or ways of thinking inherited from all these sources and present in your subconscious — are the models that you pattern your life after.
Archetypes are embedded in your subconscious — the part of your mind that is free from conscious awareness. Here's an example: The picture symbol of an evergreen tree decorated with lights and other ornaments is an archetype for Christmas. Without consciously thinking about it, you are prompted to think of snow and Christmas presents when you see a picture like this. (And depending on your past experiences, you may feel anything from excitement and hope to depression and anxiety.) Archetypes send shorthand messages to your subconscious and conscious minds, which elicit varying responses.
Personal and impersonal (universal) archetypes
There are both personal and impersonal (universal) archetypes or concepts. Personal archetypes are based on your particular experiences whereas impersonal or universal archetypes are based on the experiences of humanity as a whole.
The concept of a horse demonstrates the difference between personal and impersonal archetypes. If you say the word horse to one person, it evokes particular associations — images, thoughts, and feelings. One person may associate a horse with fun and freedom, while another (who has been thrown from ahorse) associates it with fear and pain. These are personal archetypes. The impersonal, universal archetype — a symbol's mythical and/or culturally based meaning — exists in the collective unconscious. The universal archetypes associated with horse include honor, a rise in status, and spiritual or magical, mystical journeys to other worlds. When interpreting tarot cards, both personal and impersonal archetypes should be considered for a balanced perspective. One of the goals of tarot interpretation is bringing these perspectives together.
Although archetypes of both types are powerful, they're not set in stone. Before the invention of the car, the universal archetype of a horse signified honor and status. Luxury cars now signify some of the same things horses once did. Personal archetypes obviously can change as you gain more experiences. If you're fearful of horses, being nuzzled by a foal while feeding her carrots can turn that fearful association around.
Life is a set of pictures. When we change our worn-out associations with these pictures, we change ourselves and, inadvertently, the world around us!
Personal and universal archetypes project ideas that can help you learn about how you should behave and what's important in life. For example, say that a young man keeps seeing the archetype of marriage on the screen of his life because one friend after another gets married. Soon he starts thinking things like, "All my friends are getting married. I'd better start dating more people so I can get married too." Or, conversely, "All my friends are getting married, but my parents got divorced. I'm not going to get married because I know it just leads to pain down the road."
Archetypal patterns take root through duplication. If a symbol keeps bombarding you, it has a good chance of influencing your life. For instance, tattoos have come into fashion. You notice a coffee table book at a large bookstore featuring tattoo art from all over the world. The latest edition of your favorite music and fashion magazine features tattooed performers and models. Without realizing it, you find yourself admiring tattooed bodies at your health club. Your best friend gets a tattoo, and another is talking about designing her own. Because the image keeps coming at you — or duplicating itself — you may soon begin daydreaming about the kind of tattoo you'd like and where you'd put it.
Collective unconscious
Your subconscious mind is always receptive and suggestible. These traits make the subconscious mind very similar to what we call the collective unconscious, or the "mass mind." The collective unconscious is a collection of memories of all human experiences from the beginning of time. You and everyone else on the planet can tap into the collective unconscious, which is also receptive and suggestible. The subconscious is like a stream, and the collective unconscious is like a river: One flows into the other, and sometimes you don't know which is which. The subconscious and the collective unconscious wield influence over your life that you may not yet be aware of.
Here's an example of how the collective unconscious might affect you. Movies, TV, newspapers, and books often suggest that dark haired, swarthy men wearing sunglasses and shiny suits are mobsters. Unless consciously challenged, this collection of thoughts becomes part of your personal subconscious. When your college roommate's father shows up for graduation looking like this archetype, you automatically starting thinking "mobster," whether it's true or not.


text:
|Land Matters Discussion Area Discussion Relating to Your Land/Legislative Issues
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Recreational Trails Program about to get Spiked!
U.S. Senate panel wants to kill trail funding program
November 04, 2011
A U.S. Senate committee has unveiled a draft proposal that would end the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), which provides money to states to develop and maintain trails, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.
On Nov. 4, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released its proposed transportation funding authorization bill for the next two years, entitled "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century" (MAP-21). The bill specifies what transportation programs are approved for federal funding. The panel is expected to vote on the bill on Nov. 9 before sending it to the full Senate for approval. If it clears the Senate, then it would go to the House for further consideration.
The RTP, which became law in 1991 as part of a federal transportation funding authorization bill, is considered to be one of the most important and beneficial laws for off-highway vehicle (OHV) riders ever passed by Congress.
AMA President and CEO Rob Dingman, who had a hand in creating the law in 1991 with BlueRibbon Coalition founder Clark Collins, has stated that abolishing the program would effectively create a tax increase on OHV riders because the RTP funds would no longer be designated for a program that benefits motorized trail users.
Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations, was shocked by the committee's proposal.
"Motorcyclists should not be cut short," Allard said. "They pay the gasoline taxes that go to sustain the trails program. Many interests pull from the highway fund and do not pay into it. It becomes akin to a tax increase to the general fund.
"This program was created for trail users and is self-funded by the highway fuel taxes of trail users," Allard said. "Trail users see this program as a very essential part of their chosen form of recreation, and there's no reason to eliminate the program. The RTP pays for itself."
Funds for the RTP come from the federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the federal motor fuel excise tax collected from non-highway recreational fuel use. In other words, taxes generated by fuel used for OHV recreation -- by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles and off-highway light trucks -- fund the RTP.
The RTP provides funds to the states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. The RTP is an assistance program of the U.S. Transportation Department's Federal Highway Administration. The RTP program benefits hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, off-road motorcycling, ATV riding, four-wheel driving, or using other off-road motorized vehicles.
"I urge all concerned riders to contact the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and ask them to support continued funding for the Recreational Trails Program," Allard said. "Money for the program comes from off-highway riders, and should continue to be used to benefit off-highway riders."
The easiest way to contact lawmakers is by going to AmericanMotorcyclist.com > Rights > Issues & Legislation.
The members of the committee are Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Thomas Carper (D-Del.), Michael Crapo (R-Idaho) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
Also, Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), David Vitter (R-La.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
From American Motorcyclist Asc.
Dave Walters
Tri-Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator
WOHVA Board member
It's a Scout thing
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
HQ ACTION ALERT - Congress Attempts to Steal OHV Money from RTP
Earlier this year, I testified before the California State Legislature urging them not to steal money from the user-pay/user-benefit CA OHV Trust Fund. They were informed such an action would create an even greater distrust of state government if they did so. But as many of you already know, they took votes to approve the theft when pro-trail politicians were absent (using the sanitation facilities for 5 mins.) from the committee.
HQ Blog on the Stealing of CA OHV Trust Funds
Info and Copy of Letter to CA State Legislature
Now it seems our federal elected officials plan to steal and/or gut the Recreation Trails Program (a national version more or less of the CA OHV Program).
HQ wants to issue a national all hands on deck alert asking you to send a letter to your Congressional representative on this issue. Both AMA and ARRA have set up easy to use (I used them myself) alerts with letters they will send for you.
AMA Alert with Letter to Save RTP
ARRA Alert with Letter to Save RTP (go to Action Needed Section and click on RTP)
HQ says, good luck to future government bodies who ask us to pay our own way on recreation projects. What sort of message is government sending when it breaks a promise and then steals or guts a non-taxpayer funded user-pay/user-benefit dedicated fiscal stream to OHV and other forms of recreation? Talk about a thumb in the eye!
Posted by Don Amador at 6:39 AM 1 comments
Labels: congress stealing funds, Don Amador, raiding OHV trust fund, RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM, RTP
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Dave Walters
Tri-Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator
WOHVA Board member
It's a Scout thing
BRC Working With The CRT to SAVE RTP!
The Recreational Trails Program is in very deep trouble. The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved transportation reauthorization legislation known as MAP-21 that would effectively eliminate the RTP by stripping the program of its dedicated funding.
But all hope is not lost.
As a member of the national Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT), BRC has been working closely with CRT and its member organizations to identify key champions in the Senate with the aim of having an amendment restoring dedicated funding for the RTP added to the bill before it is considered by the full Senate.
Reaching this goal will not be possible without your help.
As part of an ongoing and historic grassroots effort from both motorized and non-motorized recreationists, groups of the CRT will be taking turns on a defined schedule to contact and tell their Senators to protect dedicated funding for this absolutely essential program. Everyone will also be contacting leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee, including Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Subcommittee Ranking Member David Vitter (R-LA).
On the week that it is our scheduled turn to contact our Senators, the BlueRibbon Coalition will be making a concentrated effort to get our members and supporters to do their part and make those calls.
Stand by, our week is coming and we want to make it our best effort. We will notify you!
We are excited and pleased to take part in this groundswell of grassroots effort by all enthusiasts across the nation. We believe this will make a difference and ensure that RTP is funded into the future. We need to show the United States Senate just how many Americans are committed to the Recreational Trails Program. In working together, the very backbone of trails in America can be saved.
Again, stay tuned and get ready! Our week to make those calls is coming soon, and we will send out a call to action.
In the meantime, as you are thinking about this consider these key messages:
Unless the bill is changed, MAP-21 will effectively eliminate the Recreational Trails Program.
A call to amend MAP-21 to include dedicated funding for RTP.
For the last two decades, RTP has received a portion of the gas taxes paid by users of off-highway motorized vehicles to fund trail building, maintenance and other trail-related projects. More than 13,000 projects have been funded across the country for all kinds of trail uses. This is a very successful program.
At its current level of annual funding - $85 million - RTP receives less than 42% of the Federal Highway Administration's conservative estimate of the federal gas taxes paid by America's non-highway recreationists. The Senate bill would reduce that percentage to zero and represents a substantial new tax on motorized recreation enthusiasts.
The return of gas taxes to trail users through the RTP is in keeping with the user-pay, user benefit philosophy of the Highway Trust Fund. Ending dedicated funding for RTP takes these gas taxes away from the people who pay them. Ending dedicated funding for RTP is bad public policy and just plain wrong.
The RTP is the foundation of state trail programs. If the RTP loses its dedicated funding, organized trail planning and development will simply vanish in many areas of the country.
Dave Walters
Tri-Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator
WOHVA Board member
It's a Scout thing
RTP at a critical stage in Washington DC
U.S. Senate spending bill drops RTP's dedicated funding
Immediate action requested
Dear BRC members and subscribers,
The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) faces a critical hurdle in Washington DC. As you know, a portion of the tax you pay when you fill up your snowmobile, ATV, Dirt Bike, 4X4 or PWC is made available to develop and maintain thousands of miles of motorized (and non-motorized) trails across the nation.
But with the need to tighten the budget, some in Washington are looking at YOUR off-highway tax dollars as easy picking. For years the taxes you pay when you ride off-highway were dedicated to off-highway vehicle trails.
BRC is working with other national motorized and non-motorized advocacy groups in an effort to ensure tax fairness for OHV users who contribute tens of millions of dollars in gas taxes.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to consider legislation that would eliminate the RTP program's dedicated funding, and we need your help.
We are mindful not to constantly "spam" our members with endless action alerts. Our approach is to only send action alerts when it is critical and when efforts by our members will have a positive effect.
Folks, this is one of those times. The long-term viability of the RTP program is entering a critical stage. We need your help now to stop the Senate from stripping the dedicated funding from RTP.
Americans for Responsible Recreation, one of BRC's many partners, has a "click and send" email.
Thanks in advance and, as always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact BRC.
Brian Hawthorne
Public Lands Policy Director
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 102
Dave Walters
Tri-Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator
WOHVA Board member
It's a Scout thing
RTP Update - Sen. Klobuchar to Offer Amendment to Restore RTP
Urge your Senators to Support Amendment
Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,
We have an important addition to our previous update on the RTP program.
We have good news to report! Minnesota Senator Klobuchar is planning to offer an amendment to the senate transportation spending bill that would fully restore RTP funding.
This is huge news. If successful, both the House and Senate spending bills will protect the RTP program. At least for the time being!
Legislation looms that would eliminate the RTP's dedicated funding. BRC and other national OHV groups will continue our vigilance. Gas taxes paid by OHV users must be spent on OHV use and the RTP program is a successful self-funding "user pay user benefit" program.
Larry Smith and the folks over at Americans for Responsible Recreational Access (ARRA) have another easy "click and send" email.
Please click to send an email to your Senators encouraging them to support the Klobuchar amendment!
Ric Foster
Public Lands Department Manager
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 107
Dave Walters
Tri-Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator
WOHVA Board member
It's a Scout thing
Key Senators announce support of RTP amendment.
Critical vote soon. Calls are STILL needed!
Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,
Calls from recreational users, both motorized and non-motorized, are coming in by the hundreds, and Senators are responding! We just received word that North Carolina Senator Richard Burr, New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Idaho Senator James Risch all signed on as co-sponsors of the Senate Rec Trails Amendment. See our previous alert here.
This is good news, but more calls and emails are needed. If you haven't already, please take advantage of ARRA's click-and-send webpage here.
Want to be even more effective? Take your OHV advocacy the next step. Contact your senator directly via phone with a simple message: "I support Minnesota Senator Klobuchar's amendment to the Senate transportation spending bill (S.1813)" (More info here)
To find the U.S. Senate office nearest you, click HERE and type in your zip code. Do it now!
Ric Foster
Public Lands Department Manager
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 107
Dave Walters
Tri-Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator
WOHVA Board member
It's a Scout thing
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Linear Mode


text:
July 24 (Reuters) - U.S. financial regulators are planning to relax a key provision that requires banks to withhold a portion of the mortgage securities they sell to investors, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp are among regulators considering loosening rules governing mortgage-backed securities, but nothing has been finalized yet, the Journal said.
Changing such rules would mean unwinding the regulations that came into effect under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which mandates that banks should retain 5 percent of all mortgage-backed securities issued without government backing.
The change would represent a victory for banks and consumer advocates that opposed the new rules and argued that they would restrict lending and do little to make the financial system safer, the newspaper said.


text:
Hello all,
It is easy to find results on reflecting holomorphic functions over circles and lines, but I am wondering what there is for reflecting over smooth curves, or analytic arcs, etc. In particular, I am interested in the conformal map f from the upper half-plane to $\{x+yi : y>1/(1+x^2)\} $ which maps $0$ to $i$ and fixes infinity (so, say, maps $i$ to $2i$). It seems to me that I should be able to extend $f$ to be analytic in a neighborhood of infinity, but I cannot find a reference. Any help will be appreciated.


text:
Since 1968
300 West 2nd Street (Intersection of Hwy 6 & Hwy 281)
Hico, TX 76457 254-796-4839
Open 7 days 6:00 am - 9:30 pm
Certificates Available!
**Free Wi-Fi
just ask your waiter or waitress for the code!
RV parking behind the restaurant!
Baking is a specialty at the Koffee Kup. Donuts and breads are customer favorites, but it's our PIES that are talked about the most. Our delicious flavors are baked fresh in our own kitchen. The Koffee Kup offers everything from Coconut and Peanut Butter with tall Meringue to Black Forest and Banana Blueberry and Doctor's Office Icebox pies. Whole pies or slices to go. Whichever pie you order, we know you'll be back for more!
Thanks for dropping by! Lynn, Irene & Pat To go orders call 254-796-4839
Website powered by Network Solutions®


text:
The authors of a recent New York Times opinion piece want to rain on the parade of anyone who thought they might be able to succeed by working really hard. Luckily, their arguments aren't very convincing.
Boatloads of authors and hundreds of studies have shown that people can achieve great things with dedication and practice. But David Z. Hambrick and Elizabeth J. Meinz attempt to pooh-pooh all that work with just two (two!) studies they say fly in the face of this idea.
The authors write:
...compared with the participants who were 'only' in the 99.1 percentile for intellectual ability at age 12, those who were in the 99.9 percentile — the profoundly gifted — were between three and five times more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work. A high level of intellectual ability gives you an enormous real-world advantage.
Seems to me it should say intellectual ability gives the profoundly gifted enormous real-world advantage.
They also write that another study found that the best piano players practiced the most. But the study also found that "working memory capacity" contributed about 7 per cent to their abilities. "In other words, if you took two pianists with the same amount of practice, but different levels of working memory capacity, it's likely that the one higher in working memory capacity would have performed considerably better on the sight-reading task."
OK. But isn't it also possible the most-practised piano players would develop advanced "working memory capacities" over time?
I emailed David Shenk, the author of one of my all-time favourite books The Genius in All of Us (nearly half of the book, by the way, is a scientific bibliography backing up his conclusions) to see if he was as irritated as I was. Seems he was:
It's a real shame to see obviously clever scientists grab attention by squeezing the nuance out of a subject. In the apparent view of this piece, a small army of careful researchers and writers — including Malcolm Gladwell, Geoff Colvin, Daniel Coyle, Anders Ericsson, Carol Dweck, Angela Duckworth, Jonah Lehrer, David Brooks, and me, all of us trying to give 'talent' and 'intelligence' a fuller, richer meaning grounded in the science of developmental systems — are actually ideological-wishers writing the 'story we want to want to hear.' Seriously? That's tossing a pretty big bucket of paint.
Shenk told me he's writing his own response piece — stay tuned!
No one ever said "talent" doesn't matter. But it's also important to define talent. Is talent really just what you were born with, i.e. your DNA plus your neuron-firing capabilities (and even those are known to improve with practice!)? I think most people would agree that talent is the sum of many things including your genes, practice time and your environment.
Even Einstein knew he wasn't born a genius. As he put it: "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."
Image: Shutterstock/Dmitri Shironosov


text:
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Loving my iPhone!
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Just recently I've been seeing and noticing elephants everywhere! A few weeks ago I saw the Samsung Elephant Ad , and watching that le...
Do you ever just need to be alone? source As the boys are growing up, we have more times when the house is quiet. The youngest will ...
Yes, you read that right. For the past three or so years the Grumpy Old Man and I have been wondering what the hell is going on that we...


text:
Bob's Brown Ale by Georgetown Brewing: In Memory of Bob Hirsch
Long time friend of Georgetown Brewing Co. owners & brewers, Bob Hirsch, died of cancer just after his 21st birthday. He was an inspiration to many and the inspiration behind Bob's Brown Ale. Every year, Georgetown Brewing Co. releases Bob's Brown Ale in honor and in memory of their dear friend. 100%, yes 100%, of all profits made from this beer go to the charity chosen by Bob's family, the Ronald McDonald House.
Below is an excerpt from a press release provided by the Seattle Ronald McDonald House about the upcoming release party:
Seattle, WA–Georgetown Brewing Company celebrates the release of its special brew, Bob's Brown Ale, on Friday May 14, 2010 (Bob's Birthday) at 6PM at the Nickerson Street Saloon, 318 Nickerson Street, Seattle.
The goal for the 2010 release of Bob's Brown Ale is to raise $50,000 to support the Seattle Ronald McDonald House, which will provide 28,000 nights of housing this year for families with seriously ill children. Since first brewing in 2006, Bob's Brown Ale has raised more than $113,000 for the Seattle Ronald McDonald House.
Bob's Brown Ale is not only one of the delicious beers brewed by local favorites, it is a beer that commemorates a life and gives others hope. So this Friday, May 14, 2010, drink for a cause.
Also, starting on May 14, several bars and restaurants will have Bob's Brown Ale on tap – click here for a complete list. Please visit.


text:
Amid New Car Boom, Used Cars Are Gold
Fewer Late Model Cars Send Prices Higher; Dealer Cruises Internet for Trade-Ins
A few weeks ago, Justin Severson put an ad on Craigslist to sell his 13-year old Honda, and within a few minutes an eager and unexpected buyer was on the phone—a local auto dealer named Doug Waikem.
Mr. Severson drove his Accord to the dealer's showroom two days later and picked up $5,200 in cash. The dealer "gave me a fair price and it was handled within a few days," said the 31-year-old Uniontown, Ohio, resident.


text:
NYC: Major Darfur Rally
"Save Darfur Now: Voices to End Genocide� will be held at the East Meadow in Central Park near the intersection of 5th Avenue and 97th Street. The rally will coincide with the 61st meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, and activists call on UN to deploy a peacekeeping force
(Fiasco and friends join in Save Darfur Now campaign).
Hip Hop artist Lupe Fiasco, multi-platinum, award-winning duo Big & Rich, and popular rock group O.A.R. will appear at "Save Darfur Now: Voices to End Genocide" in New York City on September 17 (www.savedarfur.org/now).
The rally will be held in the East Meadow of New York's Central Park and will be the centerpiece event in a global day for Darfur (www.dayfordarfur.org), as individuals across the globe will call for the immediate deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur, Sudan.
"It is an honor to help raise awareness for such an important event," said Amanda Lugg, community advocate for the Harlem-based African Services Committee, who has recruited more than two dozen members of New York City's African community to attend the rally. "With an event of such magnitude in our backyard and an issue so critical, we recognize the need to demonstrate our abhorrence of genocide and make our voices heard."
Since 2003, the Sudanese government-sponsored genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan has killed over 400,000 men, women, and children, forced 2.5 million Dafurians to flee their homes, and left more than 3.5 million individuals reliant on humanitarian aid.
"We are excited to again lend our voices to the people of Darfur," said Big Kenny of Big & Rich. "Now more than ever these innocent victims need us as the situation continues to deteriorate. Everything I read points to the need to support these people immediately by deploying a U.N. peacekeeping force. Every day we wait is another day when millions in Darfur and the nearby refugee camps face the possibility of death."
"Save Darfur Now: Voices to End Genocide" will be held at the East Meadow in Central Park near the intersection of 5th Avenue and 97th Street. The rally will coincide with the 61st meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, and activists and entertainers will call on the United Nations to deploy a Chapter VII-mandated peacekeeping force to Darfur immediately.
The website of the rally sponsor, the Save Darfur Coalition (www.SaveDarfur.org), an alliance of 174 faith-based, humanitarian and human rights groups representing 130 million Americans, is featured prominently on Big & Rich's home page at http://bigandrich.com/. Big & Rich features the vocals of John Rich & "Big" Kenny (l/k/a Kenny Alphin), who were each recognized as "2005 Country Songwriter of The Year" by performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI respectively.
O.A.R., or "of a revolution," lent their support to the Save Darfur Coalition throughout their summer tour by providing their audience with the opportunity to educate themselves on this modern day genocide. Known for their songs of respect and understanding, O.A.R. has sold over one million CDs and consistently sells out venues throughout the country.
"We are honored to be part of this rally," said Marc Roberge, lead singer of O.A.R. "It is literally the least we could do and only hope that as entertainers we can turn people's minds in the direction of Darfur. It is a place that needs to be heard, felt, and helped right now. There is nothing more important that we can do as human beings."
Big & Rich will be performing at its second Save Darfur rally, as it headlined the April 30th Rally to Stop Genocide in Washington, D.C. More than 50,000 people attended that rally including participants such as actor George Clooney, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), Congressman Frank Wolfe (R-VA), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Olympic gold medalist Joey Cheek, Archbishop Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel.
The Save Darfur Coalition will be announcing additional speakers and performers for "Save Darfur Now: Voices to End Genocide" in the coming weeks.
To subscribe to New York's favorite Pan-African weekly investigative newspaper please click on "subscribe" on the homepage or call (212) 481-7745. For advertisements or to send us a news tip contact firstname.lastname@example.com "Speaking Truth To Empower," is our motto.
Latest comments
- Ann GarrisonFebruary 22,2018 @ 08:03 PM
I think you have "Filtered HTML" turned on here. If you switch to "Full HTML," it will probably...
googletag.pubads().definePassback('6785150/BENN/BlackStarNews', [[300,250]]).setTargeting('fold',['BTF']).display();


text:
NEW DELHI -- Some 20 political prisoners were released in Myanmar on Friday, just days before a a historic summit between the country's leader and President Obama in Washington, officials and prisoner rights groups said.
President Thein Sein will be the first leader of Myanmar to visit Washington since 1966. In November, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Myanmar.
Zaw Htay, a senior official in Thein Sein's office, said on social media that the prisoner release was not timed to next week's visit but instead showed that the president was determined to offer an "inclusive political process."
It follows a similar pardon of prisoners last month, a day after the European Union agreed to halt most economic sanctions against Myanmar.
Since coming to power, Thein Sein's government has eased media controls, allowed Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to run for political office and released hundreds of political prisoners.
Human rights groups said the nation's leadership still had not gone far enough, noting that the military retained overall control of the country.
Bombings at 2 Pakistan mosques kill 10
Russia defends weapons shipments to Syria


text:
Hello Clinical Interns,
Thank you for signing up for Saturday clinic!
Please be aware that we can only take 2 interns per Saturday clinic.
If you cancel without finding a replacement, you must notify us 48 hours before clinic starts. If you can find a replacement, you are able to cancel after the 48 hours deadline.
If you register or cancel after the confirmation email has been sent, you must notify the VN CARES Co-D. FAILURE TO NOTIFY US WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE.
Please remember the following when signing up for clinic:
Interns are required to complete 4 clinics.
Dress Code: VN CARES or PHAC T-Shirt with nice jeans (no holes) OR Business Casual; closed-toe shoes
Carpool: Self-arranged!
For questions/concerns please contact the Clinical Managers by phone or email firstname.lastname@example.com
VN CARES Co-Clinical Managers 2016-2017
Ngoc (Jade) Tran (408) 921-1876
Connie Ha (408) 717-3061
Thi Nguyen (408) 416-6546
Sylvia Dinh (714) 251-9439


text:
Puzzle Levels
Puzzle Categories
Download a FREE Solution for your puzzles!
Dominion: Dark Ages
Currency Converter: * Exchange rates shown above are estimates only, and may vary slightly from the rates charged by PayPal or your Credit Card Company.
Product Information
|Expansion for Dominion game
|Rio Grande Games
|Strategy Games, Card Games
|Cardboard Box
Product Description
Times have been hard. To save on money, you've moved out of your old castle, and into a luxurious ravine. You didn't like that castle anyway; it was always getting looted, and never at a reasonable hour. And if it wasn't barbarians it was the plague, or sometimes both would come at once, and there wouldn't be enough chairs. The ravine is great; you get lots of sun, and you can just drop garbage wherever you want. In your free time you've taken up begging. Begging is brilliant conceptually, but tricky in practice, since no-one has any money. You beg twigs from the villagers, and they beg them back, but no-one really seems to come out ahead. That's just how life is sometimes. You're quietly conquering people, minding your own business, when suddenly there's a plague, or barbarians, or everyone's illiterate, and it's all you can do to cling to some wreckage as the storm passes through. Still, you are sure that, as always, you will triumph over this adversity, or at least do slightly better than everyone else.
This is the 7th addition to the game of Dominion. It is 500 cards but is not a standalone. It adds 35 new Kingdom cards to Dominion, plus new bad cards you give to other players (Ruins), new cards to replace starting Estates (Shelters), and cards you can only get via specific other cards. The central themes are the trash and upgrading. There are cards that do something when trashed, cards that care about the trash, cards that upgrade themselves, and ways to upgrade other cards.
Customer Reviews |Write your own review!
This item has yet to be rated


text:
Spacious and charming bed and breakfast with European-style accommodations
Classic Victorian bed and breakfast is located in the center of Bellefonte, minutes from Penn State's University Park Campus and Beaver Stadium. All rooms are comfortably furnished and mornings at Riffles and Runs welcome guests to a home-cooked, delicious breakfast in a sunny dining room furnished in period antiques. We use only the best ingredients and offer a hearty fare ranging from traditional to vegetarian.


text:
All About Hawaii - Complimentary Upgrade at Sheraton Princess Kaiulani!
Book now and receive a complimentary upgrade at The Sheraton Princess Kaiulani!
Sheraton Princess Kaiulani invites you to experience the Aloha spirit in the heart of Honolulu. Thishotel is situated one block away from Waikiki Beach, and within walking distance of some of the area's best shopping, dining and entertainment. Stylishly designed rooms and suites boast complimentary Wi-Fi, private lanais and our Sheraton Signature Sleep Experience with premium linens. Challenge yourself to a workout at the 24-hour fitness center, followed by a dip in the freshwater pool. Sample Hawaiian-inspired dishes at Pikake Terrace, or enjoy cocktails and live entertainment at Splash Bar. Don't miss the one-of-a-kind Te Moana Nui Dinner Show, performed three times a week. Those hosting events on Oahu can explore our elegant venues, which can host as many as 200 guests. Our terrific Waikiki hotel location makes it easy for you to access the best of the area, from the Hawaii Convention Center to the Honolulu Zoo. Whatever your reason for visiting Oahu, we know you're going to love your stay.
Booking Window: Now - December 19, 2019
Traveling Window: June 15 - December 21, 2019
Tower Partial Ocean - From $440
Tower Ocean View - From $472


text:
The Department of Human Services is one of Illinois' largest agencies, with more than 13,000 employees.
Illinois created IDHS in 1997, to provide our state's residents with streamlined access to integrated services, especially those who are striving to move from welfare to work and economic independence, and others who face multiple challenges to self-sufficiency.
IDHS is proud of its diversity, efficiency, and the services that the agency and its community partners provide to Illinois citizens.
Our vision defines what we aspire towards.
Our mission statement defines what we are here to do.
Our core values are the guiding principles that shape our behavior and actions.
Our motto helps guide us, putting our mission and values into action every day.
Healthy, independent people of Illinois living in safe, strong communities
Strengthening Illinois by building up lives and communities
Our core values are timeless. They were created by identifying what makes DHS successful - and what will help us continue to be successful in helping the people and communities we serve. Our core values are:
Committed to treating people the way we wish to be treated
The Illinois Department of Human Services Vision, Mission, Motto, and Values (pdf)
Please use the DHS Office Locator


text:
MPAA Shifts Its Funding Efforts To Republicans After SOPA Defeat
from the but-of-course deptYou may recall that, as SOPA/PIPA were in their final death throes, MPAA boss Chris Dodd made a significant political faux pas in flat out warning politicians that if they refused to stay bought, the MPAA might not keep funding them:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"Historically, of course, it has always been the Democrats that Hollywood has backed the most. While there are some high profile exceptions, Hollywood is a Democratic town. And, of course, with the Democrats failing to give Hollywood its desired censorship tool, the MPAA has apparently shifted strategies and has ramped up its funding of Republicans (possible paywall, depending on where you visit from):
Last year, the MPAA replaced its longtime lead lobbying firm, considered to be close with Democrats, with a lobbyist with ties to key GOP lawmakers. Its political-action committee now gives more donations to Republicans than Democrats. And it has sent money to a GOP super PAC, a conservative antitax entity and a business lobby helping Republicans in the 2014 elections.Of course, this isn't so much the end result of Dodd's promise, rather it appears to be the MPAA recognizing that the party that bailed first (and most loudly) on SOPA and PIPA... were the Republicans, who have begun showing sparks that suggest that they may break from the bipartisan support for copyright maximalism.
While it's easy to be cynical about the MPAA here, it's more likely that this is all by design by Congress itself. For all the belief that lobbyists drive the agenda in Congress via money, when you dig down, you realize it's often the opposite, with the politicians themselves effectively extorting money from lobbyists by threatening to push certain laws.
In fact, right before SOPA blew up, a cynical, but knowledgeable (and all too prescient) friend of mine pointed out that the whole point of SOPA/PIPA was to pit two "rich" industries -- tech and Hollywood -- against each other to make donations rain from the sky. As this friend pointed out, for years, Congress would pit two other "rich" industries -- radio broadcasters and the recording industry -- against each other by pushing a performance rights bill, and both sides would donate heavily to various candidates in support of or against it. However, by 2010, it was quickly becoming clear that neither the radio industry, nor the recording industry were going to continue being huge successful industries with lots of money to throw around lobbying. So, folks on the Judiciary Committee looked around and sought a bill that would get the tech industry and Hollywood all riled up to start donating. It didn't much matter if the bills passed or not -- just that people got angry.
And that's more or less what happened.
And, now the MPAA is raining dollars on candidates it hasn't in the past:
In 2010, MPAA had a budget of about $50 million, down from $70 million in 2008, according to tax forms. In 2012, the last year for which tax forms are available, MPAA's budget was back to nearly $70 million....Cynical or not, if the plan all along with SOPA/PIPA was basically a fundraising plan for Congress, well, mission accomplished.
The fastest-growing part of the MPAA budget is donations to interest groups and political organizations. It made $2.5 million in grants to third-party groups in 2012, up from just $120,000 in 2009. Many were routed to nonpolitical organizations that share Hollywood's interest in copyright protections or lower taxes. About $600,000 went to organizations that play a more political role.
MPAA gave $75,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is a top supporter of Republican candidates for Congress; $100,000 to Americans for Tax Reform, the antitax group run by conservative advocate Grover Norquist ; $25,000 to the large pro-Republican super PAC American Action Network; and $20,000 to Let Freedom Ring, whose mission is to "counter the attacks of anti-conservative groups," according to its website.
Filed Under: chris dodd, pipa, republican party, sopa
Companies: mpaa