text:
Bordering Cambridgeshire, Essex and Norfolk, Suffolk is a county of wide open skies, stunning coastline and a rolling countryside which has inspired countless artists.
With 45 miles of unspoilt coast, Suffolk is home to a string of seaside towns and resorts, along with bustling Ipswich, and historic places like Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket and Woodbridge. Lowestoft is the UK's most easterly town, while Felixstowe is its biggest container port.
Property in Suffolk across regional hubs, small towns and villages tends to be attractively priced, with good access to quality local facilities. Housing hotspots include Britain's horse-racing capital Newmarket, Stowmarket, Felixstowe, the port town of Lowestoft and Ipswich, the county town.
In Stowmarket alone, housing ranges from new builds to detached bungalows, semi-detached cottages, Edwardian houses and barn conversions. This medium-sized town between Bury and Ipswich has good transport links and amenities, and a number of major employers.
The waterfront at Ipswich has been extensively redeveloped and is the town's focal point. Just five miles from the coast, Ipswich offers great shopping, restaurants, two cinemas, theatres and nightclubs.
For culture vultures, the Aldeburgh Festival, founded in 1948, is one of the UK's most important classical music festivals. Henham Park, near Blythburgh, has hosted the open-air Latitude festival of music, comedy and poetry since 2006.
Much of Suffolk's dramatic coastline is quite remote, and inhabited only by rare species of seabirds, so huge swathes of the Suffolk Heritage Coast are designated nature reserves.
From Ipswich there are four trains an hour to London's Liverpool Street, with a journey time of just over an hour. There are also cross-country rail links via Peterborough to the Midlands and further north.
The county's road network provides a link to London and the south east via the M11 or the A12. The A14 is an important east-west route, connecting Cambridge to Suffolk, and the Midlands and the North. London Stansted and Luton airports are both easily accessible by road.
Some of the county operates a three-tier system with primary, middle and upper schools. Nearly all of the latter have sixth form provision. The county also has 14 independent schools, the largest being the Royal Hospital School, near Ipswich, which takes boarders.
Suffolk also has four further education colleges, and University Campus Suffolk has accepted students since 2007.
With so much to enjoy in the way of open coastal and rural spaces, and historic towns and villages, it is easy to understand why nine out of 10 respondents to a MORI poll relating to the county said they loved where they lived!
Find houses in Suffolk or flats in Suffolk with Rightmove.co.uk - the UK's number one property website. Rightmove is the best place to find the very latest property for sale in Suffolk. You can also find property to rent in Suffolk, a list of estate agents in Suffolk or view sold house prices in Suffolk.
Take a look at our current list of property for sale in Suffolk. Rightmove.co.uk lists over one million flats and houses to buy or to rent across London and the UK. We update our listings continuously. You may also want to see houses and flats in other areas of England, including Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Norfolk.


text:
I love that scrapbooking has brought so many products into
the crafting world that can be used in other ways. I know rub-on
transfers have been around for awhile but now they come in so
many beautiful and fun designs and that's what I found on my
last trip to the scrapbook store. Of course, I wanted to try them
out right away and since these stones were within arm's reach
this is what I did. These small ones look like they've been
stitched together and would be just right for paperweights.
This larger rock would make a nice doorstop. Did you need
last minute gifts or stocking stuffers? Here you go!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Taking screenshot in firefox.
Couple of days back, I was trying to take screenshot with Firefox. As usual I started out with searching for plugins which could take a screen shot for the whole page and not just the visible portion of the page. Installed couple of them, some did not work. Finally I found something called Development Bar.
So, here is a simple way to take a screenshot. Press "Shift+F12". This will bring up a bar in the bottom of the firefox window. To take a screenshot, type:
screenshot --fullpage
You can also provide the filename for the screenshot as an argument and find more help about development tool at
Related articles


text:
It's an Obama-nation. Yes, we really are the Obama Nation pastor, great job. But the stealing part? That's just you trying to hide from from some really harsh truths.
But it pisses me off that transgender people weren't mentioned specifically by pastor Manning. I mean all that we have done to push the gay agenda in front of our needs and he doesn't think we aren't stealing black men as much as those white gay men are? That's gratitude for ya.
Yes slide is actually on the ATLAH website |


text:
- PR launched through social media has the potential for going viral.
- It is important to know who is following you in social media outlets, and this can be a very valuable tool to determine if you are reaching your target and which products your consumers want.
- Maintaining numerous online networks can be a challenge, but also offers rewards.
- Even when valuable content is offered through social media, a solid image should remain a priority.
It's no secret that companies left and right are going the social media route. Whether it's creating a business page on Facebook or sending out promos in 140 characters or less on Twitter, beauty marketers are turning to the Web to both drive sales and build consumer interaction for long-term success.
"As the world of technology changes, businesses must adjust with the times," says Rachel Johnson, director of communications, Alchimie Forever. "I have found online media to be a fascinating and effective tool for building a brand." She's made sure the Swiss skin care line is on Twitter and Facebook, in addition to other online avenues such as Linkedin.
Rodan + Fields Dermatologists, the company that developed Proactiv before selling it to Guthy-Renker, has used the power of viral marketing—and everyone's love of celebrities—to push its brands online. For its new product launches, the brand uses webisodes that debut exclusively on Facebook and cover beauty-related topics. This has helped the company boost sales and offer unique content to users.
Using Twitter was instrumental for Miriam Kleinman, president and chief scientific officer of Teava, to launch her tea-based skin care line. "I found that Twitter was an excellent source for garnering PR exposure," she says. And PR launched through social media has the potential for going viral.
During the first week of her company launch, Kleinman secured an interview with ChicGalleria.com, which was then picked up by a major daily newspaper's Web site. Within three months, she had an additional review, a radio interview and a product feature on a television show. "[Social media] allowed me to add credibility to my skin care line quickly and with no investment, and it continues to be a great resource," she says. Angie Parlionas, president and founder of Yoyo Lip Gloss, has used social media platforms in addition to blogging to help increase her sales, connect with customers and create hype about products.
She says it is important to know the people who are following you, and has leveraged Twitter and MySpace to get women to attend casting calls, participate in giveaways and respond to surveys—which have been a very valuable tool to determine which products her customers want and love.
Not only do these campaigns add a different dimension to advertising and marketing, they add direct contact to the consumer. "Social media allows the public to speak freely and honestly about your product and company," says Parlionas. "What better way to create a reputation then to let the public build it for you? If you give your target audience something to talk about, it will."
With all the praises being sung about social media, you have to wonder: Is there anything bad about using social media for your business?
Honestly, not really, says Kathleen Hogg of Bath-a-holic, a line of bath and body products, who has used Facebook and Twitter to promote her products and connect with existing and prospective customers. However, she says it is difficult to gauge the results of all her social media efforts. "I have not found conclusive data that confirms social media used is generating solid sales," she says.
Maintaining all of the online networks is another challenge Hogg faces, but the mix of social media outlets has helped her appear higher in Google searches."Putting up a Web site and [participating in] social media is a lot of work and requires maintenance, and I think some people new to business think, 'I have a Web site, a logo, a newsletter, a Facebook page, a My Space page, etc., I am going to get overwhelmed with calls and contacts.' Not true, you have to work those social media outlets to get out there and to the right client." She says the key is to have a professional page and a consistent branding message and design across the board.
That's absolutely true. You can tweet all you want and offer valuable content on your status messages, but without a solid image online—and typo-free content—you won't come off qualified. And that's key to presenting yourself as a business. Even in the land of quirky tweets and status messages, your business needs to stay professional—no matter how many sales you get directly from using social media.
Donna C. Barson, MBA heads Barson Marketing, Inc., a marketing strategy, research and business consultancy in the personal care industry. For information about Barson Marketing and its proprietary tracking method for this industry, e-mail [email protected] or call (732) 446-3662.


text:
Important Note
The following information is intended to supplement, not substitute for, the expertise and judgment of your physician, pharmacist or other healthcare professional. It should not be construed to indicate that use of the drug is safe, appropriate, or effective for you. Consult your healthcare professional before using this drug.
Bulk-producing laxatives help restore normal moisture levels in the intestine and provide bulk to promote well formed stools. They are used in the treatment of diarrhea or constipation and in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, spastic colon, diverticulitis and hemorrhoids. Psyllium, a bulk producing laxative, has also been used to reduce cholesterol levels in conjunction with a dietary program.
How To Use
Take each dose with a full glass of water and drink plenty of fluids while taking this medication. Chewable tablets are to be chewed thoroughly. Tablets can be swallowed with a full glass of water. Wafers are to be chewed. The powder must be measured as directed and stirred into a glass of water or juice. Drink immediately.
Side Effects
This medication is generally well tolerated. Bloating, gas, and a feeling of fullness may occur. If these effects continue or become bothersome, inform your doctor. Notify your doctor if you experience: stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, rectal bleeding, unrelieved constipation. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist.
Tell your doctor if you have any illness or allergies. This medication should be used only if clearly needed during pregnancy. Discuss the risks and benefits with your doctor. This medication does not appear in breast milk. However, you should consult your doctor before using any medication while breast-feeding.
Drug Interactions
Because laxatives may interfere with the absorption of some medications it is important to tell your doctor of any over-the-counter or prescription medication you may take. Do not start or stop any medicine without doctor or pharmacist approval.
If overdose is suspected, contact your local poison control center or emergency room immediately. Symptoms of overdose may include severe bloating and severe stomach pain.
Bulk-producing laxatives are the safest and most natural of all the laxatives. To maintain normal bowel habits, it is important to drink plenty of fluids (4 to 6 eight ounce glasses a day), increase your intake of fiber and roughage and exercise regularly.
Missed Dose
If you miss a dose, take it as soon as remembered; do not take it if it is near the time for the next dose, instead, skip the missed dose and resume your usual dosing schedule. Do not "double-up" the dose to catch up.
Store at room temperature between 59 and 86 degrees F (15 to 30 degrees C) away from heat and moisture. Do not store in the bathroom.


text:
Hot off the heels of his web server for the TI MSP430, [Rob] shared a MIDI booster pack for the MSP430 LaunchPad, an exceedingly inexpensive and ever more capable microcontroller that is getting somewhat of a cult following.
[Rob]'s MIDI booster pack contains a MIDI in and out port as well as just about whatever MIDI manipulation apps his mind can dream up. So far, [Rob] has a MIDI arpeggiator, a harmonizer, an echo, filter, s MIDI monitor that displays incoming messages on a Nokia LCD, and a controller that interfaces with a light sensor or joystick to manipulate MIDI variables.
Back in the 80s (and 90s, and even into the aughts), a dedicated MIDI arp or harmonizer was a crazy expensive piece of kit, especially considering how simple the device is. Those dedicated rackmount boxes can now be replaced with a TI LaunchPad and [Rob]'s booster pack.
You can check out the arp and harmonizer in action after the break.
Continue reading "MIDI Swiss Army Knife Built From An MSP430"


text:
I don't know what it is about the beginning of a year. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or real, but it sure seems that something big happens early every year in the antivaccine world. Consider. As I pointed out back in February 2009, in rapid succession Brian Deer reported that Andrew Wakefield had not only had undisclosed conflicts of interest regarding the research that he did for his now infamous 1998 Lancet paper but that he had falsified data. Then, a couple of weeks later the Special Masters weighed in, rejecting the claims of autism causation by vaccines made in three test cases about as resoundingly as is imaginable. Then, in February 2010, in rapid succession Andrew Wakefield, the hero of the antivaccine movement, was struck off the British medical register, saw his 1998 Lancet paper retracted by the editors, and was unceremoniously booted from his medical directorship of Thoughtful House, the autism quack clinic he helped to found after he fled the U.K. for the more friendly confines of Texas. Soon after that, the Special Masters weighed in again, rejecting the claims of autism causation by vaccines in the remaining test cases. Then, in January 2011, Brian Deer struck again, publishing more damaging revelations about Wakefield, referring to his work as Piltdown medicine in the British journal BMJ.
This year, things were different.
When you don't have science, sue for libel!
By saying that this year things were different, I don't mean "different" in the sense that there wasn't another major story that roiled the antivaccine crankosphere. There certainly was. However, in 2009, 2010, and 2011, for antivaccine activists it was all unrelenting bad news as each year began. This year, something happened that, at least to supporters of Andrew Wakefield, seemed like a great thing. To those of us who know his case and know how far Wakefield's fallen, it smacked of sheer desperation every bit as much as when the National Vaccine Information Center's Barbara Loe Fisher sued Paul Offit, journalist Amy Wallace, and her publisher Conde Nasttwo years ago for libel, yes, in January. (She lost spectacularly.) Yes, as 2012 dawned, Andrew Wakefield, for some inexplicable reason, decided to sue journalist Brian Deer, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee, and the BMJ for libel for Deer's 2011 expose. Actually, the reason wasn't so inexplicable. My favorite legal folks informed me that the statute of limitations in Texas for libel is one year. The lawsuit is dated very close to one year after the BMJ's first article is published.
So what was in Wakefield's complaint against Brian Deer? It was the usual stuff, in particular claiming that the content of the BMJ articles by Deer and BMJ editors was not only just false but knowingly false, stating:
The Defamatory Statements were and are false and written and published with actual malice and intended to cause damage to Dr. Wakefield's reputation and work as a researcher, academic, and physician and to permanently impair his reptation and his livelihood.
Wakefield's attorney even had the audacity to play the "pharma shill" gambit. In a legal document! The mind boggles:
Interestingly, at the time of the editorials and the Deer article were Published, the Defendents failed to disclose the fact that the BMJ received significant revenue from the very vaccine manufacturers whose products need further investigation. It was only monthslater, after the issue was raised by others, that the BMJ posted the following: "The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues. The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturer, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines."
Yes, indeed. Wakefield's attorneys were actually trying to argue that the BMJ libeled Wakefield to protect its big pharma sugar daddy, the vaccine manufacturers. Seriously, Wakefield's lawyer, William M. Parrish, should know better. Or maybe he doesn't. He doesn't list libel as one of his areas of specialty, which are listed as intellectual property disputes (e.g., trade secret, trademark, trade name, trade dress, copyright and patent disputes) business torts (e.g., unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, tortious interference with actual and prospective contracts and/or business relationships, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair advertising practices, etc.) and breach of contract claims. Yet here there he was, suing for libel.
I find it very amusing that Dr. Wakefield claimed his "professional reputation" was damaged by Deer's 2011 articles. The reason, of course, is that Dr. Wakefield's reputation was destroyed long before by his having done and publicized his bad science, by his having intentionally consorted with the antivaccine movement, and his having continued to crank out bad science in the service of smearing the MMR with the claim that it causes autism. Wakefield destroyed his own reputation by doing fraudulent science; Deer only dug up the evidence to demonstrate that. That happened years before Brian Deer ever wrote that BMJ article a year ago. Wakefield had already been found guilty by the General Medical Council of "serious professional misconduct," which included acting in ways not in the clinical interests of disabled children. Shortly after that, one remembers, he was struck off the medical register, and fired from Thoughtful House. All of this happened many months before Brian Deer wrote his article.
To put it bluntly, Andrew Wakefield no longer had any professional reputation to be trashed. This will be a major problem for him in any libel action, because one has to prove damage to one's reputation to be successful in a libel suit.
In fact, this whole lawsuit strikes me as incredibly ill-advised, as it opens Wakefield up to discovery. Of course, it might well be that part of the motivation for the lawsuit is to subject Brian Deer, the BMJ, and Fiona Godlee to discovery, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see bits of information from discovery show up on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism; that is, if the case gets that far. If I were part of the antivaccine bloggerati at AoA, I might be worried now, because, given AoA's campaign to discredit Brian Deer, particularly over the last year, it's likely to be in the defense's crosshairs. Communications between Wakefield and any AoA blogger might be subject to discovery. Any financial transaction between Generation Rescue and Andrew Wakefield could also be subject to discovery. Wakefield might think that because Deer, Godlee, and the BMJ are in the UK that they won't engage in a full and vigorous defense to the extent of going whole hog (sorry, the lawsuit's in Texas; I couldn't resist) on discovery. Is Wakefield sure he wants to risk that? BMJ is part of a large company, and publishing companies tend not to take kindly to libel actions. Of course, even if the Generation Rescue/AoA/Wakefield connection isn't a worry, everything else is. After all, everything about the Lancet paper would definitely be subject to discovery, and there's no question about its relevance to the lawsuit.
Whatever Wakefield's motivation, this move reeks of desperation. In taking this action, Wakefield both demonstrated the characteristics of a crank (the need to silence using the courts rather than to refute using science) and showed just how far he's fallen. In any case, I highly doubt Brian Deer has anything to worry about, other than the irritation this might cause and whether the company providing his libel insurance will go all wobbly on him. After all, the truth is an absolute defense against libel.
On the other hand, Wakefield might just be one of the luckiest bastards I've ever seen.
An assist from Justice Mitting
Last week, there was quite a bit of whooping it up in the antivaccine crankosphere, which appeared to be partying like it's 2005, when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. first published his antivaccine screed in Salon.com and Rolling Stone. From the rejoicing that's been going on, you'd think that Andrew Wakefield had been completely exonerated of fraud and proven right about his fear mongering that blamed the MMR vaccine for autism. This is odd, given that the news story that broke last week was not about Andrew Wakefield directly. Rather, it was about Professor John Walker-Smith, one of the co-authors of Andrew Wakefield's discredited and retracted 1998 Lancet paper. The antivaccine crank blog is going wild with the news that Professor Walker-Smith has succeeded in his appeal of the General Medical Council's decision that he should be struck off the medical record along with Andy Wakefield.
On AoA, no less a figure than Jenny McCarthy herself has returned to demonstrate that, as much as she has been keeping her antivaccine activism on the down-low lately, she hasn't given it up. She did this by posting an article on the antivaccine blog affiliated with her group Generation Rescue entitled MMR Doctor Exonerated—Who's Guilty Now? In it, McCarthy asks:
Now what? If the foundation of the proof that the MMR does not trigger autism is crumbling, what in the world are parents supposed to believe? If Professor Walker-Smith is not guilty on all charges, will Dr. Wakefield be next?
The answer is no, Jenny. Not that that stops her from asking hopefully:
Unfortunately, the GMC's decision to turn Dr. Wakefield and Prof. Walker-Smith's paper into a three-ring circus has put a chill on research into all the possible environmental causes of autism. Will this finally open the floodgates?
In other words, because Professor Walker-Smith succeeded in his appeal, Andrew Wakefield was right. Seriously. That's the argument being made. The full ruling can be found here. As usual, what the antivaccine movement is promoting and what is in the ruling are not necessarily the same thing. If there's one thing that's obvious from the outpouring of verbiage from various antivaccine blogs, Twitter feeds, and press releases, it's that the antivaccine movement somehow thinks that this decision exonerates Andrew Wakefield, too. Let's disabuse them of that delusion right now, shall we? According to Mr. Justice Mitting:
At a press conference, which Professor Walker-Smith did not attend, convened to accompany publication, Dr. Wakefield stated publicly the view which he had previously expressed privately to Professor Walker-Smith that he could no longer support the giving of MMR vaccine. The joint view of Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch, stated in a letter to Dr. Wakefield on 21st January 1998, was that it was inappropriate to emphasize the role of MMR vaccine in publicity about the paper and that they supported government policy concerning MMR until more firm evidence was available for them to see for themselves. They published a press release to coincide with publication stating their support for "present public health policy concerning MMR". Dr. Wakefield's statement and subsequent publicity had a predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health. There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.
Correct. There is no respectable body of opinion supporting Wakefield's hypothesis that the MMR is somehow linked to autism or the entity Wakefield made up called "autistic enterocolitis." It's rather annoying that Mitting would refer to it as a "body of opinion." One can only speculate that it's his legal background that leads him to use this particular phraseology. No scientist would. Scientists would (and do) point out that not only is there no good scientific evidence supporting Wakefield's hypothesis, but there is a lot of evidence that falsifies his hypothesis. There's a reason why Wakefield is viewed with such contempt in the scientific world. Actually, there are multiple reasons, not the least of which is that Wakefield is an incompetent scientist willing to commit research fraud to provide evidence for trial lawyers to use in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, a plot that Brian Deer uncovered and described in excruciating detail and with excruciatingly detailed documentation. This ruling says nothing about that; it's primarily about methodology and Mitting's legal ruling that the GMC didn't adequately explain the rationale behind its findings that Walker-Smith committed professional misconduct. Mitting's decision also relies a lot on his clearly poor understanding of medical research issues. (More on that below.)
It's a simple fact, though, that Mitting's decision regarding has nothing to do with whether Wakefield is a fraud or a pseudoscientist or not. Nor does it have anything to do with the question of whether vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccine, cause autism, as much as Wakefield's many apologists would like to convince people otherwise. In fact, as I've pointed out before, Wakefield's being struck off the British medical registry has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Even if Wakefield had prevailed and been allowed to keep his medical license, his claimed findings that vaccines cause autistic enterocolitis and/or autism would have been just as bogus. Legal rulings are not science. They can be based on science, but often they are not. It's nice when they don't go against science and nicer still when they resoundingly agree with science, but such is not always the case. To try to argue that a legal ruling such as the one regarding Professor Walker-Smith exonerates Wakefield is an even worse folly than arguing that his being struck off necessarily proves he is a quack. He's an antivaccine quack based on science; it matters not what the courts say.
Admittedly, I haven't paid much attention to Professor Walker-Smith. Back when I wrote about Andy Wakefield being struck off, I said very little, if anything about Walker-Smith. The reason, of course, is that I viewed the Walker-Smith decision as being at best peripheral. I didn't know enough about him to decide for myself whether the GMC decision was justified or not. Still, it's useful to look at the court's decision to see why it concluded that Walker-Smith didn't deserve to be struck off. Here is the conclusion of the appeal decision:
For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel's overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion. Miss Glynn submits that the materials which I have been invited to consider would support many of the panel's critical findings; and that I can safely infer that, without saying so, it preferred the evidence of the GMC's experts, principally Professor Booth, to that given by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch and by Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas. Even if it were permissible to perform such an exercise, which I doubt, it would not permit me to rescue the panel's findings. As I have explained, the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide. The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously. The GMC's approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel's determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination.
As you can see, the decision all boils down to the question of research and whether Walker-Smith thought he was doing research or actually treating autistic children using interventions that were clinically indicated. If the interventions were clinically indicated, then it could be argued that he did not commit professional misconduct. If the interventions were done with the knowledge that they were being done for research purposes rather than to treat the children, then Walker-Smith is guilty of misconduct. The reasons, of course, are the lack of ethical committee approval yet, as is discussed in the decision:
At the heart of the GMC's case against Professor Walker-Smith were two simple propositions: the investigations undertaken under his authority on eleven of the twelve Lancet children were done as part of a research project – Project 172-96 – which required, but did not have, Ethics Committee approval; and they were clinically inappropriate. Professor Walker-Smith's case was that the investigations were clinically appropriate attempts at diagnosis of bowel and behavioural disorders in children with broadly similar symptoms and, where possible, treatment of the bowel disorders or alleviation of their symptoms. The GMC's case was that he was conducting research which required Ethics Committee approval. His case was that he was conducting medical practice which did not. Accordingly, an unavoidable and fundamental question which the panel had to answer was: what is the distinction between medical practice and research?
In light of this introduction, what follows is profoundly contradictory in that the judge acknowledges that what Walker-Smith did could be reasonably viewed as research, but exonerates him because it could also be viewed as therapeutic:
The panel made no express finding on this issue and cannot have appreciated the need to do so. It was not helped by the premise upon which the GMC's case was founded. There was a good deal of evidence, to which I refer in greater detail below, that Professor Walker-Smith and his team were undertaking what any reasonable body of medical practitioners would categorize as research – but also that he intended and genuinely believed that what he was doing was solely or primarily for the clinical benefit of the children. When such an issue arises, a panel will almost always have to determine the honesty or otherwise of the practitioner.
Justice Mitting then lists facts supporting and negating the proposition that what Walker-Smith was doing was research. I must admit, I find some of the "facts negating' to be questionable. Particularly bizarre was Mitting's listing of a fact that no parent other than one was required to sign the consent form in the proposals submitted to the Ethics Committee or in the revised form approved by it. Well, duh! That was part of the problem, now, wasn't it? You know? Doing research without having obtained adequate informed consent from the parents?
Also rather odd was Mitting's other reasoning that "none of the five clinicians involved in the investigation of the Lancet children who gave evidence to the panel considered that they were following Project 172-96." So what? The children's information and clinical histories ended up being used in Wakefield's Lancet paper. I suppose one could argue that Walker-Smith was an unwitting dupe of Andy Wakefield an therefore was not guilty of research professional misconduct, but, if that's the case, it's hardly flattering to Walker-Smith. it's also hard to imagine what clinical indications existed to subject these children to lumbar punctures. As a clinician, I always had a hard time figuring out how Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and the rest justified doing lumbar punctures on these children.
The implications of Mitting's ruling are frightening in their potential. Think about it. Basically, if his ruling stands, it's hard not to wonder whether it's open season on human research subjects in the UK. As long as the physician can construct a quasi-legitimate-sounding rationale that he can point to aside from a research protocol for doing research-related tests on human subjects, he apparently doesn't need to get ethical approval anymore. He can cite Mitting's ruling that, as long as he doesn't think he's doing research–even if that is incorrect–then he's not, and the GMC can't do anything about it. So much for the Helsinki declaration! Similarly, his "any reasonable physician" test fails spectacularly as well, at least in the way he applied it. "Any reasonable physician" would not subject autistic children to a battery of invasive tests including lumbar punctures for dubious clinical reasons. Those tests were quite correctly judged by the GMC to have been ordered for research purposes rather than for routine clinical care. Autism quacks in the UK have good reason to rejoice. As it stands, one has to wonder whether they can now get away with essentially anything.
And one has to wonder whether Brian Deer is one of the luckiest guys alive.
Brian Deer responds
At this point, it's hard not to wonder whether the timing of Wakefield's lawsuit against the BMJ and Brian Deer was related to more than just the end of the statute of limitations for libel suits in Texas. Certainly, the ruling in the Walker–Smith case serves Wakefield's interests, both in terms of rallying his base but more importantly in terms of seeming to provide him with ammunition for his lawsuit. As much as Wakefield might wish to believe that and as much as antivaccinationists might want to believe that Justice Mitting's ruling somehow exonerates Andrew Wakefield, they are sadly mistaken. The two cases, although they were about the research leading up to the publication of Wakefield's 1998 study, the reasons for the decisions in the case of Andrew Wakefield and in the case of Professor Walker-Smith were quite different. As I said above, I don't agree with the decision for the simple reason that I think that it reveals a profound misunderstanding of medicine and research. Even so, there's no way that the same sort of reasoning can be applied to Andrew Wakefield. For just a taste of the reasons why, it's instructive to look at Brian Deer's response to Wakefield's attempt at legal thuggery. Not only is it instructive, but it's amusing to read because it reveals things that I didn't know about the case. In a way, I had hoped that Deer would let Wakefield embarrass himself more before hitting him with the an anti-SLAPP motion, but on the other hand it would be unreasonable to expect the defendants to do that just so that I could be enlightened by the revelations that might come out of the discovery process. Legally, given that Texas has recently passed an anti-SLAPP law.
For those not familiar with the term, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Basically, SLAPPs are lawsuits designed to silence critics in important public matters. They succeed in this by intimidation and burdening critics with the cost of legal defenses. In general, wealthy interests, because they have more resources, can afford the expense of pursuing libel suits of this sort, while the defendants usually cannot. As a result, often defendants are silenced. Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to allow victims of SLAPPs to quash lawsuits and recover damages. Not surprisingly, Wakefield's libel suit reeks of SLAPP.
So, naturally, Deer's lawyers are hitting that aspect hard in their response, and Deer himself has provided a 104 page supporting document. Its key pillars include arguing the factual background and pointing out that the truth is an absolute defense against libel, arguing that the Texas anti-SLAPP statute applies, arguing that Wakefield cannot show malice, and pointing out that Wakefield meets the definition of a public figure, making the bar for libel much higher. It's worth reading the entire response for its richness of detail, but I'll "cherry pick" a few of the choice bits for my post. For example, one of the amusing bits occurs when Deer's lawyers point out that off-the-cuff remarks made by Deer are not actionable:
For similar reasons, Texas courts have long held that a statement of rhetorical hyperbole or one using colorful language is nonactionable. Such a statement "does not, in its common usage, convey a verifiable fact, but is, by its nature, somewhat indefinite and ambiguous. . . ."
Falk & Mayfield, L.L.P. v. Molzan, 974 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). For example, Texas courts have identified a long list of statements that are simply too indefinite to sustain a viable libel claim. See, e.g., id. (accusing a law firm of "lawsuit abuse" nonactionable); Zimmer, 257 S.W.3d at 512 (accusing coach of using "obscene gesture" nonactionable); Kerr, 706 S.W.2d at 799 (holding that an accusation of "cheating" in an editorial was nonactionable); Associated Press v. Cook, 17 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (labeling the plaintiff a "blight on law enforcement" who has caused "unbelievable problems" was nonactionable); Yiamouyiannis v. Thompson, 764 S.W.2d 338, 339-40 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988, writ denied) (holding that statements calling the plaintiff a "quack, a hoke artist, and a fearmonger," are "vintage hyperbole, and are not capable of proof one way or the other"). In fact, courts in other cases have considered the very same expressions challenged by Dr. Wakefield here and found them to be nonactionable.
Imagine my relief that, in Texas at least, calling Wakefield a "fraudster" is protected speech.
My relief that many of my more—shall we say?—colorful utterances and writings about Andrew Wakefield are almost certainly protected speech notwithstanding, there's no doubt that Andrew Wakefield has to clear a very high bar to have any chance of prevailing. He has to demonstrate the following:
Dr. Wakefield may have figured that, in Texas, there would be little "downside" to filing frivolous libel claims and using the suit to raise money and harass his critics. Not so anymore. To avoid dismissal under our State's new anti-SLAPP statute, Dr. Wakefield must submit evidence to support each essential element of his libel claims. He cannot do this for several reasons. First, the statements he challenges are true. The GMC findings against him—numerous proven charges of "dishonest" and "unethical" conduct—are binding in this case, and they leave no room for Wakefield to argue that he was defamed by Defendants' reporting and editorial comment. And Defendants have overwhelming additional evidence to establish the truth of the challenged statements.
Moreover, even if Dr. Wakefield could produce evidence of falsity and overcome Defendants' other defenses, his claims would still fail. He is indisputably a public figure, and therefore must prove that Defendants acted with actual malice—that they knew what they were publishing was false. Again, this will be an impossible burden for Dr. Wakefield. The reporting he challenges was the product of years of investigation by one of the United Kingdom's best reporters, exhaustively sourced, then subjected to multiple editorial reviews, including an external review by an expert pediatrician. And Dr. Wakefield's credibility on these matters had been so thoroughly eviscerated by his repeated obfuscation, posturing, and outright lying that Defendants had no doubts about the accuracy of their reporting, despite Wakefield's protestations of innocence.
Also, as is noted numerous times, Wakefield's history of frivolous lawsuits does not help his case. As Popehat notes, this motion, on an initial reading, looks very strong.
Particularly strong is the excruciatingly detailed reconstruction of the evidence against Wakefield, both from the GMC hearings and Deer's own investigations. If you want to know why it's purely wishful thinking on Olmsted's and McCarthy's part to think that the reversal of Walker-Smith's loss of his medical license has any significant bearing on either Wakefield's GMC case or, in particular, this frivolous lawsuit, you'd do well to read the sections in the anti-SLAPP response and Brian Deer's response to Wakefield's lawsuit describing Wakefield's activities and the evidence against him. For example, in Walker-Smith's case, the primary offense that the GMC found him guilty of doing tests (such as lumbar punctures, MRIs, and colonoscopies) for research purposes rather than clinical purposes. That's it. Wakefield did so much more:
The GMC panel handed down its findings on January 28, 2010, concluding that Dr. Wakefield had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules, and showed a "callous disregard" for the suffering of children involved in his research.32 Included among them were four different proven findings of dishonesty against Dr. Wakefield, all proven to a standard of criminal fault—akin to "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the United States.33 Among other things, the panel found that Dr. Wakefield improperly subjected some children to invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and MRI scans. Dr. Wakefield also paid children at his son's birthday party to have blood drawn for research purposes. The GMC panel found that Dr. Wakefield's Lancet research was "dishonest," "irresponsible," "misleading," and inaccurate. The panel found that Dr. Wakefield improperly failed to disclose his connections to planned litigation, his patents for a competing vaccine, and the bias inherent in his selection of study subjects. The GMC panel further found that Dr. Wakefield's conduct "was such as to bring the medical profession into disrepute."
Basically, at the very best if you accept the reasoning behind Mitting's ruling, you must conclude that Walker-Smith was Wakefield's dupe. At worst, if you don't accept the reasoning behind Mitting's ruling, Walker-Smith was complicit. Either way, Justice Mitting's ruling will not help Wakefield in his libel action. After all, Wakefield's lawsuit was all about the article that Deer published in the BMJ and the accompanying editorial written by Fiona Godlee. Neither rehashed of the GMC hearings, even though it's clear that Wakefield is trying to relitigate the GMC hearings using the vehicle of a libel suit. More importantly, even if Deer's and Godlee's articles were nothing more than rehashes of the GMC hearings, to prevail Wakefield must prove that Deer and/or Godlee believed or suspected what they wrote was false. They clearly did not. The only thing Justice Mitting's decision held was that the GMC gave more weight to the expert witnesses against Walkers-Smith than the expert witnesses for him (and hence its decision should be reversed) and that the GMC didn't consider whether or not Walkers-Smith believed the medical procedures were clinically indicated (and hence the GMC decision should be reversed). I'm not sure about the former, and I find Mitting's understanding of medical research and its ethics to be dubious at best, but even if his reasoning were spot on, neither of his conclusions sheds any light on whether Deer or Godlee thought what they were publishing was accurate or not, while Deer's and Godlee's anti-SLAPP response delineates the incredible lengths to which the BMJ went to assure that Deer's article was accurate:
Not only did the BMJ fully trust Deer and his reporting, it and Dr. Godlee took extra steps to ensure the reporting was truthful. For Deer, who was ever mindful of Dr. Wakefield's prior litigation and regulatory-complaint history, this meant five months of work to ensure that every word and every citation was verified.166 For the BMJ, this meant a separate fact-check of the first article by a deputy editor (Smith) and an external review for scientific accuracy by an expert pediatrician (Dr. Marcovitch).167 Pre-publication review by outside sources constitutes affirmative evidence of no actual malice. See, e.g., Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. 1984).
In other words, the reversal of the ruling in Walker-Smith's case has no bearing on Wakefield's libel suit. Remember, Walker-Smith's argument basically boiled down to throwing Wakefield under the bus by admitting he did everything in the GMC complaint but arguing that at the time he hadn't been aware that Wakefield was conducting a research project, much less one without proper approval by an ethics board. It's the "dupe" defense.
As Sullivan points out, one has to wonder whether Andrew Wakefield's lawyer was aware just how shaky the basis of his lawsuit was, given that he appears to have taken on the case as a favor. Why do I say that? Well, there is a rather odd link between Wakefield and his lawyer. This link is through the Autism Trust USA. Look at this webpage describing the National Board. Note that Carmel Wakefield, Andrew Wakefield's wife, is on the board and the executive committee. Note that Imogon Wakefield (apparently Andrew Wakefield's daughter) is on the Junior Advisory Board. Now look at who else is also on the Junior Advisory Board.
Anna Christine Parrish.
And remember who Andrew Wakefield's lawyer bringing the libel suit is.
Coincidence? Possibly, but I tend to doubt it.
So what now? In a way, I'm rather surprised that Wakefield put himself in such a situation. Surely he had to be aware that Texas had recently passed an anti-SLAPP statuted designed specifically to punish the filing of lawsuits of the type that Wakefield is known for. Even worse, Wakefield might have unwittingly set himself up to be the first major test case for the new law.
Whatever Wakefield's motivations, to rally his supporters, hubris and vanity demanding that he try to salvage a shred of reputation, or just a desire to punish those who did the public such a great service in revealing the depths of Wakefield's perfidy, Wakefield is following an unfortunately well-worn path in suing the legal system to try to silence critics. It is what cranks do. What makes this interesting is that this time Wakefield might pay a price.
What's also revealing is how antivaccine cranks view not just Wakefield's libel suit but how they view legal processes in general. In a way, they view such issues in a manner similar to how people in general do, but with our normal tendencies to view results that we like as correct and results that we don't like as incorrect cranked up to 11. For example, to them Walker-Smith's success on appeal is not just a ruling that disagreed with the General Medical Council's explanation of its reasoning for striking off Walker-Smith based on questionable understandings of clinical trial ethics and how medicine is practiced, it's a vindication of their world view as embodied in Andrew Wakefield. Similarly, Wakefield's lawsuit is also vindication. It's not difficult to predict that, when Wakefield's libel suit is dismissed (and, make no mistake, a frivolous lawsuit like this will be dismissed) and he is hit with Deer's and the BMJ's legal expenses, antivaccinationist will view it as more persecution of their hero.
It's important in considering such issues to remember that the law and science are, unfortunately, related (when they're related) only by coincidence. More often, the law has little to do with science.


text:
Telephone: (408) 792-7356
For General Inquiries: [email protected]
43 W. San Salvador
San Jose • CA
Stay up to date with all the Haberdasher happenings and the first calls for access to limited or special events!
- For parties of 2 - 8 reserve now
- Party sizes of 9 - 12 guests:
Email us here one week in advance.
- Booking an event for 13+
Click here to fill out an event form.
- Events tailored to your needs
- Up to 110 guests
- Catering available
*Passed apps or buffet
__- Prices may vary on party size, date and time


text:
Body and brain of gamers probed
Scientists are attempting to inject some real science into video games development to accurately measure the effects games have on minds and bodies.
University of Hull researchers said the games industry needs a scientific boost instead of just anecdotal evidence.
Scientific testing of physiological and psychological responses, or "mood profiling", could help developers robustly plan which games will be hits.
The research is being presented at a games conference in London.
"We think there is very little in the way of good science being done," Dr Jeremy Thornton, lead researcher on the project told BBC News Online.
The video games industry is an expensive one, and is the fastest-growing entertainment media sector, according to analysts.
Hit and miss
Sophisticated, graphics-intensive titles - characteristic of multiplayer online games such as first-person-shooters Unreal Tournament and Halo - can cost millions and that is set to rise.
Getting the right recipe for success for developers who want to make games that stimulate players, and investors who want a return, can be hit and miss.
The testing process the industry has in place at the moment is "broken", said Dr Thornton. What he proposes is more or less testing the blood, sweat and tears of gamers and seeing what it says about the games.
"The current way of developing games is through a portfolio where a publisher will have proposals for games and maybe two will get to market," he explained.
"It is very unlikely that any of those will reach the top 10 and those are the ones that generate millions."
Many games are dropped by developers before they have a chance to make it onto the market.
Although they are designed to generate emotion in a player, according to Dr Thornton, there is no evidence of how this happens on which to rely.
"Often, they rely on in-house industry wisdom and so it needs the application of some science."
Dr Thornton, a practicing GP, said medical techniques such as pain management can translate well to games.
"The question is," he said, "can you detail out from successful games what it does to humans, profile it and make sure future games can generate that response."
Mood and spit
Microsoft's UK research arm, Microsoft Research Cambridge (MSRC), is part funding the three-year project, and has recently set up its own Interactive Systems group to specifically work on this area.
But past research on gaming and its impacts has focused on violence and children, said Dr Thornton.
Pioneering work by Dr Paul Lynch from the University of Oklahoma in 1999 measured hormonal levels in game players, and Microsoft's Bill Fulton lead the software firm's push to test games.
Dr Thornton's research with Dr Jon Purdy involves measuring mood with psychological questionnaires, and using computer software, they can monitor alertness and cognitive function.
"We are also measuring heart rate to look at how games activate human bodies and analysing spit for hormones", said Dr Thornton.
"We are hoping to be able to compare that with sportsmen and women playing physical games."
Although the work is in its pilot stages in which the testing methods are being formalised, the team have had some interesting early results.
Some of them may seem obvious to hardcore gamers, but very little evidence of this sort has been formally collected before.
"Playing a game does not make you happy if you lose. A game does alert and activate you though," said Dr Thornton.
"In cognitive function tests with the small test group, it was found that with 100% of subjects the speed of completion went up."
But people who are conscious of rules feel guilty when they finish a game because they see it as too much fun, he added.
The stress hormone, cortisol, also shot up in the group of 16 men, doubling that of an average person. In a control group where they sat passively watching a video of a game, they fell.
Based on this, the researchers have hypothesised so far that the psycho-physiological impacts are similar to physical sports.
"It is much like playing football or rugby. If you lose, you feel rubbish but still elated."
Using a skull cap with 12 sensor nodes on it, they also monitored theta brain wave patterns, usually associated with "an altered state".
"Playing a game puts you into an altered state. It's like a runner's high, where sports athletes are aware they are doing well.
"They not sure what they are doing, but they know they are functioning at their peak."
So far, 600 people have been questioned about video game imagery, 20 have taken part in the personality study on mood, and 16 have been involved with the ECG study.
The vision is to provide the techniques and tools to do this on a larger scale, internationally, and across gender, age and culture.
In order to scale-up the tests globally, the researchers are developing ways of delivering questionnaires and record ECGs, in real-time, over the net.
Thousands of games developers and analysts have converged in London for two major trade shows and conferences to discuss future challenges for the industry.
The research is being presented at the Game Developers' Conference Europe.
From BBC News


text:
The photography blog PetaPixel recently posted about photography books in the public domain that have been included in Project Gutenberg digital library. Of the 37 books to be fully digitized, perhaps the most exciting is the inclusion of William Henry Fox Talbot's The Pencil of Nature, published in 1844. The book details his calotype process and includes 24 images of finished calotype prints with text describing the image's creation and significance.
Via PetaPixel
For more information, visit Project Gutenberg.


text: Light Echoes from V838 Mon by memolition · Image Credit: NASA, ESA, H. E. Bond (STScI)Explanation: What caused this outburst of V838 Mon? For reasons unknown, star V838 Mon's outer surface suddenly greatly expanded with the result that it became the brightest star in the entire Milky Way Galaxy in January 2002. Then, just as suddenly, it faded. Astellar flash like this had never been seen before — supernovas and novas expel matter out into space. Although the V838 Mon flash appears to expel material into space, what is seen in the above image from the Hubble Space Telescope is actually an outwardly moving light echo of the bright flash. In a light echo, light from the flash is reflected by successively more distant rings in the complex array of ambient interstellar dust that already surrounded the star. V838 Mon lies about 20,000 light years away toward the constellation of the unicorn (Monoceros), while the light echo above spans about six light years in diameter. Like it? Share it!


text:
Gregory Dialogos, Bishop of Rome
March 12
Saint Gregory was born in Rome to noble and wealthy parents about the year 540. While the Saint was still young, his father died. However, his mother, Sylvia, saw to it that her child received a good education in both secular and spiritual learning. He became Prefect of Rome and sought to please God even while in the world; later, he took up the monastic life; afterwards he was appointed Archdeacon of Rome, then, in 579, apocrisiarius (representative or Papal legate) to Constantinople, where he lived for nearly seven years. He returned to Rome in 585 and was elected Pope in 590. He is renowned especially for his writings and great almsgiving, and also because, on his initiative, missionary work began among the Anglo-Saxon people. It is also from him that Gregorian Chant takes its name; the chanting he had heard at Constantinople had deeply impressed him, and he imported many elements of it into the ecclesiastical chant of Rome. He served as Bishop of that city from 590 to 604.
Apolytikion of Gregory Dialogos, Bishop of Rome
Fourth Tone
A model of faith and the image of gentleness, the example of your life has shown you forth to your sheep-fold to be a master of temperance. You obtained thus through being lowly, gifts from on high, and riches through poverty. Gregory, our father and priest of priests, intercede with Christ our God that He may save our souls.
Kontakion of Gregory Dialogos, Bishop of Rome
Plagal of the Fourth Tone
To thee, who art the Church's tuneful harp inspired of God, thou tongue of wisdom who wast verily possessed of God, unto thee, as it is meet, we now offer praises; for thou truly hadst the zeal of the Apostles' choir and didst follow in their footsteps as their worthy heir; and to thee we say: Rejoice, divine Father Gregory.
Blessed Feast Day
Share the feast of Gregory Dialogos, Bishop of Rome with an icon greeting ecard.


text:
146 0
TheMoments photography theme is a minimalist and fully responsive multipurpose theme with full WordPress Customizer integration, that enables you to customize your website with live preview. Although bundled with features like homepage banner, featured slider to showcase services and featured posts for blogs and portfolio, this theme is very lightweight and easy to use. Apart from the aforementioned features, it has widget for instagram, contact form and is also built for cross device and cross browser adaptability. This is one of the best WordPress theme designed for photographers, personal portfolio, travel blogging, travel bloggers, colleges, universities, small medium and large scale businesses, corporates, lawyers, bloggers, restaurants, weddings, hotels, churches, salons, fitness, resorts, ecommerce, businesses, creative freelancers, professionals etc. and also supports woocommerce. We provide you free wordpress theme that is SEO friendly and customizable according to your necessity and desire, which helps you make a positive impression on potential clients by showcasing your visual works in the best possible way. Live Demo - http://thebootstrapthemes.com/preview/?demo=themoments-pro , Theme Details - https://thebootstrapthemes.com/downloads/free-photography-bootstrap-wordpress-theme/ , Theme Documentation - https://thebootstrapthemes.com/themoments-wordpress-theme-documentation/
Theme Info
Theme Developer
Theme Version


text:
- Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri de
▪ French artistIntroductionin full Henri-Marie-Raymonde de Toulouse-Lautrec-Monfaborn Nov. 24, 1864, Albi, Francedied Sept. 9, 1901, MalroméFrench artist who observed and documented with great psychological insight the personalities and facets of Parisian nightlife and the French world of entertainment in the 1890s. His use of free-flowing, expressive line, often becoming pure arabesque, resulted in highly rhythmical compositions (e.g., In the Circus Fernando: The Ringmaster, 1888). The extreme simplification in outline and movement and the use of large colour areas make his posters some of his most powerful works.Childhood and educationToulouse-Lautrec's family was wealthy and had a lineage that extended without interruption back to the time of Charlemagne. He grew up amid his family's typically aristocratic love of sport and art. Most of the boy's time was spent at the Château du Bosc, one of the family estates located near Albi. Henri's grandfather, father, and uncle were all talented draftsmen, and thus it was hardly surprising that Henri began sketching at the age of 10. His interest in art grew as a result of his being incapacitated in 1878 by an accident in which he broke his left thighbone. His right thighbone was fractured a little more than a year later in a second mishap. These accidents, requiring extensive periods of convalescence and often painful treatments, left his legs atrophied and made walking most difficult. As a result, Toulouse-Lautrec devoted ever greater periods to art in order to pass away the frequently lonely hours.Toulouse-Lautrec's first visit to Paris occurred in 1872, when he enrolled in the Lycée Fontanes (now Lycée Condorcet). He gradually moved on to private tutors, and it was only after he had passed the baccalaureate examinations, in 1881, that he resolved to become an artist.His first professional teacher in painting was René Princeteau, a friend of the Lautrec family. Princeteau's fame, such as it was, arose from his depiction of military and equestrian subjects, done in a 19th-century academic style. Though Toulouse-Lautrec got on well with Princeteau, he moved on to the atelier of Léon Bonnat (Bonnat, Léon) at the end of 1882. In Bonnat, Toulouse-Lautrec encountered an artist who fought vehemently against deviation from academic rules, condemned the slapdash approach of the Impressionists (Impressionism), and judged Toulouse-Lautrec's drawing "atrocious." His work received a more positive reaction in 1883, when he joined the studio of Fernand Cormon.In the early 1880s, Cormon enjoyed a moment of celebrity, and his studio attracted such artists as Vincent van Gogh (Gogh, Vincent van) and the Symbolist painter Émile Bernard (Bernard, Émile). Cormon gave Toulouse-Lautrec much freedom in developing a personal style. That Cormon approved of his pupil's work is proved by his choosing Toulouse-Lautrec to assist him in illustrating the definitive edition of the works of Victor Hugo (Hugo, Victor). In the end, however, Toulouse-Lautrec's drawings for this project were not used.Despite this approval, Toulouse-Lautrec found the atmosphere at Cormon's studio increasingly restrictive. "Cormon's corrections are much kinder than Bonnat's were," he wrote his uncle Charles on Feb. 18, 1883. "He looks at everything you show him and encourages one steadily. It might surprise you, but I don't like that so much. You see, the lashing of my former master pepped me up, and I didn't spare myself." The academic regimen of copying became insufferable. He made "a great effort to copy the model exactly," one of his friends later recalled, "but in spite of himself he exaggerated certain details, sometimes the general character, so that he distorted without trying or even wanting to." Soon Toulouse-Lautrec's attendance at the studio became infrequent at best. He then rented his own studio in the Montmartre district of Paris and concerned himself, for the most part, with doing portraits of his friends.The documenter of MontmartreThus it was that in the mid-1880s Toulouse-Lautrec began his lifelong association with the bohemian life of Montmartre. The cafés, cabarets, entertainers, and artists of this area of Paris fascinated him and led to his first taste of public recognition. He focused his attention on depicting popular entertainers such as Aristide Bruant, Jane Avril, Loie Fuller (Fuller, Loie), May Belfort, May Milton, Valentin le Désossé, Louise Weber (known as La Goulue ["the Glutton"]), and clowns such as Cha-U-Kao and Chocolat.In 1884 Toulouse-Lautrec made the acquaintance of Bruant, a singer and composer who owned a cabaret called the Mirliton. Impressed by his work, Bruant asked him to prepare illustrations for his songs and offered the Mirliton as a place where Toulouse-Lautrec could exhibit his works. By this means and through reproductions of his drawings in Bruant's magazine Mirliton, he became known in Montmartre and started to receive commissions.Toulouse-Lautrec sought to capture the effect of the movement of the figure through wholly original means. For example, his contemporary Edgar Degas (Degas, Edgar) (whose works, along with Japanese prints, were a principal influence on him) expressed movement by carefully rendering the anatomical structure of several closely grouped figures, attempting in this way to depict but one figure, caught at successive moments in time. Toulouse-Lautrec, on the other hand, employed freely handled line and colour that in themselves conveyed the idea of movement. Lines were no longer bound to what was anatomically correct; colours were intense and in their juxtapositions generated a pulsating rhythm; laws of perspective were violated in order to place figures in an active, unstable relationship with their surroundings. A common device of Toulouse-Lautrec was to compose the figures so that their legs were not visible. Though this characteristic has been interpreted as the artist's reaction to his own stunted, almost worthless legs, in fact the treatment eliminated specific movement, which could then be replaced by the essence of movement. The result was an art throbbing with life and energy, that in its formal abstraction and overall two-dimensionality presaged the turn to schools of Fauvism and Cubism in the first decade of the 20th century.The originality of Toulouse-Lautrec also emerged in his posters (poster). Rejecting the notion of high art, done in the traditional medium of oil on canvas, Toulouse-Lautrec in 1891 did his first poster, Moulin Rouge—La Goulue. This poster won Toulouse-Lautrec increasing fame. "My poster is pasted today on the walls of Paris," the artist proudly declared. It was one of more than 30 he would create in the 10 years before his death. Posters afforded Toulouse-Lautrec the possibility of a widespread impact for his art, no longer restricted by the limitations of easel painting. They also enhanced the success he had enjoyed in the preceding year when his works were shown in Brussels at the Exposition des XX (the Twenty), an avant-garde association, and in Paris at the Salon des Indépendants.Toulouse-Lautrec is most important for his success in going beyond a representation of superficial reality to a profound insight into the psychological makeup of his subjects. He turned to the lithograph (lithography) after 1892 as a medium well suited to this goal. Among more than 300 lithographs produced in the final decade of his life were an album of 11 prints titled Le Café Concert (1893); 16 lithographs of the entertainer Yvette Guilbert (Guilbert, Yvette) (1894); and a series of 22 illustrations for Jules Renard (Renard, Jules)'s Les Histoires naturelles (1899). But none of these works is more significant than Elles, a series done in 1896, presenting a sensitive portrayal of brothel life. Toulouse-Lautrec spent lengthy periods observing the actions and behaviour of prostitutes and their clients. The resulting 11 works revealed these individuals as human beings, with some of the same strengths and many of the weaknesses of other members of society. A masterpiece of this genre is Au salon de la rue des Moulins (At the Salon). This painting evokes sympathy from the spectator as he observes the women's isolation and loneliness, qualities which the young Toulouse-Lautrec had so often experienced himself. At the Salon is a brilliant demonstration, therefore, of his stated desire to "depict the true and not the ideal," in which truth is based not on a careful representation of detail but rather on capturing, in a few brief brushstrokes, the essential nature of a subject.The appearance of Elles coincided with a growing deterioration in his physical and mental condition. Toulouse-Lautrec's figure, even among the great human diversity found in Montmartre, remained unmistakable. His fully developed torso rested on dwarfish legs. Not quite five feet one inch tall, his size seemed further diminished because of his practice of associating with unusually tall men, such as his fellow students Maxime Dethomas and Louis Anquetin and his cousin and close friend Gabriel Tapié de Céleyran. His frequently ironic tone failed to mask a fundamental dislike of his physical appearance, and his letters contain many derogatory remarks about his body and references to an increasing number of ailments, including syphilis. Drinking heavily in the late 1890s, when he reputedly helped popularize the cocktail, he suffered a mental collapse at the beginning of 1899. The immediate cause was the sudden, unexplained departure of his mother from Paris on January 3. He was always close to his family, particularly to his mother, who had always supported his ambitions; and he interpreted her leaving as a betrayal. The effect on his weakened system was severe, and he was committed shortly thereafter to a sanatorium in Neuilly-sur-Seine. This decision was made by the artist's mother, against the advice of relatives and friends of the artist, in the hope of avoiding a scandal.Toulouse-Lautrec remained formally committed until March 31, 1899, though he chose to stay on at the sanatorium until mid-May. While there he was able to demonstrate his lucidity and power of memory by preparing a number of works on the theme of the circus. These works, however, lack the force and intensity of his earlier compositions. In the spring of 1900 he started drinking heavily again. Less than three months before his 37th birthday, he died at Château de Malromé.AssessmentToulouse-Lautrec greatly influenced French art of the late 19th and early 20th centuries by his use of new kinds of subjects, his ability to capture the essence of an individual with economical means, and his stylistic innovations. Despite his deformity and the effects of alcoholism and mental collapse later in life, Toulouse-Lautrec helped set the course of avant-garde art well beyond his early and tragic death at the age of 36.Toulouse-Lautrec was not a profound intellectual. Tapié de Céleyran wrote that he read little and when he did it was usually at night, because of insomnia. But he was a great satirist of pretense and convention. In typical fashion, he passed off his initial, unsuccessful attempt at the baccalaureate by having name cards printed "Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, flunker of the arts." This iconoclasm surfaced also when he parodied Pierre Puvis de Chavannes (Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre)'s serious Symbolist (Symbolist movement) work The Sacred Grove by turning it into a boisterous scene filled with rowdy friends (1884). Yet he also could push himself in pursuits like swimming and boating, and toward the end of his life he installed a rowing machine in his studio. In his enthusiasm for sports he once accompanied a French bicycling team on a trip through England. Toulouse-Lautrec was, as two observers have concluded, a "sensitive, deeply affectionate man, conscious of his infirmity but wearing a mask of joviality and irony."Although recognized today as a major figure in late 19th-century art, Toulouse-Lautrec's status in his lifetime was disputed. Indeed, the artist's father, who took slight interest in his son after his disabling injuries, regarded his son's work as only "rough sketches" and could never accept the idea of a member of the aristocracy betraying his class by turning from a "gentleman" artist to a professional one. Stung by such criticism and hampered by his infirmities, Toulouse-Lautrec persevered to emerge as a prolific artist whose work eventually helped shape the art of decades to come.Alan Curtis BirnholzAdditional ReadingBiographies of the artist and assessments of his work may be found in Gerstle Mack, Toulouse-Lautrec (1938, reprinted 1989); Hans Tietze, Toulouse Lautrec (1953); Jacques Lassaigne, Lautrec (1953); Douglas Cooper, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (1955); Hanspeter Landolt (comp.), Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec: Drawings and Sketches in Colour (1955); Lawrence Hanson and Elizabeth Hanson, The Tragic Life of Toulouse-Lautrec (1956); Édouard Julien, Lautrec (1959, reissued 1980); Henri Perruchot, Toulouse-Lautrec (1960); Gotthard Jedlicka, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (1961); Jean Adhémar (ed.), Toulouse-Lautrec: His Complete Lithographs and Drypoints (1965, reissued 1987); Jean Bouret, The Life and Work of Toulouse-Lautrec, Court Painter to the Wicked (1966); André Fermigier, Toulouse-Lautrec (1969); the introduction by Jean Adhémar and Theodore Reff to Unpublished Correspondence of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, ed. by Lucien Goldschmidt and Herbert Schimmel (1969); Richard Thomson, Toulouse-Lautrec (1977); and Renata Negri, Toulouse-Lautrec (1979).
* * *
Universalium. 2010.


text:
Note: most commands will require the use of a proceeding su or sudo command to give you Super User privileges. Also referred to as substitute user or switch user.
System Information
date – Display current date and time.
cal – Display the current months calendar.
uptime – Display how long your system has been running.
w – Display who is currently online.
whoami – Display who you are logged in as.
finger user – Display information about the user
uname -a – Display Kernel information. (See Linux: How To Identify The Linux Kernel Version?)
cat /proc/cpuinfo – Display CPU Information.
cat /proc/meminfo – Display memory information.
man command – Display the manual page for a given command.
df -h – Display Disk Usage.
du – Display directory space usage.
free – Display memory and swap usage.
whereis appname – Display potential location of application.
which appname – Display which application will run by default.
ping host – Ping hostname or IP address and display results.
whois domain – Display whois record information for domain.
dig domain – Display DNS information for domain.
dig -x host – Display the reverse lookup of the host.
wget filename – Download a file via url.
wget -c filename – Continue downloading a stopped download.
ps – Display all current active processes.
top – Display all current running processes.
kill pid – Kill process with id pid.
killall proc – Kill all processes named proc (Be careful!).
bg – Display all stopped or background jobs.
fg – Bring the most recent job to the foreground.
fg n – Bring job n to the foreground.
Software Installation
Install software from source. Change to directory (cd) containing source files and execute the following commands:
make install
Install Software Debian Package Manager:
su dpkg -i pkgname.deb
Install Software RedHat Package Manager:
su rpm -Uvh pkgname.rpm
Install Software Ubuntu apt:
sudo apt-get install pkgname
Working With Files
ls – Display directory listing.
ls -al – Display directory listing, formatted and show hidden files.
cd dir – Change directory to dir.
cd ~ – Change directory to the home directory.
pwd – Display the current present working directory.
mkdir dir – Create a new directory named dir.
rm filename – Delete file filename.
rm -r dir – Delete directory dir.
rm -f filename – Force delete of file filename.
rm -rf dir – Force delete of directory dir.(Be Careful!).
cp file1 file2 – Copy file1 to file2.
cp -r dir1 dir2 – Copy dir1 to dir2 (create dir2 if non existent)
mv file1 file2 – Move or rename file1 to file2.
ln -s file link – Create a symbolic link from link to file.
touch filename – Create file filename or update.
cat > file – Sends standard input to file.
more file – Display contents of file.
head file – Display first 10 lines of file.
tail file – Display last 10 lines of file.
tail -f file – Display contents of file as it gets bigger starting with last 10 lines.
Searching Files
grep pattern files – Search for a pattern in files.
grep -r pattern dir – Search recursively for a pattern in dir.
command | grep pattern – Search for a pattern in the output of a command.
locate file – Find all instances of file.
File Permissions
chmod octal file – Change the permissions of file to octal (user|group|world):
4 – read (r)
2 – write(w)
1 – execute(x)
chmod 777 file – Changes the permissions of file to read, write and execute for all users.
chmod 700 file – Changes the permissions of file to read, write and execute for user only.
File Compression
tar cf file.tar files – Create a tar named file.tar containing files.
tar xf file.tar – Extract the files from file.tar.
tar czf file.tar.gz files – Create a tar with Gzip compression.
tar xzf file.tar.gz – Extract a tar with Gzip.
tar cjf file.tar.bz2 – Create a tar with Bzip2 compression.
tar xjf file.tar.bz2 – Extract a tar with Bzip2.
gzip file – Compress file and rename to file.gz.
gzip -d file.gz – Decompress file.gz back into file.
ssh username@host – Connect to a host as a specific username.
ssh -p port username@host – Connect to a host on a specific port as a specific username.
ssh-copy-id username@host – Add your key to host for username to enable a passwordless login.
Terminal Shortcuts
Ctrl+C – Halts the current command.
Ctrl+Z – Stops the current command, resume with fg in the foreground or bg in the background.
Ctrl+D – Logout of current session.
Ctrl+W – Erases one word in the current line.
Ctrl+U – Erases the whole line.
Ctrl+R – Type to bring up a recent command.
!! – Repeats the last command.
UpArrow – Cycles through all commands previously used in current session.
exit – Log out of current session.


text:
St. Nicholas ,who morphed into Santa Claus, was the fourth-century Bishop of Myra. Myra was then in Greece. It is now in Turkey.
Not much is known of the life of St. Nicholas. He is said to have been generous to children and to the poor. St. Nicholas is the patron saint of children. Here is a link to a list of Saints.
St. Nicholas is said to have been born into a prosperous home. His parents died when he was a young man and he was left an inheritance. Nicholas used this inheritance to help a poor man support three daughters who otherwise would have been sold into prostitution to support the family home.
It was this gift giving that is the connection between the St. Nicholas of old and the Santa of the modern day. In the spirit of the gifts for the three children, people in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands began to give each other gifts at Christmas. Santa Claus is, after a few mutations, St. Nicholas.
Here is a link to the website of Adbusters. Adbusters suggests you should buy as little as you get away with at Christmas and offers often insightful critiques of consumer culture.
It is said Nicholas brought back to life two or three boys who had been cut-up and tossed in a brine-tub by an innkeeper. The innkeeper was going to sell the boys as pickled pork. It is not known how Nicholas performed this feat.
It is claimed God himself indicated to the people of Myra that Nicholas should be selected as Bishop. It is not clear what type of signal was sent.
Nicholas was renowned as a champion of the falsely accused. He saved the lives of three men who were going to be put to death based on a sentence that had been made on this basis of a bribe. That account is the basis of the picture above.
Many falsely accused people are put to death and placed in jail in the United States in the current day. Please click here to read about The Innocence Project.
Nicholas is the patron saint of prisoners and prostitutes. All people merit concern. Here is a list of the many groups that can claim Nicholas as patron saint.
I notice "consumers" are not on the list. Caveat emptor!
St. Nicholas is said to have stopped a raging storm in Greece and in so doing saved the lives of many mariners. In Greece, he is the patron of sailors. Here is a link to a story about a United Nations treaty meant to protect the rights of the commerical sailors who help ship goods around the world.
Santa is about more than gift giving. I don't think St. Nicholas would have lined up at Best Buy at 5 AM the morning after Thanksgiving to get a bargain on a laptop.
One source for this post was The Oxford Companion To The Year—An Exploration Of Calender Customs And Time-Reckoning. It's a great book.


text:
Brad is both a CPA and Registered Representative affiliated with Bay State Financial. His experience includes all areas of tax planning and tax preparation for individuals and small businesses, with an emphasis on closely held and family businesses. Topics of discussion will include:
The Consultants Network meeting starts at 6:30 PM. The meeting will take place at Constant Contact, Reservoir Place - 1601 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA 02451, in the Great Room on the third floor
Driving Directions
For more information, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.com; or contact the chairman Heinz Bachmann, at 978-637-2070. The Consultants Network website is at www.boston-consult.org.


text:
Linhart CDE Program
Practicing for Life
Participants in NYU Dentistry's Linhart Continuing Dental Education Program are successful before they arrive, but they know that NYU Dentistry's Linhart Continuing Education Program will give them the tools to go farther and perform even better. It's about leadership, making things happen, and putting your stamp on the future of dentistry.
We offer a wide range of lifelong learning opportunities for oral health professionals, biomedical scientists, clinical researchers, and dental educators from the US and all over the world, including: Clinical Participation, Lecture, Laboratory Participation and Surgical/Clinical Observation.


text:
The WSJ has an article up called "Can Jazz Be Saved?". Basically, the article says that in 2002 10.8% of adults went to listen to jazz, and in 2008 that number fell to 7.8%. In the college market it fell from 19.4% in 1982 to 14.9% in 2008.
I somehow think that there are more factors than the author suggests. I think there is a big fissure between people who want "traditional jazz" and those who don't really care what type of jazz it is. I know I have encountered the former attitude in several bands I play in, where arrangements by Gordon Goodwin are sort of mocked and some crappy B-side arrangement of some song no one knows (and after we play it we know why) is favored more.
I know my own listening habits have been to go back to the great music of the 70s and early 80s. LPs I've been getting in Berkeley that. The new last "album" I bought was Gordon Goodwin's latest. Not like the Vandermark 5, or yet another reissue and remaster of Coltrane or Miles Davis.