text:
Analysis of the HPV Challenge: Industry Violations and EPA Negligence
Analysis of the HPV Challenge: Industry Violations and EPA Negligence
By Nicole Cardello, M.H.S.
Executive Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge encourages chemical companies to volunteer to conduct screening-level animal toxicity tests on 2,800 industrial chemicals. Pursuant to this program, companies have committed to provide available toxicity information and present proposals to test chemicals. Researchers at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) have reviewed all 24 HPV Challenge test plans submitted to the EPA as of August 1, 2001, evaluating each test plan for compliance with the original HPV Challenge framework as well as animal welfare guidelines issued by the EPA. This review found major and recurring flaws in the program's execution as well as its fundamental design. Of the 24 test plans submitted, 18 (75 percent) violate fundamental terms of the program. Many participating companies have failed to conduct comprehensive analyses of available data and have instead proposed unnecessary and inhumane tests. Furthermore, the program's exclusion of human health and exposure data is leading to irrelevant experiments that will not protect human health or the environment.
In April 1998, former Vice President Al Gore announced the "Chemical Right-to-Know Program," a national initiative aimed at making hazard information about chemicals available to the public. In October of that year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced, as part of this initiative, the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge. This plan encourages chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors to volunteer to conduct screening-level animal toxicity tests on 2,800 industrial chemicals produced or imported in the United States in amounts exceeding 1 million pounds per year.
The impetus for the HPV Challenge came from a July 1997 report entitled Toxic Ignorance, issued by the environmental group Environmental Defense and the April 1998 EPA report Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study: What Do We Really Know About the Safety of High Production Volume Chemicals? These papers suggested that basic information about many HPV chemicals is not available. In December 1998, PCRM conducted its own analysis, finding data in publicly available databases overlooked by Environmental Defense and the EPA that were sufficient for basic hazard assessments of the majority of the chemicals. This information is documented in PCRM's report entitled Availability of HPV Chemical Data.
During its design, the HPV Challenge was never subjected to scientific and public comment. Only later did a notice appear in the Federal Register, but no comments were solicited. PCRM president Dr. Neal Barnard testified before the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in June 1999 and demonstrated that much of the data the EPA thought were lacking were, in fact, readily available. Dr. Barnard also pointed out that the list of chemicals slated for testing included chemicals with well-known toxicity, such as carbon tetrachloride, turpentine, tetraethyl lead, and cyclonite rat poison.
HPV Program Implementation
The HPV Challenge is a voluntary program, wherein chemical manufacturers, producers, and importers volunteer to submit testing proposals to the EPA for certain chemicals. The agency makes these test plans publicly available and allows comments from interested parties for 120 days thereafter. Under the program, participating companies are to provide all available information that would be relevant to the hazard characterization to avoid unnecessary or duplicative testing. More than 400 companies are not participating in the program, and in-house data from these non-participating companies is not being used in the program. The HPV Challenge ignores all human toxicity and exposure data.
The series of tests the EPA has requested under the HPV program is based on the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's) Screening Information Data Set (SIDS), which calls for experiments in six areas: acute toxicity, repeat dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, mutagenicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental fate. This test battery includes as many as seven animal tests and two in vitro tests. (See Appendix A.)
As a result of concerns raised by PCRM and other organizations, a compromise was reached among chemical manufacturers, the EPA, and environmental, health, and animal protection groups in October 1999. This October Agreement took the form of a guidance letter from the EPA to all HPV participants dated October 14, 1999, which delineated principles for minimizing irrelevant and repetitive tests and considering animal welfare provisions. The ten points of the agreement include, in part:
1. In analyzing the adequacy of existing data, participants shall conduct a thoughtful, qualitative analysis rather than use a rote checklist approach. Participants may conclude that there are sufficient data, given the totality of what is known about a chemical, including human experience, that certain endpoints need not be tested.
2. Participants shall maximize the use of existing data and scientifically adequate data to minimize further testing.
3. Participants shall maximize the use of scientifically appropriate categories of related chemicals and structure activity relationships.
4. Consistent with the Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) program of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), participants shall not conduct any terrestrial toxicity testing.
5. Participants are encouraged to use in vitro genetic toxicity testing to generate any needed genetic toxicity screening data, unless known chemical properties preclude its use.
6. Consistent with the OECD/SIDS program, participants generally should not develop any new dermal toxicity data.
7. Participants shall not develop sub-chronic or reproductive toxicity data for the HPV chemicals that are solely closed system intermediates, as defined by the OECD/SIDS guidelines.
8. In analyzing the adequacy of screening data for chemicals that are substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for a particular use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), participants should consider all relevant and available information supporting the FDA's conclusions. Participants reviewing the adequacy of existing data for these chemicals should specifically consider whether the information available makes it unnecessary to proceed with further testing involving animals. As with all chemicals, before generating new information, participants should further consider whether any additional information obtained would be useful or relevant.
9. Because validated non-animal tests for some SIDS endpoints may be available soon, participants shall make the following revisions to the sequence of testing:
(a) Testing of closed system intermediates, which present less risk of exposure, shall be deferred until 2003;
(b) Individual chemicals (i.e. those HPV chemicals not proposed for testing in a category) that require further testing on animals shall be deferred until November 2001.
10. Companies shall allow 120 days between the posting of tests plans and the implementation of any testing plans.
The EPA's Susan Wayland, Charles Auer, and Oscar Hernandez reiterated these principles in October 2000 in letters to all HPV participants and trade associations. The EPA further emphasized this guidance in the Federal Register Notice 65 Fed. Reg. 81686 (December 26, 2000) entitled Data Collection and Development on High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals.
Research Methods
PCRM has evaluated each test plan that has been submitted to the EPA and subjected to public comment under the HPV Challenge program as of August 1, 2001, to evaluate compliance with the original HPV framework and the October Agreement. Specifically, PCRM has examined each test plan along the following parameters: adequate presentation of existing data, appropriate use of chemical categories, testing within the scope of the HPV program, and consideration of whether or not proposed experiments would advance the understanding of the test substances' potential health risks.
PCRM evaluations entailed searches of publicly available databases for relevant toxicity studies, analyses of physical and chemical properties, environmental fate and transport, human exposure assessments, and epidemiological studies. The databases searched include PubMed, Chemfinder, Toxline, Hazard Substances Database, the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, and the National Toxicology Program study results database. Additionally, PCRM ascertained whether the sponsored chemicals were already regulated by other federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). PCRM identified exposure limits recommended by these agencies as well as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). PCRM also performed basic Internet searches and consulted toxicology textbooks.
After reviewing available information on these chemicals, PCRM researchers assessed whether or not the tests proposed by chemical companies would expand relevant knowledge of the risk posed by the chemicals to the environment or public health.
Of the 24 test plans reviewed by the EPA as of July 26, 2001, 18 (75 percent) contained substantive violations. These violations are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. These problems recur with such sufficient frequency that they cast serious doubt on the participants' ability to carry the program through and the EPA's commitment to properly administering the program. Most notably:
1. Chemical manufacturers have repeatedly failed to report existing hazard information.
2. Opportunities to group structurally or toxicologically similar chemicals are not being utilized.
3. Many companies are proposing animal tests beyond the scope of the HPV program.
4. The EPA is not enforcing the original HPV framework or the principles outlined in the October Agreement.
In addition, implementation of the program to date shows these major flaws in the program's fundamental design:
5. The HPV program excludes exposure and use information that would make hazard information meaningful.
6. The HPV program is focused exclusively on nonhuman data, even though human toxicity, exposure, and epidemiological studies have been performed on many of the sponsored chemicals.
7. Available in vitro tests using aquatic microorganisms are being neglected.
These problems of the HPV Challenge program are discussed below:
1. Chemical manufacturers have repeatedly failed to report existing hazard information.
Under the HPV program, chemical companies have committed to conducting comprehensive literature reviews of existing data to determine if any further animal tests should be conducted. This idea was reiterated in the October Agreement, which states that "participants shall conduct a thoughtful, qualitative analysis rather than use a checklist approach.…Participants shall maximize the use of existing and scientifically adequate data to minimize further testing.
Of the 24 test plans that underwent the 120-day public review as of August 1, 2001, 15 called for new testing. Of these, PCRM found additional available hazard information that had been overlooked or otherwise omitted for 8 of the 15 (53 percent) chemicals. (See Table 1, Table 2.) Because companies have, in these instances, not been thorough in their review of existing data, many studies will be unnecessarily duplicated. In many cases, the available information on the toxicity and metabolism of chemicals far surpassed the basic information that can be ascertained by the SIDS battery.
For example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) proposed a series of animal tests on petroleum coke, a solid, nearly pure carbon product resulting from petroleum processing and refining. In its test plan, the API failed to provide a complete review of data on the known health and environmental effects of these substances. Numerous toxicological studies have been conducted on animals. Additionally, epidemiological studies of petroleum workers exposed to petroleum coke and other related substances from petroleum coker facilities, carbon black operations, and coal coke dust document known human health effects.
The API also failed to present available information in its test plan for petroleum gases. Petroleum gases are products from natural gas processing and petroleum refining operations, and include chemicals such as methane, ethane, propane, and butane. At high doses, they displace oxygen. However, extensive human and nonhuman animal data already indicate that these compounds are relatively non-toxic. Moreover, people are generally exposed to very low doses. Illustrative of the generally benign chemical nature of these compounds is the fact that propane, n-butane, and isobutane are all classified as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for appropriate uses in food products by the Food and Drug Administration. The American Gas Association specifically requested that these compounds be exempt from the HPV program in a letter to the EPA, as these naturally occurring substances are already sufficiently well characterized and present a very low health risk. In defense of the HPV program, Dr. William Sanders, director of the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, testified before the U.S. House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in June 1999 that the EPA was "not requiring testing on butane." Nevertheless, the API has proposed an unnecessary test series on ethane, propane, butane, and isobutane that will not contribute to the understanding of the sponsored substances' toxicological characteristics, and the EPA failed to reject this excessive and inappropriate test plan.
In yet another example of inappropriate testing, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) proposed re-testing mixtures containing butadiene and isoprene, both of which are potential human carcinogens. Butadiene is a synthetic chemical used primarily in the production of rubber and plastics, and is also present in gasoline. The effects of butadiene chemicals have already been evaluated in humans in numerous occupational studies. These chemicals are known to be sufficiently dangerous. As such, screening-level animal tests are clearly unnecessary.
Exposure to the synthetic form of isoprene occurs in the manufacturing of rubber. Isoprene also occurs naturally in the environment as emissions from vegetation. The crude, screening-level tests proposed in this test plan will provide no insight that would facilitate the regulation of isoprene in the workplace. Extensive toxicological work is already being conducted on the kinetics of isoprene, and human metabolism, toxicological mechanisms, human biomarkers, and human physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models should be further investigated. There is no appropriate role for the HPV test series in further evaluation of this chemical.
General Electric (GE) Plastics submitted three test plans for individual chemicals without providing even minimal information about the structure and use of the compounds. For example, in its test plan for tris(nonylphenol)phosphite (TNPP), GE failed to provide such basic information as the structure and use of the chemical, its physical properties, or the test method for each health endpoint. Additionally, the test plan disregarded the environmental fate and transport of the compound. Existing data on food products indicate that foods in contact with TNPP additives may contain levels of free nonylphenol, a product of a hydrolysis reaction of TNPP. Nonylphenol is a potential endocrine disruptor for which an abundance of data exists on its toxicological and physicochemical properties. Since nonylphenol may well be the environmentally relevant moiety, a critical review of its properties and behavior is essential for a thorough analysis of the potential health effects of TNPP. However, application of the crude SIDS battery will not advance our understanding of the health risks in any meaningful way.
2. Opportunities to group structurally or toxicologically similar chemicals are not being utilized.
The October Agreement states, "Individual chemicals (i.e. those chemicals not proposed for testing in a category) that require testing on animals shall be deferred until November 2001." However, 5 of the 15 (33 percent) test plans calling for animal tests were for individual chemicals, in clear violation of the October Agreement. (See Table 1, Table 2.) The failure to form chemical categories and apply structure activity relationships will result in repetitive and inefficient testing. For example, the individual chemicals submitted by GE could be grouped with other compounds. TNPP could be assessed in the context of a larger group of phenyl-phosphorous antioxidant stabilizers. p-Cumylphenol could be included in a larger substituted or alkylphenol category. In addition to reducing the costs and numbers of animals used in screening evaluations, formation of chemical categories provides a contextual basis to evaluate toxicity, providing a deepr understanding about compounds' toxicity.
In another example, the API failed to coordinate with other chemical companies to include all related compounds in its analysis of petroleum coke. The composition of petroleum coke is very similar to other HPV chemicals, such as "coal, anthracite, calcined CAS #68187597" and coke, (coal) CAS #65996772, which were not included in this group. Using information about these other compounds would support a more in-depth analysis of the potential hazard of petroleum coke.
The API's test plan for petroleum gases represents a missed opportunity to apply structure activity relationships to evaluate chemical toxicity. Petroleum gases include substances such as methane (natural gas), ethane, butane, isobutane, and propane. These gases are simple organic compounds with a simple progression of structures and identical functional groups throughout, meeting all criteria for application of structure activity relationships as outlined in EPA guidance. Yet, the EPA refused to support the category construction and the opportunity to use existing data that would both reduce animal use and overall cost.
In contrast, the test plans submitted by the Flavor and Fragrance High Production Volume Consortia represent thoughtful analyses of well-studied chemicals that have been used in structure activity relationships for many years. The Consortia demonstrated a good understanding about toxicokinetics of these compounds, many of which are classified as GRAS food ingredients by the FDA. Given that these compounds have been consumed by millions of people over many years, the resultant effects, if any, are available from human observation without the need to extrapolate from rodents. Regrettably, in the face of all the evidence presented, the EPA still is not convinced the category is reasonable.
3. Many companies are proposing animal tests beyond the scope of the HPV program.
The October Agreement states, "Participants are encouraged to use in vitro genetic toxicity testing to generate any needed genetic toxicity screening data, unless known chemical properties preclude its use." However, 6 of the 24 test plans (25 percent) propose to use less sensitive genetic toxicity tests on animals without justification. (See Table 1, Table 2.)
The October Agreement also states, "Consistent with the OECD/SIDS program, participants generally should not develop any new dermal toxicity data." Yet, four test plans (17 percent) called for these lethal dermal dose tests. (See Table 1, Table 2.)
Although terrestrial toxicity testing is specifically proscribed, the API's test plan for petroleum coke called for this test. (See Table 1, Table 2.)
Some test plans have offered no rationale for testing at all. GE Plastics submitted test plans for three individual chemicals that were mere checklists, with no rationale for conducting experiments and little information about its sponsored chemicals. GE proposed in vivo genotoxicity studies and dermal toxicity tests, in violation of the agreement.
The FMC Corporation submitted test plans for two individual chemicals, methallyl chloride (MAC) and 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimehtyl-7-benzofuranol (7OH). The test plan for 7OH called for acute dermal and in vivo genetic toxicity tests. The FMC Corporation volunteered these chemicals on March 10, 1999, yet did not submit test plans until February 13, 2001, after the majority of the tests had been completed. This company side-stepped the public review process and violated the October Agreement as well as the original framework that the HPV participants agreed to follow, both of which called for a comment period between the submitting of proposed test plans and their implementation.
4. The EPA is not enforcing the original HPV framework or the principles outlined in the October Agreement.
Despite its stated commitments to minimizing irrelevant tests, the EPA continues to make it difficult for companies to reduce testing and has endorsed rote checklist test plans from companies that propose testing beyond the scope of the HPV program.
According to the October Agreement, "[I[n analyzing the adequacy of screening data for chemicals that are food substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for a particular use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), participants should consider all relevant and available information" and should specifically "consider whether the information available makes it unnecessary to proceed with further testing involving animals." Yet, the EPA has supported the Flavor and Fragrance High Production Consortia's proposals to unnecessarily dose fish with GRAS food ingredients, including components of cinnamon oil and terpenoid alcohols naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables.
The EPA deemed the aforementioned GE test plans that represented violations of the October Agreement to be "minimally acceptable" and pointed out some of the problems. It then failed to follow up on the matter.
The EPA did point out some of the violations in the FMC test plan in a letter to the company signed by Oscar Hernandez dated March 7, 2001, in which the EPA requested specifically that "FMC consider these concerns and advise the Agency within 30 days of any modifications to its submission." However, the EPA did not follow up with the company directly, but simply reiterated concerns about violations in comments on its Web site on June 14, 2001. Only after PCRM intervened did the company agree to drop some tests.
The American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) HPV Work Group submitted a test plan for spent pulping liquor, a highly alkaline, corrosive mixture that causes tissue damage immediately upon contact. Human or ecological exposures to these substances are highly unlikely, as the material remains on the manufacturing site and has limited commercial use. The AF&PA did not propose any mammalian tests with caustic substances, citing OECD documents clearly stating that any testing on animals that would cause pain and suffering need not be carried out. However, the AF&PA did propose tests on fish with a neutralized mixture, despite the fact that the mixture's fundamental toxic property is lost after neutralization. Any tests with neutralized spent pulping liquor will produce meaningless results. A comment from the AF&PA's test plan essentially acknowledges these problems and that testing is being conducted simply to be a "team player":
"It will be necessary to neutralize the test material in order to bring it to a pH that is compatible with survival of the test organisms in order to perform the testing. This will affect the composition of the material and the results therefore may not represent the original substance. However, AF&PA will undertake the testing in the spirit of the HPV program."
The EPA did not reject this test plan. The EPA also accepted the API's test plan on petroleum gases, which included a series of tests on ethane, propane, butane, and isobutane, despite the fact that, as noted above, Dr. William Sanders testified before the U.S. House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in June 1999 that the EPA was "not requiring testing on butane."
The above points show the HPV Challenge participants are openly and frequently violating the program guidelines and the October Agreement. The EPA has ignored their violations, allowing excessive and inappropriate testing to proceed.
A review of the 24 test plans shows fundamental flaws in the HPV Challenge design. These problems are discussed below:
5. The HPV program excludes exposure and use information that would make hazard information meaningful.
The underlying assumption of the HPV program is that substances produced in large quantities automatically lead to high exposures and therefore threaten public health. The EPA states in the Federal Register Notice 65 Fed. Reg. 81686 (December 26, 2000) that "it is generally accepted that chemicals having a high level of production have an increased potential for exposure," but does not provide any support for this assumption. Typically, it has not proven true.
The aminosilanes, sponsored by the Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council, break down immediately when released into the environment and therefore do not present a hazard. Yet, repeat dose and reproductive toxicity tests are being run for physically irrelevant endpoints. The petroleum gases are found in ambient and occupational environments at levels that are orders of magnitude below exposure limits.
The Flavor and Fragrance High Production Volume Consortia's test plans for terpenoid tertiary and primary alcohols underscore this fundamental flaw of the HPV program. The ingestion of the natural form of the terpenoid tertiary and primary alcohols in fruits and vegetables is more than an order of magnitude greater than the ingestion of the manufactured form of these substances used as food flavoring additives. These HPV chemicals have been studied and classified as GRAS food ingredients by the FDA, showing that chemicals produced in large quantities are not necessarily harmful.
The EPA is asking for tests with the cinnamyl derivatives and the terpenoid teritary and primary alcohols. These chemical categories, proposed by the Flavor and Fragrance High Production Volume Consortia, include common household substances found in fragrance and food flavoring products. These tests are difficult to justify.
The EPA approved the American Forest and Paper Association HPV Work Group's test plan for spent pulping liquor, a highly alkaline, corrosive mixture that causes tissue damage immediately upon contact. As noted above, human or ecological exposures to these substances are highly unlikely, as the material remains on the manufacturing site and has limited commercial use. The hazards associated with this mixture are already well-known and any information resulting from the SIDS battery would not change the understanding or handling of these corrosive chemicals.
Exposure information could be used to prioritize the 2,800 HPV chemicals so that companies are not wasting resources on studying naturally occurring substances and food additives, or chemicals that are present at undetectable levels in the environment.
6. The HPV program is focused exclusively on nonhuman data, even though human toxicity, exposure, and epidemiological studies have been performed on many of the sponsored chemicals.
The HPV Challenge program neglects human data that are already available and are most relevant for predicting human toxicity. In fact, many of the chemicals, such as butadiene, butane, spent pulping liquor, and others are already monitored or controlled in the occupational environment. Existing occupational studies of miners and refinery workers would provide relevant information for the API's petroleum coke test plan. The ACC's characterization of 1,3-butadiene is incomplete without summaries of the available human exposure, biomarker, and epidemiological studies. The API's petroleum gas plan calls for testing on animals with common substances, such as propane, butane, methane, and ethane, which come from natural gas processing and petroleum refining operations. By the API's own admission, extensive human and nonhuman animal data already indicate that these compounds are relatively non-toxic.
The neglect of human data presents major problems for interpretation. Results from animal experiments must be extrapolated from high to low doses, and then from rats and mice to humans. The uncertainties involved in these assumptions reduce the validity and accuracy of risk assessments. For example, significant intra- and interspecies differences in effects of butadiene and isoprene have hindered the understanding of the behavior of these potential carcinogens in humans. This failure to incorporate existing human health data is currently impeding reassessment and regulatory action by the EPA.
7. Available in vitro tests using aquatic microorganisms are being neglected.
Protozoan members of Ciliophora, such as the Tetrahymena, are frequently used as a measure of aquatic toxicity in ecological risk assessments (Larsen et al, 1997). The biochemistry and physiology of Tetrahymena have been thoroughly investigated since the 1950s, and Tetrahymena, especially T. pyriformis, have been used for aquatic toxicity testing since the 1970s. Moreover, the genomics of the organism are currently being elucidated. The T. pyriformis population growth test is quick, easy, and inexpensive, and has considerable breadth (Schultz, 1997). It allows the examination of a large number of independent organisms that possess features of both single eukaryotic cells and multicellular organisms. Studies at varying concentration levels can easily be repeated, and many chemicals can be examined in a short period of time. Range-finding tests allow accurate approximation of both the highest concentration with no observed effect on population growth and the lowest concentration with total inhibition of cell replication. Fish toxicity tests are less economical, less humane, slower, and more labor intensive.
The EPA has a massive database on the acute toxicity of more than 600 organic chemicals to fish called "Acute Toxicities of Organic Pollutants to Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas)." Comparisons of toxicity test results from the in vitro TETRATOX assay and the EPA's fish acute toxicity data have yielded good correlation between the two methods (Sinks et al, 2001). Similarly, good correlation was observed between ciliate and guppy fish toxicity (Seward et al, 2001). Moreover, where there is not good agreement, there is a logical rationale for this departure (Bearden and Schultz, 1998). Evaluation of in vitro and in vivo aquatic toxicity data has allowed researchers to develop models to predict toxicity based on quantitative structure activity relationships (QSARs) (Schultz, 1999; Schultz and Cronin, 1999; Niculescu et al, 2000). Both the in vitro TETRATOX assay as well as QSARs provide more humane, efficient methods to predict aquatic toxicity at the screening level.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in the HPV program for eliminating testing on fish based on the physical properties of the chemical. Therefore, substances with low observed toxicity or compounds with low water solubility, such as the cinnamon oil components, have been proposed for unnecessary testing on fish. Highly volatile compounds, such as the petroleum gases, are unlikely to pose a hazard to fish, yet the API proposed in vivo aquatic toxicity tests.
As of August 1, 2001, 24 test plans have been submitted to the EPA and undergone the full public comment period under the HPV Challenge program. PCRM has submitted comments on nearly all test plans, yet the EPA has failed to respond to even one set of comments. Despite clear-cut guidelines for the conduct of this program, many participating companies have provided test plans that fail to bring forth relevant data and have instead proposed unnecessary, expensive, and inhumane tests. Furthermore, the program's exclusion of existing human health and exposure data is leading to duplicative and irrelevant tests that will not protect public health or the environment.
The program is estimated to cost the EPA $16 million each year to administer. EPA officials have expressed concern about their ability to handle the deluge of incoming data and they have been unable to appropriately follow up on the 24 test plans to date. They have provided mixed messages to companies by repeatedly expressing a commitment to reducing irrelevant tests, but then requesting unnecessary animal tests for substances with low toxicity, such as cinnamon oil and ethane. EPA officials have requested additional tests on potential carcinogens instead of recommending regulatory action. They have asked for tests on neutralized solutions of corrosive substances, when the hazards of the toxic compounds are well understood and tightly controlled. In other words, the EPA has insisted—contrary to the October Agreement and good science—that companies "check the box" rather than perform a thoughtful, useful analyses. The EPA's presumption is that more animal testing is usually required and that obstacles continue to be raised for those companies that attempt to use categories, structure activity relationships, or existing data.
Experience to date with the HPV Challenge indicates it is poorly administered and haphazardly conducted, and will do nothing to protect human health or the environment.
Bearden AP, Schultz TW. Comparison of Tetrahymena and Pimephales toxicity based on mechanism of action. SAR QSAR in Environmental Research. 1998;9:127-153.
Dimitrov SD, Mekenyan OG, Schultz TW. Interspecies modeling of narcotics toxicity to aquatic animals. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2000;65:399-406.
Niculescu SP, Kaiser LE, Schultz TW. Modeling the toxicity of chemicals to Tetrahymena pyriformis using molecular fragment descriptors and probabilistic neural networks. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2000;39:289-298.
Schultz TW. Tetratox: Tetrahymena pyriformis population growth impairment endpoint—a surrogate for fish lethality. Toxicological Methods. 1997;7:289-309.
Schultz TW. Structure-toxicity relationships for benzenes evaluated with Tetrahymena pyriformis. Chemical Research in Toxicology. 1999;12:1262-267.
Schultz TW, Cronin MTD. Response-surface analyses for toxicity to Tetrahymena pyriformis: reactive carbonyl-containing aliphatic chemicals. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. 1999;39:304-309.
Seward JR, Hamblen EL, Schultz TW. Regression comparison of Tetrahymena pyriformis and Poecilia reticulata toxicity. Chemosphere 2001;(in press).
Sinks GD, Schultz TW. Correlations of Tetrahymena and Pimephales toxicity: evaluation of 100 additional compounds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2001;20:917-921.


text:
COOKEVILLE, Tenn. -- Tennessee Tech got victories from the top
two and bottom two spots in the singles lineup to clinch a 5-2 Ohio
Valley Conference victory Saturday afternoon over visiting Murray
The Golden Eagles improved to 7-4 overall and 4-1 in OVC matches.
After beginning the match with doubles play indoors, Tech was able to claim the point with wins at No. 1 and No. 3.
Josh Girling and Nick Stafford earned an 8-3 win over Ben Clos and Jorge Caetano at the top spot. At No. 3, Oscar Pachon and Arturo Santa Ruiz posted an 8-4 win. In between, Murray's No. 2 tandem of Luka Milicevic and Renaldo Domoney took a 9-8 win from Alex Chen and Lloyd Harris.
Two of Tech's singles wins came in straight sets, putting the Golden Eagles ahead by a 3-0 count and needing just one more win to clinch the match. Chen rolled to a 6-3, 6-3 at No. 1 over Clos, and down at No. 5, Santa Ruiz posted a 6-4, 6-0 win over Semensin.
Two of the other four matches went three sets, while two were determined with a tie-breaker.
At No. 2, Girling handed the Golden Eagles the win with a 4-6, 6-3, 6-2 win over Caetano. The No. 3 spot went to Milicevic, who beat Stafford, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4.
The remaining matches on the court were determined by a tie-break after the players had split their first two sets. At No. 4, Domoney edged Kirstein, 5-7, 6-4, 10-8. The last match off the courts went to Pachon at No. 6, 5-7, 6-0, 10-8.
Coach Kenny Doyle's team plays at Morehead State Tuesday, then hosts Tennessee State Friday afternoon.
Tennessee Tech 5, Murray State 2
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Tech Campus Courts/Cookeville, Tenn.
No. 1 – Alex Chen (TTU) def. Ben Clos, 6-3, 6-3
No. 2 – Josh Girling (TTU) def. Jorge Caetano, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2
No. 3 – Luka Milicevic (MUR) def. Nick Stafford, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4
No. 4 – Renaldo Domoney (MUR) def. Justin Kirstein, 5-7 6-4, 10-8
No. 5 – Arturo Santa Ruiz (TTU) def. Jadir Semensin, 6-4, 6-0
No. 6 – Oscar Pachon (TTU) def. Jose Berardo, 5-7, 6-0, 10-8
No. 1 – Girling/Stafford (TTU) def. Clos/Caetano, 8-3
No. 2 – Milicevic/Domoney (MUR) def. Chen/Lloyd Harris, 9-8
No. 3 – Pachon/Santa Ruiz (TTU) def. Mason Johnson/Semensin, 8-4
Tennessee Tech 7-4/4-1 OVC
Murray State 1-4/0-1 OVC

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Case Study of a Currency Crisis: The Russian Default of 1998 (ICPSR 1271)
Published: Apr 18, 2003
Principal Investigator(s):
Abbigail J. Chiodo, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Michael T. Owyang, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Version V1
This paper uses a currency crisis framework to analyze the currency devaluation and debt default of post-Soviet Russia in August 1998. The authors show that even though the Russian economy recorded positive growth immediately preceding the default, the atmosphere was reflective of an impending crisis. The authors then consider the symptoms of a currency crisis -- specifically public and private debt responsibilities, devaluation expectations, and contractionary monetary policy -- and show that they were present in Russia at that time. Three generations of currency crisis models are reviewed, followed by speculation that the Russian default was a product not only of fiscal deficits but also of a fragile financial system and contractionary monetary policy. The authors address the possibility that the usual prescription for a currency crisis, that is, increasing interest rates, may have accelerated the default and that a case-by-case prescription may afford a better solution than a blanket policy of increasing interest rates in the face of devaluation.
Export Citation:
Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage
Data Collection Notes
(1) The file submitted is the data file, 0211acd.txt. (2) These data are part of ICPSR's Publication-Related Archive and are distributed exactly as they arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.
These data are flagged as replication datasets and are distributed exactly as they arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
This study is provided by ICPSR. ICPSR provides leadership and training in data access, curation, and methods of analysis for a diverse and expanding social science research community.


text:
NEW YORK (MarketWatch)—Lidl, a German-based retailer, said Monday it had taken products off shelves from stores in Finland and Sweden after detecting traces of horse meat, according to published reports.
Lidl in Finland found traces of horse meat in the Coquette beef goulash meal and Coquette ravioli after withdrawing them as a precaution during the weekend, Reuters reported.
Lidl in Sweden withdrew a goulash soup product and a penne pasta meal with Bolognese sauce, the wire service said.
The goulash in Finland was made by German group Dreistern-Konserven GmbH & Co., which on Friday said horse DNA was found in cans of its 'Rindergulasch' product, Reuters said.
The European horse meat scandal broke last month when tests in Ireland found beef products containing horse meat.


text:
Debra Messing: 'I'm Ready to Laugh Again'
As the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens, and that's certainly holding true for Debra Messing.
Smash, in which Messing stars as Broadway lyricist Julia Houston, has headed into its second season with disappointing ratings, and NBC has responded by moving the show from its choice Tuesday night time slot to a not-so-prime Saturday evening spot. The news doesn't bode well for the show's future, though no official announcement about whether Smash will return for a third season has been made yet.
Still, the warmhearted actress has plenty to look forward to. Not only will she sing her first solo on Smash this season, she has also signed on to film a pilot for a new sitcom on CBS, which begins shooting next week. Is she excited to get back into comedy? "I am," she said. "I'm ready to laugh again."
Messing, 44, talked to PARADE about Smash's uncertain future, her new sitcom, and winning the Outstanding Mother Award from the National Mother's Day Committee.
On Smash's move to Saturday nights.
"It's sad. I think that everyone involved in Smash has loved the concept and the world that we've been playing in, and we all wish that it performed better than it has. But it's the business of television. It's erratic and it's something you can't control at all. We still don't know what's going to happen, but we're all really proud of it."
On singing on Smash for the first time.
"This season, you're going to see Julia sing for the first time in her own solo. That was kind of a big deal for me. It was a little traumatizing. The bar was set incredibly high with the likes of Megan Hilty and Kat McPhee and everybody else, so I was a little intimidated. But I ended up having a ball and it was an exciting day. We ended up shooting in the Plaza Hotel and this beautiful bar, and they put smog and smoke in to make it look romantic and sexy. I'm pretty excited about how it turned out."
On what the mood on set was like amid the show's changes.
"When we were shooting, we wrapped right around the time that the third episode aired, so I don't think that any of us was really focusing on that. We were working round the clock, so I think we were sad to say goodbye but also excited to be able to sleep in and go outside and go to Central Park and enjoy the fresh air."
On feeling the support from the show's enthusiastic fan base.
"It's incredible. With social media, which I'm new to, relatively, it's incredible to be able to have that conversation with your fans. The fans of Smash are ardent. They're very passionate. It's gratifying when you're putting your heart and soul into something and working these crazy hours, and you're making people happy."
On who her favorite Smash guest stars were.
"Sean Hayes! I didn't actually get to act with him, but being around at the table read, that was a highlight. And Bernadette Peters was a thrill."
If Smash is cancelled, what she'll be most proud of.
"Bringing song and dance and the world of Broadway musicals into people's living rooms, who, for many different reasons don't have the ability or the access to the fantasy and the thrill that is Broadway musicals."
On the pilot she's filming.
"I have signed on to do a pilot for a half-hour comedy, and it shoots next week! It's in second position to Smash, so it all depends on whether or not Smash is coming back. But it's a comedy that is based on a successful show in Israel right now, and it follows a woman who is a mom and she works, and she tries to balance her whole life. You see her going through her life in Brooklyn and trying to survive. It's absolutely something that I identify with."
"I never get tired of playing dress up. There is some anxiety going on the red carpet because the weather always plays a factor in whether or not you have a good time on the red carpet. The Emmys are notorious—they're in August, so it's brutally hot. The Golden Globes were ridiculously freezing. Throughout the year and the seasons, different award shows are more stressful than others."
On her favorite red carpet gown of her career.
"I have so many favorites, but I think the one that is most meaningful to me is the Elie Saab pink brocade I wore when I won my Best Actress Emmy, because I was nine weeks pregnant at the time and nobody knew!"
On winning the Outstanding Mother Award from the National Mother's Day Committee.
"I was overwhelmed. I really was. It's the job that I take most seriously in my life and I think it's the hardest job. Every day is a challenge and it's an honor to be recognized."
On being a mom who deals with spring allergies (Messing has partnered with Zyrtec allergy medicine).
"I'm a very busy woman. I'm a working mom. I want to be able to be the mom that I want to be. I want to be able to go out in Central Park and play with my son, who's very crazy active these days. I don't want to disappoint him and say 'I can't honey, because I'm not feeling well.' If I'm going out and promoting Smash or something, and I know I want to look the best I can. I know that if I take Zyrtec in the morning I don't have to worry about my eyes starting to drip and water and my face getting puffy and red."
On looking good while dealing with allergies.
"Before doing hair and makeup, I like to fill a bowl with ice and some aloe juice that you can get from the health food store really inexpensively, and get it as cold as possible. Then I just douse a washcloth with it and put it on my face for a minute or two and it just takes all the puffiness and redness down if you have any. It also wakes you up and makes you feel like, 'okay, my face is ready for makeup and I'm going to look good.'"
Watch the lyric video of "Broadway, Here I Come," from Smash:
Katharine McPhee on 'Smash': Sean Hayes, a Big Kissing Scene, and Dream Guest Stars
Keri Russell on Motherhood and Work-Life Balance


text:
Across the world, 150 million girls and 73 million boys are subjected to forced sexual intercourse and other forms of sexual violence (WHO, 2002). In the U.S. at least one out of four girls and one out of seven boys are sexually abused by 18 years old. Nearly 50 percent of all sexual assaults are against girls aged 15 or younger. Life outcomes often include poor school performance, depression, psychosis, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, prostitution, drug abuse, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV, homelessness, suicide and homicide, and chronic disease.
The Mission of Stop the Silence is to expose and stop CSA and help survivors heal worldwide. Our overarching Goals are to: 1) help stop child sexual abuse (CSA) and related forms of violence; 2) promote healing of victims and survivors; and 3) celebrate the lives of those healed. Through our work, we aim to address the relationships between CSA and the broader issues of overall family and community violence, and violence within and between communities. Our focus underlines the importance of a shift in focus on positive development within our social complexes (e.g., the relationships between men, women, adults and children, cultural groups) to support peaceful – and to hinder violence-prone – relationships.
Support for services – In addition to having provided monetary and TA support to other groups providing direct service, Stop the Silence provides a virtual peer discussion group and is focusing on bringing more clinical services to a wider public.
Media Advocacy – a grant from the Department of Justice in 2005/2006 allowed Stop the Silence to broadcast public service announcements (PSA) in the U.S. and throughout the world. The International Race to Stop the Silence, held in various states and countries in collaboration with local groups, allows Stop the Silence and its collaborators to capture wide-based mass media attention. A global advocacy, education, and information program in collaboration with Durbin Institute of Technology and a technology firm, The Global Lesson Foundation, funded by these partners, is in process.
Training for service providers – Stop the Silence staff and partners (Survivors Healing Center) have provided CSA and related training for the police in Zambia; in collaboration with the Cornell University, advocacy centers, various service groups, and with various Latino immigrant and others populations in California and elsewhere. The training has been shown to increase understanding of CSA and related issues.
Training for judges and other court-related personnel – Under DHHS, Ford Foundation, and DOJ awards, Stop the Silence has been providing local- and national-level information and training for judges and other court-related personnel. The training transcends legal systems.
Education and outreach – Stop the Silence reaches out to schools, day cares centers, houses of worship, etc. to catalyze a community response to prevention and healing. Also, an HHS-supported colloquium, Stopping the Silence about Intimate Violence, with Naomi Nontombu Tutu and Riane Eisler, was held in 2005 with policy and NGO personnel to increase understanding.
From the standpoints of survivor's, the non-abused public, or policymakers, CSA is wrapped in discomfort, shame, stigma, and fear. Stop the Silence focuses on CSA, as opposed to "child abuse and neglect" to bring it out of the shadows. The words "child sexual abuse," were consciously built into our name so that people learn to say them. We build awareness as a base for training, education, policy development, and more.


text:
Jump to Content
1802, Dec. 31 Estado de las misiones de Cal... (Note only). p. 83
1816, Dec. 31 Payeras, Mariano: Estado de las misiones. Abstract. p. 88
1827, Oct. 7 Echeandía, José María de: Proclama. Proclamation communicated to the missions, giving orders re inventory of mission lands, boundaries, livestock and transients. Copy. pp. 1-6
1828, Nov. 21 Reglamento para la colonización de los territorios de la Republica de Mex. Copy. p. 21
1832, Dec. 31 Estado de las misiones. Copy. pp. 84-87
1833, Dec. 31 Estado de las misiones (Note only). p. 84
1834, Aug. 9 Figueroa, José: Reglamento provisional para la secularizacion de las misiones, (Note only) p. 89
1834, Dec. 31 Estado de las misiones ... a cargo del P. Prefecto Narciso Durán. (Note only) p. 83
1834, Dec. 31 Estado de las misiones. (Note only) p. 89
1834 Inventory of San Gabriel mission. Extract. pp. 89-90
1835, Mar. 9 Value of Santa Barbara Mission. p. 88
1835, Mar. List of artillery and weapons at San Gabriel. p. 88
1843, Apr. 18 Durán, Narciso: Circular to missions concerning Micheltorena's regulations re missions, with copy of these regulations. Copy. pp. 22-27
1844, Aug. 20-24 Assembly at Monterey: Minutes. Resumé. pp. 7-12
1844, Dec. 15 Micheltorena, Manuel: Proclamation re civil war. Copy. pp. 27-29
1845, Aug. 29 Assembly at Los Angeles. Special commission: Decision to dissolve the assembly, members of the commission being Narciso Botello and Francisco de la Guerra. Abstract. pp. 37-38
1845, Oct. 5 Assembly at Los Angeles. President: Notification to J. B. Alvarado re his election as representative to the Mexican congress. Abstract. p. 37
1845, Oct. 28 Pico, Pío: Reglamento de misiones. Extract. p. 27
1846, Mar. 2 Pico, Pío: Speech given at the opening of the session of the assembly while interim governor. Resumé. pp. 13-19
1846, Apr. 17 Pico, Pío: Form letter of notification of appointment as vocal suplente for the assembly. pp. 20-21
1846, Aug. 9 Castro, José: Protest against separation of California from Mexico and concerning U.S. war with Mexico. Copy. pp. 29-32
1846, Aug. 10 Assembly as Los Angeles: Minutes re American occupation of the country, signed by Pío Pico and A. Olvera. Copy, taken from what seemed to be a blotter copy of the minutes, pp. 32-36
1846, Oct. 24 Pico, Pío: Letter to Juan Gallardo appointing Gallardo captain of the auxiliary troops in Los Angeles. Extract. p. 51
1846, Oct. 26 Flores, José María: Orders to Leonardo Cota on operations in San Diego. Copy. pp. 52-54
1846, Oct. 26 Assembly at Los Angeles: Reinstatement of the assembly, signed by Francisco Figueroa, Narciso Botello, Francisco de la Guerra, Joaquín Carrillo and Agustín Olvera. Copy. pp. 39-42
1846, Oct. 27 Flores, José María: Speeches made by Flores and the Assembly of Los Angeles (Figueroa) concerning the war situation. Copy. pp. 42-46
1846, Oct. 27 Assembly at Los Angeles. Special committee: Decision concerning the use of missions in facilitating resources for war against the United States, revoking mission land sales made by Pico, and continuing to rent the lands. Signed by Narciso Botello and Francisco de la Guerra. Copy. pp. 46-48
[1846, Oct.] Blotter in handwriting of Agustín Olvera upon same subject, presumably containing a copy of the preceding document, sent to the Governor. Copy. pp. 48-49
1846, Nov. 5 Flores, José María: Proclamation, concerning state of war, conscription and punishments. Copy. pp. 54-56
1846, Nov. 12 Flores, José María: Orders to Cota, concerning operations in San Diego and Indian uprisings. Copy. pp. 57-58
1846, Nov. 13 Flores, José María: Letter to Cota, describing the difficult situation and the need to use a strong hand with the Indians. Copy. pp. 58-60
1846, Nov. 22 Flores, José María: Letter to Cota, informing him of the enemy's movements on Santa Isabel. Copy. pp. 66-67
1846, Nov. 22 Flores, José María: Letter to Cota, quoting his orders to Andrés Pico. Copy. pp. 63-65
1846, Dec. 5 Flores, José María: Proclamation concerning his own imprisonment. Copy. pp. 49-51
1846, Dec. 5 Flores, José María: Private letter to Cota, re his imprisonment and the people who contrived it. Copy. pp. 68-71
1846, Dec. 17 Flores, José María: Orders to Cota, for Andrés Pico to relieve Cota, and re Pico's disobedience. Copy. pp. 60-62
1846, Dec. 17 Flores, José María: Letter to Cota. Copy. pp. 62-63
1846, Dec. 31 Flores, José María: Letter to R. F. Stockton. Copy taken from a blotter copy. pp. 72-74
1847, Jan. 5 Stockton, Robert Field: Proclamation, translated into Spanish, declaring amnesty for all except Flores. Copy. p. 75
1847, Jan. 11 Flores, José María: Orders to Andrés Pico, entrusting him with the division. Copy. pp. 78-79
1847, Jan. 12 Stockton, Robert Field: Pass for Olvera and Narciso Botello to come to Los Angeles. Copy. p. 77
1847, Jan. 13 Articles of capitulation by José Antonio Carrillo and Agustín Olvera, at Cahuenga. Abstract. p. 76
1847, Jan. 16 Russell, William Henry: Receipt for 2 pieces of artillery. Copy. pp. 76-77
1847, Jan. 18 Articles of capitulation between R. F. Stockton and José A. Carrillo, Andrés Pico and Agustín Olvera. Taken from blotter copy. Copy. pp. 79-81
undated [Olvera, Agustín]: Letter to the military governor of California. pp. 82-83
1878, July 17 Olvera, Carlos: letter to Thomas Savage re Olvera documents.
B otello, Narciso, 1810-
Carrillo, Joaquín
Carrillo, José Antonio Ezequiel, 1796-1862
Castro, José, ca. 1810-1860
Durán, Narciso, 1776-1846
Echeandía, José María de, d. 1852?
Figueroa, Francisco, 1804-
Figueroa, José, 1792-1835
Flores, José María, d. 1866?
Guerra, Francisco de la, 1818-1878
Micheltorena, Manuel, d. 1853
Olvera, Agustín, d. 1876
Payeras, Mariano, 1769-1822
Pico, Andrés, 1810-1876
Pico, Pío, 1801-1894
Russell, William Henry, 1802-1873
Stockton, Robert Field, 1795-1866


text:
House panel to vote on school consolidation
By The Associated Press
This article was published February 5, 2013 at 7:46 a.m.
LITTLE ROCK An Arkansas House panel is considering a proposal to change the criteria for determining when a school district is consolidated.
The House Education Committee is set to vote Tuesday on a bill that would change the formula for calculating the number of students in a school district for the purposes of consolidation.
School districts with fewer than 350 students are currently placed on the consolidation list.
The state determines the number of students by taking the average daily membership of the school district.
The proposed legislation calls for the state to include home-schooled students in its count.
The bill is sponsored by Democratic Rep. James Ratliff of Imboden.
Comments on: House panel to vote on school consolidation
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.


text:
Submission + - Preview: Ubuntu's Unity Interface (itworld.com)
itwbennett writes: In late October we learned that starting with the next release (11.04), Ubuntu would use Unity instead of GNOME as its default desktop interface. Now we know a bit more about what that will (and won't) mean for users. The move to Unity doesn't mean that Ubuntu is abandoning GNOME. It also doesn't mean that users will be forced to use Unity; they'll still be able to revert to the old GNOME interface. What it does mean, mainly, is that users will be presented with a simple interface — probably too simple for nuts and bolts types. The more 'radical shift' will be switching Ubuntu's base graphics system from the X Window System to Wayland. There users can expect that it will take some time before things are in working order. 'In other words,' says Steven Vaughan-Nichols who reviewed Unity for ITworld, 'Wayland will be an option, and one that only people who don't mind having their desktops blow up on a regular basis should fool with, in Ubuntu 11.04. By Ubuntu 11.10, it will be workable, and come the spring release two years from now, Ubuntu 12.04, we should, if all goes well, see a stable Wayland-based Unity desktop.'


text:
Street Address:
« Back | Forward »
NASHVILLE (AP) — Tennessee's 2012-13 hunting and fishing licenses have expired, and the new licenses are on sale.
Licenses can be purchased at any Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency office or license agent or online at http://www.tnwildlife.org . They also can be ordered by phone.
According to the TWRA, resident licenses are available to people with a valid Tennessee driver's license as well as people who have lived in Tennessee for 90 consecutive days with the intent of making Tennessee their permanent home.
Military personnel on active duty in Tennessee, their immediate families and students enrolled at Tennessee schools can also get resident licenses.
A Social Security number is required to purchase a license.
The new 2013-14 licenses are valid through February 2014.
Help | Customer Service
Copyright 1995 -
by The Nashville Ledger - All Rights Reserved -
Privacy Policy - About


text:
we ate at Trenton Pizza Hut buffett last nite on the way to the movies. a few booths away, a man caught my eye. he was a ringer for my late great Uncle Dean. Uncle Dean was a great old guy. I'm sure he was a great young guy, too, but I only knew him as an older guy. he played instruments in a band, he was quick with a joke. and he told amazing family stories. he drove a luxury car pedal to the medal & a/c on full blast. he took me to Hughes Cemetery & showed me various spots around the Cainsville/Saline area where houses had formerly stood that family members had lived in.
Uncle Dean died when I was pregnant with Katie. and when I saw this gentleman at Pizza Hut, I had to smile about my memories of Uncle Dean.


text:
Fox won't tweak violent new show
No content changes to drama on serial killer
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) — Fox's entertainment chief said Tuesday that the network did not change the content of "The Following," its upcoming drama about a serial killer, because of the Connecticut school shooting or other real-life acts of violence.
The drama, featuring Kevin Bacon chasing a grisly killer who recruits murderous disciples, is simultaneously the most stomach-churning and most anticipated new dramas on television's docket. Debuting Jan. 21 on Fox, the Kevin Williamson-created series opens by showing the bloody aftermath of knifed prison guards, has a woman commit suicide by gouging her eye and piercing her skull with an ice pick, and shows a man set on fire at a coffee stand.
While Kevin Reilly, Fox entertainment chairman, initially said the series' promotion wasn't affected, a spokesman later noted that some ads for the show were softened immediately following the Connecticut shooting. Electronic billboards depicting a woman with an ice pick were changed to pictures of Bacon, said Fox's Joe Earley. Some on-air ads with action sequences were also changed to focus on Bacon, and Fox combed its promotions to make sure none of them depicted actors with guns, Earley said.


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I've skimmed all four pages and am relieved you're not taking this on.I helped cater a wedding this spring as a favor to a friend (bride was a friend of a friend.) The wedding was about the same number of people, too. At the end of eight hours, Bride's BFF and I were exhausted, and we still had to clean the venue, and prepare the rented dishes and silver to be returned. The ice situation alone was a shambles, as there was nothing to put it in. I'm in favor of vague excuses. [I'm sorry, that's not possible] Specific excuses generate specific rebuttals.I agree you should call Cici and tell her to lose your number you will not be available to help.
OP here, posting from android phone.I called Mary Saturday afternoon, but she is sick and has a sore throat so could not talk.I will try again after Christmas Day. Have not told her anything.Also, I do not have Cici's number. I guess that is another red flag? That Mary rambled reception duties and stories but never gave me a number?The devil is in the details and if I am missing huge chunks of info already (payment, phone number, duty list) I can only imagine how crazy it would be as time goes on...I will tell e-hell after I really talk with Mary. Do not want to disturb her Christmas!
Also, I do not have Cici's number. I guess that is another red flag? That Mary rambled reception duties and stories but never gave me a number?
Page created in 0.229 seconds with 18 queries.


text:
The World Trade Center: Before, During, & After
Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York's World Trade Center
Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center
When David Rockefeller hired the famous Gordon Bunshaft to build One Chase Manhattan Plaza in the late 1950s—at seventy stories, the first skyscraper to rise downtown in a generation—he had hoped that the neighborhood the bank was about to inhabit would also change. Aside from the stock exchanges, the major brokerage houses, investment banks, law and insurance offices, and other businesses in the financial district, the neighborhood still had a good many manufacturers and merchants in electronic parts—stable, but what chamber-of-commerce types might call "underutilizers" of the land upon which they sat.
On June 5, 1958, the Times announced the formation of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association, the vehicle by which Rockefeller, who was co-chairman, and his associates intended to transform the district running from the Battery to Chambers Street. The DLMA, the article proclaimed, would soon advance proposals on "zoning, street widenings, slum clearance," and so on; a little further down, the piece noted, helpfully from the DLMA's vantage point, that, come nightfall, the area, which had some 350,000 employees by day, was "lifeless except for a few policemen, countless wharf rats and the residents of the fringe of tenement houses." But new "private apartment developments" were projected that would draw new residents to the area. That October, the specifics were set out: the razing of old buildings to permit expansion of the financial district; closing narrow streets, and widening others; relocating the Fulton Fish Market and a wholesale produce market on the west side. It was clear that big changes, and more skyscrapers—this was, of course, at the height of the urban renewal movement—were afoot. Rockefeller, for his part, acknowledged that "all changes bring some hardship."
Over at the Port Authority, the idea of a world trade center or "mart," to include office and exhibition space for the purpose of promoting the postwar increase in world trade, had been broached as early as 1946. That year, at Governor Thomas E. Dewey's urging, the state legislature authorized the creation of a World Trade Corporation that would "develop a World Trade Center to be located within the State of New York for exhibiting and otherwise promoting the purchase and sale of products in international trade." The Port Authority, at first, was cool to the notion. Chairman Howard Cullman told Dewey that the proposed center seemed to him "primarily an extensive real estate operation" and, as such, inappropriate to the mission of a "self-perpetuating public benefit corporation" like the authority. As chairman, Cullman was, in effect, the boss of the authority's executive director, Austin Tobin. So that, for the time being, was that.
Even if Cullman had been more enthusiastic, the agency faced two problems. First, it was bound, under the language of the compact that created it, to spend its revenues on port commerce and regional transportation–related activities. Second, political pressure was growing on the Port Authority to part with some of its pile. Its surplus of $64 million almost certainly meant more than $1 billion in bonding authority,…
This article is available to online subscribers only.
Please choose from one of the options below to access this article:
Print Premium Subscription — $99.95
Purchase a print premium subscription (20 issues per year) and also receive online access to all content on nybooks.com.
Purchase an Online Edition subscription and receive full access to all articles published by the Review since 1963.
Purchase a trial Online Edition subscription and receive unlimited access for one week to all the content on nybooks.com.
If you already have one of these subscriptions, please be sure you are logged in to your nybooks.com account. If you subscribe to the print edition, you may also need to link your web site account to your print subscription. Click here to link your account services.


text:
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) - The Kentucky Division of Forestry has tree seedlings available and says the time to plant for the best chance of success is by the end of April.
Kentucky landowners may purchase single trees for $5 each, $30 for a bundle of 10 or $38 for a bundle of 100. The agency says its foresters are available to help with technical assistance.
Seedlings aren't shipped after April.
Some local offices have consolidated. Information about which office serves each county is available at http://1.usa.gov/OjZID3 or by calling (800) 866-0555. An order form is available at the same website.
Order forms are also available at local cooperative extension, Farm Services Agency and Natural Resource Conservation Service offices.
(Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


text:
To speak about open hardware, there's a device called Milkymist One based on an FPGA with an embedded LM32 processor. It's as open as possible and is actually used in production (as opposed to mere hacking) to create some nice video effects.
I went to their site [milkymist.org] and I see one youtube video of a two man show using it and some screen shots. That's what you call "in production"? If I send you a video of my Raspberry Pi rendering Mandelbrot patterns in front of a crowded room, will you call it "in production?" Furthermore the first thing they say on their site:
Milkymist One
The Milkymist One is an experimental hardware appliance for live video effects.
I appreciate this blog's spirit and he has some valid points (like making it more durable) but he's really overselling some of these devices. He goes so far as to suggest TI's Beagle Board and casually dismisses that it's six or seven times the cost of the Raspberry Pi's Model A. I don't even
Or, the shorter meta critic version:
Who, exactly, has done a better job of creating low-cost computers for education, then?
If your answer is Asus, Acer, Dell, HP, or Apple, I'm not impressed. Even with a case, power supply, keyboard and mouse doubling the cost, the Pi is still less than 1/3 the cost of the nearest competitor.
Also, there is a question of just what kind of education you are attempting to support - Pi envisions a return to hacker culture, it may be missing the mark somewhat since the hackers they revere were spending hundreds to low thousands of dollars on their homebrew kit and a sub $100 investment in some ways implies a reduced commitment, but if you "just want to try something" and need a computer to do it, they've made a very capable little chunk for an amazingly low price.
I've seen a number of the alternative devices, and they all have their own little ups and downs. Some have cases and come with power supplies, some do not. Most are more expensive, some options cost about the same. Nearly all of them are, "coming soon" rather than "shipping now".
So, not to detract from the Pi (I do have one, and love it), but it's great to have options, and that does mean addressing shortcomings. I have very little respect for people that get mean and shit on others' hard work while producing nothing of value themselves, though. There's no reason we can't keep things civil.
It's interesting that his choice is an FPGA based processor. FPGA's are anything but open. The vendor's backend tools are the only ones allowed to exist. The file formats are architecture details are propriety and secret. Reverse engineer the format and try to create your own tools and the vendor will sue you.
While I'm with you on the question of performance, I'd also question the suitability of FPGAs, both as an "open source" platform and as a learning tool for anything below university level courses. FPGAs are about as closed as it gets when it comes to hardware platforms. The verilog/VHDL compilers are, generally, closed source. I know there's an open one or two, but Mentor Graphics, Xilinx, and Altera all ship closed source compilers. The place and route algorithms that are used are all patented and closed source. The architecture of the FPGA itself is patented and closed source.
So, what, exactly, is the point of using an "open" processor on an FPGA? To make everything harder to do?
If you're really looking for a Free/Open processor, then your best bet is to put your money where your mouth is and back opencores.org in producing an ASIC version of the OpenRISC 1000. Even then, it's still built on a proprietary process in a fab, where you can't even get the technology files required to layout the processor without signing an NDA.
Here's the sad truth of it. You're dealing with a proprietary process anywhere from the chip level down. You simply cannot complain about not having open silicon and be taken seriously. Here's how it works:
If you want to make a chip, the first thing you have to do is find a design. Now you can make your own, and open source it, or you can get a pre-made design. If you choose to use an open-source design, then you're good--so far--but you'll have a significant performance lag behind the proprietary options. This goes double for video processing, memory controllers, buses, etc., etc.
Next, you need to find a fab who will make the chips for you. Here's where it gets bad. Even 180nm fabs consider their processes to be trade secrets, so that you have to sign an NDA just to get a process description file from the fab--this means your layout is, perforce, closed source.
Even if you somehow find a fab which will allow you to open the technology file, the placement and routing software for VLSI design is all closed source and patented. This is because place & route is a HARD problem. NP Hard, in fact.
So what it comes down to is this: until the homecmos [google.com] people get their process going, you're stuck with something proprietary at some level. So then how much proprietary stuff is tolerable?
The Raspberry Pi Foundation had the goal of being bringing computing in a low cost package for education. The tradeoffs required to use open designs for the processor are quite steep: e.g. it would be a colossal time investment to get Linux running on a non-standard--read: non-proprietary--SoC. Using some proprietary chips to get there seems reasonable, so long as the OS doesn't become proprietary. The GPU blob is unfortunate, but not unexpected, particularly if you want decent performance.
Look. What Raspberry Pi has done is great and commendable. I applaud it. But it has also issues, and shouting those down who think about those issues and want to do something about them is -- uh, forget it. I don't know how to put it politely.
Look. What Raspberry Pi has done is great and commendable. I applaud it. But it has also issues, and shouting those down who think about those issues and want to do something about them is -- uh, forget it. I don't know how to put it politely.
However, there is a difference between saying "hey, here are things that could be done better in the next version/in the project I'm inspired to work on" and what we're getting, which is "unsuitable for education".
Is the Pi perfect? Hell no, but anyone who was expecting that was smoking the good stuff. Is it a good start? Heck yeah.
And this is before we tackle the question of - are we truly expecting the target audience to be messing around with the CPU architecture anyway
Design something better if you don't like it. Who is stopping you? Most likely the submitter wrote the article.
If you want to teach programmable logic, universal programmers and GAL or the like are dirt cheap. A breadboard, some cheap component
that's what we're doing with the http://rhombus-tech.net/ [rhombus-tech.net] project. the scope of the project has the goals of the raspberrypi foundation as a subset; CPUs that we are actively pursuing have to have full GPL compliance, and are as open as possible / practical. where binary blobs exist, reverse-engineered alternatives are encouraged to be created. the first CPU Card is based on the Allwinner A10 (ARM Cortex A8, 1ghz, overclockable to 1.5ghz). the binary startup blob which is essential to set the DDR3 RAM timings before continuing with the 2nd phase of the boot process was reverse-engineered a few months ago; the MALI GPU has the limadriver project on the case; efforts are underway to investigate the proprietary video hardware encode/decode engine. we were given full access to the GPL kernel and u-boot sources within 48 hours of asking (even though we did not have a GPL compliance request outstanding).
answering your question, archiebunker: designing something better is a bit harder than you might imagine. full access to technical datasheets is often denied: you are literally at the mercy of the SoC vendor and if they don't like the way you dress, or smell, or if you're not one of their pally-pal pals you can flat-out forget gaining access to the documentation. one of the key reasons is that they simply don't know if you have the expertise, or if you can be trusted not to pass on information to their competitors. so, if it turns out that you don't have the expertise, and you have to come to them with questions, you just cost them money. if you leak information to their competitors, you REALLY just cost them money - serious money.
so what we're doing with the EOMA-68 initiative is to make the hard part - the CPU+DDR3+NAND - be "just a mass-produced component" that you can literally buy off-the-shelf in a retail store. if it comes in a case, you get access to the EOMA-68 interfaces and whatever else the CPU Card has on the user-facing front edge; if you buy it without the case, you also get access to the internal jumpers and additional connectors, for educational and R&D purposes as well as factory-install purposes.
we're getting there. it's been a long haul, and we will not stop. the team behind the initiative will be sticking with this for the next decade, keeping it constantly up-to-date and ensuring that new CPU Cards are always available.
here's the previous article about it - actually it was the PCB layout that was completed - the schematics were completed 2 months ago:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/2322207/rhombus-tech-a10-eoma-68-cpu-card-schematics-completed [slashdot.org]
Yes, without a doubt. Students should be taught with 100% GPL compliant, open systems that are completely unencumbered by patents. Since once they go out into the real worlds, that's exactly what they will be working with. Right?
You are trying to invoke the Brand X fallacy.
No one needs to be specifically trained in Brand X products in order to be able to use them on aome job. Computing skills when taught properly are quite independent of the brand of tool involved.
Wait, so the ARM Cortex A8 architecture is completely open while the Raspberry Pi's ARM11 architecture isn't? I'm not sure I follow...
Otherwise, this project looks very interesting!
Wait, so the ARM Cortex A8 architecture is completely open while the Raspberry Pi's ARM11 architecture isn't? I'm not sure I follow...
Otherwise, this project looks very interesting!
ah sorry, you've misunderstood. SoCs are far more than just the CPU Architecture that's used to power them. if you look at pictures of silicon layouts, you'll see that the actual CPU part is only about 1% of the whole SoC. a whopping 10% is dedicated to the I/O pads, to get enough power to push the lines from 0 to 1 and vice-versa at the kinds of speeds people need. 20% or more is typically 1st level cache. peripherals is about 5% of the silicon area, and routing (buses which can sometimes be 512 bits
Seriously, you're worried about patents on a microchip? If thats your concern, you're fucked as you won't find one anywhere anytime in the foreseeable future that ISN'T patented.
You'll find one without a patent some time AFTER a fabrication plant opens up that you can afford to use for silly ideas like FOSS chips.
I.E. its not likely to ever happen. Some people have no idea what reality is like at all.
Also, why as a student do I give a shit if the CPU is patented? That's as relevant to education as the school bus's windshield wipers being patented.
Well, you could use chips which were manufactured long enough ago that all of the patents have expired (basically anything pre-1992 in the US). If you wait a few more months you could use a 66MHz Pentium!!
ghost of steve
His solution to getting away from ARM patents is to use an FPGA? Uhm, find me an FPGA chip without a patent then.
Dear Slashdot,
So mr moaner moans about it being too closed. He also compares it to the BBC micro -- anyone know if that was open in the way he describes? I presume not...
anyone know if that was open in the way he describes?
On the old 8bit machines you could pretty much figure out how the ROM worked via PEEK, but to be honest, that's something that I do now in my 30's for fun. At the time the real benefit was being able to play around within BASIC, and maybe experiment with a bit of ASM if you wished. Understanding every aspect took years (and I'm still learning new tricks even now, 30 years later....). It was not however 'open' in the sense we use today. It was however relatively open in the sense that you could figure out ho
The article even cites someone who reverse engineered an ARMv7 and the project was 'disappeared' so that sounds a lot alike.
It wasn't in the GPL sense, at all. However, it was well *documented*, unlike the Broadcom stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I like the RPi, and I have one - but it does bother me that there's a lot of basic programming information for the hardware that's only available under NDA. The BBC Micro on the other hand, while not "open source" was well documented. *ALL* of the chips had data sheets with full information on how to use them avaialble, even if what was on the insides wasn't published. There were manuals like
Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold much water. He's assuming that devices useful for education must be composed of parts that are free of any patents, etc. That simply isn't true, and the devices can teach valuable skills and lessons even if some parts are patented by other corporations. I learned a good deal of basic computing using an Apple ][ and I turned out fine, despite any patents of specific parts of the device I used.
I learned to program on a Commodore-64. Then an Atari 400. Neither of which was open, but nobody claimed that they were unsuitable platforms for learning how to program.
I learned to program on a Commodore-64. Then an Atari 400. Neither of which was open, but nobody claimed that they were unsuitable platforms for learning how to program.
Hear hear. Sinclair ZX80 user here. I doubt if that was open, and when I was learning BASIC I didn't particularly care. I was just fascinated by learning BASIC.
But the C-64, Atari 400l, and the Apple II were machines that were extremely well documented. You could know all there was to know about them. That's not true with Raspberry PI, and is the heart of the objection.
While the Apple ][ documentation was so complete that it included Woz's annotated 6502 assembler source listings (I still have my copies in storage), the provided documentation was less extensive for the Atari 400/800 and Vic-20/C-64...
However, that's not really the point.
Those old-school bits of tin had no abstraction layers, so for coders to make any use of them beyond the basic (pardon the pun), they needed to address the hardware directly. I still remember having to load assembler routines on the Apple
You went from a 64K Commodore machine from 1982 to an 8k Atari from 1979?
You went from a 64K Commodore machine from 1982 to an 8k Atari from 1979?
That's not entirely out of the realm - I got a Dell 486/25 (yes, 25 MHz) in 1993(?), and it lasted me through high school, university (and for a CompSci degree, no less), and a fair stretch past that until I finally replaced it (I believe it was 2000 or so). And if I had been smart I would have still kept it, because that box was far more reliable than anything I've used before or since.
While I agree with his idea that hardware should be more open, perhaps it can be turned around as a teachable moment; for example (a little fudged since I am in a rush and cannot RTFA, but hopefully the point gets across):
Student: OK!
Teacher: Nothing, they just won't allow us to see it and use it, or know what it is doing. This is not a good philosophy to have for education, scie
This is not a good philosophy to have for education, science, or any learning in general. Everything must be out in the open if we are to take it seriously and build on it with new research or ideas.
Bullshit. Teaching does not work that way. If you want to explain how a device 'actually' works, you teach theory (because it is something that crosses the boundaries between architectures, and you are able to isolate small nuggets of knowledge into digestable packets). You may use pseudocode for this, or you may use some diagrams, but you do not use the heavily optimised code that these devices use at their core. The aim is to encourage students to learn, not to scare the shit out of them on day one. What is the point of describing a single architecture down to that microscopic level of detail, when it will be out of production before the child has left university? Teaching is about ideas and concepts, it is not about describing the quirky specifics of the graphics drivers of an already 'old' architecture (it's not ARMv7). This is a device to help 10-16 year olds get their first experience of the lower level aspects of a computer. They have the ability to put together their own linux distros (if they wish), and have full access to most of the sourcecode for the OS (If that interests them). Isn't that enough? Isn't that better than what came before? Or would you prefer teachers taught how adders work by pointing an electron microscope at the chip?
Teacher: Nothing, they just won't allow us to see it and use it, or know what it is doing. This is not a good philosophy to have for education, science, or any learning in general. Everything must be out in the open if we are to take it seriously and build on it with new research or ideas.
Now everybody please boot up your desktop super computers and matlab--no wait, don't do that. Also please unplug everything from the nearest power outlet since all of the utilities use closed source software to mange their power grids. Also please remove all light bulbs since the design is probably patented. Also I would instruct everyone to remove their clothes since they use chemicals produced using proprietary systems.
We're scientists damnit and we never would *dream* of using a CT Scanner, Elect
It is impossible even if the video driver is open source. I spent plenty of time controlling hardware. First, you must have detailed knowledge about specifics of operation of this hardware. It may be hundreds of pages long, with schematic drawings, flow control diagrams, and such. Most of it will be incomprehensible to a novice. It's hard to read even if you are an experienced engineer. Then you must have the code of the driver. Driver is not your garden variety "Hello, World" - it can be written, or just understood, only after the student is already familiar with userspace programming. The trouble is that the driver does not have an identifiable path of execution; it is a collection of subroutines that can be called by different threads, running on different CPU cores, on different IRQLs, and each subroutine does its own special thing. Driver code is cluttered with semaphores, spinlocks, kernel calls (esp. in Windows) and so on. It is very hard to read. Nobody in his right mind would want to teach on that even if both the h/w user's guide and the software sources are available.
There are many good educational projects. In the video department you can build a VGA controller in the FPGA and then you can write a simple application that operates it. Teaching does not mean going into gory details of spinlocks from day zero. But skipping on those on a modern CPU will just cause crashes. Educational assignments have to be carefully constructed so that they teach exactly what is needed, and skip details that are not relevant today. I'm sure when you learned to drive a car it was not done on a NASCAR racetrack in the middle of a race.
there are quite a lot of other points made in the original post - mention of patents, mention of cost etc etc - so it is quite easy to miss the key words "black box". focussing on the patents themselves in isolation is missing the point. it's *NOT* about the patents. it's about the fact that the device is a "black box".
so it depends on whether you consider hypocrisy to be important or not. many people do not. what broadcom is really saying is "we support education and learning using our products because it's a good wheeze that makes us money and makes us look good at the same time. but you're not permitted to learn about this, this or this feature: we're keeping that entirely secret. if you want the source code, you can fuck off".
the CPU being used has a rather unique design: the GPU boots up the CPU. the fact that the boot-up sequence is critically dependent on a proprietary blob to which no-one is given access REALLY pisses people off. privacy concerns, education hypocrisy: the works.
the CPU being used has a rather unique design: the GPU boots up the CPU. the fact that the boot-up sequence is critically dependent on a proprietary blob to which no-one is given access REALLY pisses people off. privacy concerns, education hypocrisy: the works.
Sounds like a great education opportunity: Clean Room Reverse Engineering 101.
They're closed source, built in factories that don't allow public tours. The CAD drawings for parts aren't even available to registered Ford mechanics, never mind the consumer or student. Most auto tech classes only teach installation and repair of OEM parts.
There's no way a student can learn adequately about the repair and maintenance of cars while working on Ford products. This is unacceptable.
To hell with learning to repair them... nobody should be learning to DRIVE in these cars until they're open source!
To be fair, sometimes this is the correct reaction.
Not this time... But some times.
Seriously, his only objection is "the hardware itself is closed"?
This is intended to be sold into schools, not top-end engineering facilities. Nobody's going to design the next ARM killer at the age of 15. They're going to be getting the idea of breaking problems down into their component parts and developing structured solutions to them. For which this is perfect.
The last Soviet computer architecture before ES EVM (IBM-360 clone) epoch was BESM-6, 1-megaflops supercomputer designed by academical institution. The first Russian computer architecture after the ES EVM epoch was KRONOS that has been designed EXACTLY by 4 young Russian hackers. It was a 32-bit computer using a AMD 2900 series slices, giving 1.5 MIPS at 3 MHz. Wikipedia has an article about it.
That was, what, twenty years ago?
You could teach the basics of assembler and possibly even processor design on an ARM quite happily. You certainly **wouldn't** want to teach GPU design, but that's the part that's really closed off.
a black box tightly sealed with patents and protected by corporations
So was my Commodore 64. So fucking what?
The Raspberry Pi is an ultra-low-cost embedded system with Linux and an ethernet connection. Why do some people feel a need to tilt at "designed for education!" windmills whenever some cool low-cost high-capability electronics comes along?
The quoted article is a troll. It is also whining and elitist. Do we want to encourage programming as a skill, or support a cult of purity? Is a lack of low level open source drivers for the Pi going to have any impact on novices? If you want complete open source platforms, they exist. Just not for $35.
Except hardware really isn't the issue. Schools might not be rolling in computers, but they have some, and most children now have computers at least availible to them at home, if not their own. The BBC Micro tackled the issue of hardware availiblity, which used to be the problem. Now? It's more about getting children to know that programming exists, and show them it's a real option, something they can do and might enjoy.
Now, the Raspberry Pi is cool and a great way to encourage that, as it's an object of in
Where does the FSF endorse the Pi? Do binary blob drivers really fall under the exemption for "auxiliary processors or low-level processors, none of whose software is meant to be installed or changed by the user or by the seller"?
Please show us a general purpose CPU that is unencumbered by patents. Relatively modern would help too.
Before someone mentions OpenSparc, get real. Seriously. You are going to compare the T1000 to a rasberry pi...
And as with any results of R&D work are easier to copy than develop your own from scratch, and so closing of portions of a design is needed to protect investment.
If people want to donate their time they are more than welcome to - if you can design and build an equivalent processor+GPU combo for the same per-chip cost then knock yourself out...
I started working on an embedded project (hobby, not work) that needed something beefier than an Arduino. Took my time looking at what's out there: various ARM dev boards, the Raspi (with its proprietary Broadcom chip) and one or two other "embeddable" platforms.
Last week, I was working out how to interface to a display (and the grinding that would entail). The same day, Slashdot ran the "hardware is dead" article [slashdot.org]. So, I took a chance and ordered a generic 7" tablet. They aren't kidding - these things are under $60 shipped. That's like 2 days' parking in downtown SF.
It uses the Allwinner A13 SoC (ARM core, integrated 10/100 ethernet, GPL'd kernel sources). Runs Android 4 out of the box, but Debian will also run. I can just hang an Arduino off the USB bus for my custom I/O, and code up a touch-based interface. Shoot, looks like it'll be easier to develop for than the Raspi.
I'm all for hackery for hackery's sake, but now that it's "the future," I'm glad we don't have to lift ourselves up by the bootstraps in order to do every little thing. It lets me concentrate on hackery at the macro level.
I was at the Multicore Challenge at the UWE in Bristol, UK on Monday.
I went last year. It was fascinating.
Anyhoo... David May was there talking about multicore parallelism. It turns out that the last patent protecting the Transputer designs has lapsed.
SOoooo... if you want some open hardware get cracking! You can probably run them fast enough these days to bit-bang an LVDS/HDMI/CSI interface with little more than an amp.
Make mine the one with the 16 by 16 array please....
Seriously. Anyone got the balls to try it? I'm in!
The XMOS chips are quite close to a transputer, though sadly not terribly open.
Also, even modern FPGAs aren't fast enough to "bit-bang an LVDS/HDMI/CSI interface with little more than an amp"... they all have dedicated, hardwired hardware for it if they support it at all.
Google gooseberry for alternative
It doesn't need to be open hardware.
The whole point on the education side is to have cheap computers that schools can use in bulk for teaching kids, not a lesson on open platforms. Not a lesson on building tiny computers. It's designed to be a small linux box that can run/make applications; nothing more. How many other computers in education now are completely open down to the individual chips, eh? Hasn't crippled their use in education yet!
A Raspberry Pi can't compete with older, used PCs for purchase price, performance, expandability, etc.
Where are schools able to buy identically configured old used computer hardware that is still healthy enough for prolonged student use and small enough that it doesn't take up half the classroom for everyone to have one at $25 a pop, while consuming a fraction of the power usage from traditional machines?
Why would students need expandability for such a learning device?
What performance critical code are students going to be running on the devices that isn't met by what the Pi provides, keeping in mind it can
Where are schools able to buy identically configured old used computer hardware that is still healthy enough for prolonged student use [...] for everyone to have one at $25 a pop,
There are a number of suppliers of off-lease computer equipment. I've deployed hundreds of them for large companies... A classroom worth is a small order. You'd have to tell me where you are located for me to come up with a list of specific distributors near you.
Just to prove the validity of the point (for an international audie
It isn't irrelevant, but there are matters of degree here. The Pi is a relatively open platform that would be a great educational tool.
Would I love to have an even MORE open platform - absolutely!
Right now I am typing this on an FOSS browser on an FOSS operating system. However, there are a few bits here and there that are proprietary, as is much of the hardware and firmware in my system. I'd prefer that stuff to be FOSS, but since no such computer is currently available, I make do with what I have.
Oh for crying out loud....
The R-Pi is perhaps the best $35 computer out there.
Sure it might have some constraints but heck textbooks are copyright for ever.
Multiple ABI and API.
Multiple programming languages.
Opportunity for improvements abound.
Yes it lacks this and that but
it takes ten min to reflash a SD card to
load a homework task, to load a new OS,
to load a new ABI of the same OS.
It is like making bread, did you clear the field,
till the field, did you gather native grass seeds, did you harvest,
Don't think students are going to re-architect the CPU of the thing, only use it to build apps and find ways to use it in robotics or other applications requiring a cheap on-board computer. I mean according to this guys rant, standard desktops/laptops can't be used in education because all the patents and proprietary code involved in bringing them to market.
Also, education is not going to turn around an invent something using Pi that will be re-sold as a product, meaning the licensing, patent, proprietary
Jazelle is a bit of a red hearing. Even on the Pi's limited CPU a JIT VM will nearly always be faster.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.


text:
Sea of Helcar
This article or section needs more/new/more-detailed sources to conform to a higher standard and to provide proof for claims made.
The Sea of Helcar (also spelled Helkar) was a great inland sea which existed in the north of Middle-earth during the Years of the Trees and the First Age.
In the beginning of Arda, the Valar created the Two Lamps and two great towers on which to place them. Due to Melkor's deceit these were destroyed, and where Helcar, the northern tower, had stood a great inland sea was formed. This became the Sea of Helcar.
Cuiviénen, where the Elves first awoke, was a gulf in the Sea of Helcar. Later, during the Great Journey, the Elves travelled to the north of the Sea through Wilderland on their way to Beleriand.
After the War of Wrath at the end of the First Age, the Sea of Helcar was drained through the Great Gulf and disappeared.
Christopher Tolkien and others have speculated that the Sea of Rhûn might "be identified with the Sea of Helkar, vastly shrunken" (The War of the Jewels). In The Atlas of Middle-earth, Karen Wynn Fonstad assumed that the lands of Mordor, Khand, and Rhûn lay where the Sea of Helcar had been, and that the Sea of Rhûn and Sea of Núrnen were its remnants. In The Peoples of Middle-earth there are references to the Sea of Rhûn existing in the First Age, but no indication as to whether it should be equated with the Sea of Helcar or not.


text:
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 22:36 UTC
Now that Windows 8 has gone gold, Microsoft can move on to other things. With Windows 8, the most important of these is probably to make sure people know how to actually use it. Metro is filled to the brim with hard-to-discover features, but Microsoft has a plan. Will it be enough?
Permalink for comment 529691
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Bleh... not enough.
by ze_jerkface on Sat 4th Aug 2012 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bleh... not enough."
Are you going to run defense on mainstream news sites when this thing bombs? Are you going to defend Sinofsky and Ballmer when shareholders demand their heads?
Ballmer has already been named worst CEO by Forbes. But I'm sure Forbes is irrational as well. Everyone is irrational except for Ballmer, Sinofsky and Windows fanboys.
You should look in the mirror and ask if being an unpaid prostitute is really what you want in life.