text:
Abramson, Mark A., and Holly B. Haines. 2012. "Medical Provider Liability to Non- Patient Third Parties for Negligent Medical Care and Prescribing Practices." Available at www.arbd.com/medical-provider-liability-to-non-patient-third-parties-for-negligent-medical-care-and-prescribing-p.
Aitken, Campbell, Michael Kerger, and Nick Crofts. 2000. "Drivers Who Use Illicit Drugs: Behaviour and Perceived Risks." Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 7 (1): 39 - 50.
Beasley, Erin, Douglas Beirness, and Amy Porath-Waller. 2011. A Comparison of Drug- and Alcohol-Involved Motor Vehicle Driver Fatalities. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Begg, Dorothy, John D. Langley, and Shaun Stephenson. 2003. "Identifying Factors That Predict Persistent Driving after Drinking, Unsafe Driving after Drinking, and Driving after Using Cannabis Among Young Adults." Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (5): 669 - 675.
Bernhoft, Inger, Anni Steentoft, S. Johansen, N. Klitgaard, L. Larsen, and L. Hansen. 2005. "Drugs in Injured Drivers in Denmark." Forensic Science International 150:181 - 189.
Bingham, C. Raymond, Jean Shope, and Jian Zhu. 2008. "Substance-Involved Driving: Predicting Driving after Using Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Drugs." Traffic Injury Prevention 9 (6): 515 - 526.
Bonta, James, Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, and Jennifer Rooney. 2000. "A Quasi- Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program." Criminal Justice and Behavior 27: 312 - 330.
Boorman, Martin, and Katherine Owens. 2009. "The Victorian Legislative Framework for the Random Testing Drivers at the Roadside for the Presence of Illicit Drugs: An Evaluation of the Characteristics of Drivers Detected from 2004 to 2006." Traffic Injury Prevention 10 (1): 16 - 22.
Brookoff, Daniel, Charles Cook, Charles Williams, and Calvin Mann. 1994. "Testing Reckless Drivers for Cocaine and Marijuana." New England Journal of Medicine 331 (8): 518 - 522.
Calafat, Amador, Daniel Adrover-Roig, Nicole Blay, Montserrat Juan, Mark Bellis, Karen Hughes, Fernando Mendes, and Anna Kokkevi. 2009. "Which Young People Accept a Lift from a Drunk or Drugged Driver?" Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4): 703 - 309.
Cartwright, Jennifer, and Mark Asbridge. 2011. "Passengers' Decisions to Ride with a Driver Under the Influence of Either Alcohol or Cannabis." Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 72 (1): 86 - 95.
Caulkins, Jonathan, and Robert DuPont. 2010. "Is 24/7 Sobriety a Good Goal for Repeat Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenders?" Addiction 105:575 - 577.
Cissner, Amanda B. 2009. The Drug Court Model and the Persistent DWI: An Evaluation of the Erie and Niagara DWI/Drug Court. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Available at www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/dwi_court_evaluation.pdf.
Compton, Richard P. 1986. Field Evaluation of the Los Angeles Police Department Drug Detection Program. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Couper, Fiona, and Barry Logan. 2004. Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheets. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/introduction.htm.
Darke, Shane, Erin Kelly, and Joanne Ross. 2004. "Drug Driving Among Injecting Drug Users in Sydney, Australia: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Risk Perceptions." Addiction 99 (2): 197 - 185.
Davey, Jeremy, James Freeman, Gavan Palk, and Anita Lavelle. 2008. "The Self- Reported Impact of Legal and Non-Legal Sanctions on Drug Driving Behaviours in Queensland: A Study of General Motorists and Convicted Offenders." In Proceedings: Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference 2008. Adelaide, South Australia: 416 - 425.
Degenhardt, Louisa, Paul Dillon, Cameron Duff, and Joanne Ross. 2006. "Driving, Drug Use Behaviour and Risk Perceptions of Nightclub Attendees in Victoria, Australia." International Journal of Drug Policy 17 (1): 41 - 46.
DeYoung, David. 1997. An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment on Suspended, Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers in California. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Research and Development Branch.
DuPont, Robert. 2011. "Drugged Driving Research: A White Paper." Draft prepared by the Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc., Drugged Driving Committee for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington, D.C., March 31.
Eibner, Christine, Andrew Morral, Rosalie Pacula, and John Macdonald. 2006. "Is the Drug Court Model Exportable? The Cost-Effectiveness of a Driving-Under-the Influence Court." Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 31 (1): 75 - 85.
Elliott, Simon, Helen Woolacott, and Robin Braithwaite. 2009. "The Prevalence of Drugs and Alcohol Found in Road Traffic Fatalities: A Comparative Study of Victims." Science and Justice 49 (1): 19 - 23.
Farrell, Laurel, Sarah Kerrigan, and Barry Logan. 2007. "Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving." Journal of Forensic Science 52 (5): 1214 - 1218.
Fergusson, David, and L. John Horwood. 2001. "Cannabis Use and Traffic Accidents in a Birth Cohort of Young Adults." Accident Analysis and Prevention 33 (6): 703 - 711.
Fergusson, David, L. John Horwood, and Joseph Boden. 2008. "Is Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis Becoming a Greater Risk to Driver Safety than Drunk Driving? Findings from a Longitudinal Study." Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4): 1345 - 1350.
Freeman, James, Jeremy Davey, Gavan Palk, Anita Lavelle, and Bevan Rowland. 2008. "The Impact of New Oral Fluid Drug Driving Detection Methods in Queensland: Are Motorists Deterred?" In Proceedings High Risk Road Users—Motivating Behaviour Change: What Works and What Doesnt Work? National Conference of the Australasian College of Road Safety and the Travelsafe Committee of the Queensland Parliament, Brisbane.
Fulkerson, Andrew. 2003. "Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as a Technological Response to DWI." American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 29 (1): 219 - 235.
Grotenhermen, Franjo, Gero Leson, Gunter Berghaus, Olaf Drummer, Hans-Peter Kruger, Marie Longo, Herbert Moskowitz, Bud Perrine, Johannes Ramaekers, Alison Smiley, and Rob Tunbridge. 2005. Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC): Findings and Recommendations by an Expert Panel. Bethesda, Maryland: The Walsh Group.
Hanson, David J. 2012. Doctors for Designated Driving. Available at www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1093628753.html.
Hausken, Anne, Svetlana Skurtveit, and Asborg Christophersen. 2004. "Characteristics of Drivers Testing Positive for Heroin or Ecstasy in Norway." Traffic Injury Prevention 5 (2):107 - 111.
Hersch, Rebekah, Dennis Crouch, and Royer Cook. 2000. Field Test of On-Site Drug Detection Devices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
International Association of Chiefs of Police. n.d. The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Jolin, Annette, and Brian Stipak.1992. "Drug Treatment and Electronically Monitored Home Confinement: An Evaluation of a Community-Based Sentencing Option." Crime and Delinquency 38 (2): 158 - 170.
Jones, Ralph K., David Shinar, and J. Michael Walsh. 2003. State of Knowledge of Drug-Impaired Driving (DOT HS 809 642). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Karjalainen, Karoliina, Tomi Lintonen, Antti Impinen, Pirjo Lillsunde, Pia Makela, Ossi Rahkonen, Jari Haukka, and Aini Ostamo. 2011. "Socio-economic Determinants of Drugged Driving: A Register-Based Study." Addiction 106 (8): 1448 - 1459.
Kelly, Erin, Shane Darke, and Joanne Ross. 2004. "A Review of Drug Use and Driving: Epidemiology, Impairment, Risk Factors and Risk Perceptions." Drug and Alcohol Review 23 (3): 319 - 344.
Kerrigan, Sarah 2004. Drug Toxicology for Prosecutors: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Lacey, John H., Katharine Brainard, and Samantha Snitow. 2010. Drug Per Se Laws: A Review of Their Use in States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Lacey, John H., Tara Kelley-Baker, Debra Furr-Holden, Robert Voas, Eduardo Romano, Anthony Ramirez, Katharine Brainard, Christine Moore, Pedro Torres, and Amy Berning. 2009. 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: Drug Results (DOT HS 811 249). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Leaf, William, and David Preusser. 2011. Evaluation of Minnesota's Vehicle Plate Impoundment Law for Impaired Drivers. Preusser Research Group.
Lenne, Michael, Craig Fry, Paul Dietze, and Greg Rumbold. 2001. "Attitudes and Experiences of People Who Use Cannabis and Drive: Implications for Drugs and Driving Legislation in Victoria, Australia." Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 8 (4): 307 - 313.
Li, Mu-Chen, Joanne Brady, Charles DiMaggio, Arielle Lusardi, Keane Tzong, and Guohua Li. 2011. "Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes." Epidemiological Reviews 34 (1): 1 - 3.
Loudenburg, Roland, Gregg Drube, and Gary Leonardson. 2010. South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program Evaluation Findings Report. Salem, South Dakota: Mountain Plains Evaluation, LLC.
Macdonald, Scott, Robert Mann, Mary Chipman, Basia Pakula, Patricia Erickson, Andrew Hathaway, and Peter MacIntyre. 2008. "Driving Behavior Under the Influence of Cannabis or Cocaine." Traffic Injury Prevention 9 (3): 190 - 194.
McKnight, A. James, and Robert Voas. 2001. "Prevention of Alcohol-Related Road Crashes." In International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems, ed. N. Heather, T. Peters, and T. Stockwell. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2005. "MADD Canada Launches New Drug-Impaired Driving Awareness Campaign Aimed at Youth and Post-Secondary Students." Available at www.madd.ca/english/news/pr/p05aug29.htm.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1996. Administrative License Revocation, State Legislative Fact Sheet, October. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
---- 2004. Priorities and Strategies for Improving the Investigation, Use of Toxicology Results, and Prosecution of Drug-Impaired Driving Cases: Findings and Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
----2009. "Testing Multiple Medication Usage and Driving Functioning." Traffic Safety Facts: No. 357. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
---- 2010, November. Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers. Traffic Safety Facts Crash States (DOT HS 811 415). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
---- 2012a. How to Implement a Designated Driver Program. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
---- 2012b. Impaired Driving in the United States. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
Nichols, James L., and H. Laurence Ross. 1990. "The Effectiveness of Legal Sanctions in Dealing with Drunk Drivers." Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 6 (2): 33 - 55.
Normand, Jacques, Richard O. Lempert, and Charles P. OBrien. 2004. Under the Influence: Drugs and the American Workplace. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Drug Use in the Workplace, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2011. Teen Drugged Driving: Parent, Coalition, and Community Group Activity Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Officer, Jane. 2009. "Trends in Drug Use of Scottish Drivers Arrested Under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act—A 10 Year Review." Science and Justice 49 (4): 237 - 241.
O'Kane, Carl, Douglas Tutt, and Lyndon Bauer. 2002." Cannabis and Driving: A New Perspective." Emergency Medicine 14 (3): 296 - 303.
O'Malley, Patrick, and Lloyd Johnston. 2007. "Drugs and Driving by American High School Seniors, 2001 - 2006." Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68 (6): 834 - 842.
Poulsen, Helen. 2010. Alcohol and Other Drug Use in New Zealand Drivers 2004 to 2009. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police.
Ramaekers, Johannes. 2003. "Antidepressants and Driver Impairment: Empirical Evidence from a Standard On-the-Road Test." Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 64 (1): 20 - 29.
Shaffer, Deborah. 2011. "Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-Analytic Review." Justice Quarterly 28 (3): 493 - 521.
Skopp, G., L. Potsch, H. Eser, and M. Moller. 1996. "Preliminary Practical Findings on Drug Monitoring by a Transcutaneous Collection Device." Journal of Forensic Science 41 (6): 933 - 937.
Smith, John, Charles Hayes, Robert Yolton, Dale Rutledge, and Karl Citek. 2002. "Drug Recognition Expert Evaluations Made Using Limited Data." Forensic Science International 130:167 - 173.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2010. Results from the 2009 Household Survey Drug Use and Health: Volume 1. Summary of National Findings. Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-38A, HHS Publication No. SMA 10-4856Findings. Rockville, Maryland.
Sweedler, Barry, and Kathryn Stewart. n.d. Vehicle Sanctions: An Effective Means to Reduce Impaired Driving. National Transportation Safety Board, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Available at www.icadts.org/proceedings/2000/icadts2000-135.pdf.
Talpins, Stephen, and Chuck Hayes. 2004. The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Ulmer, Robert G., Veronika Shabanova, and David Preusser. 2001. "Evaluation of Use or Lose Laws." (DOT HS 809 285.) Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Voas, Robert. 2006. "Commentary on History of DWI Enforcement: What Does It Tell Us About DUID Enforcement?" Transportation Research Circular, No. e_C096. Woods Hole, Massachusetts: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Walsh Group. 2002. The Feasibility of Per Se Drugged Driving Legislation: Consensus Report. Bethesda, Maryland: The Walsh Group.
Watling, Christopher, Gavan Palk, James Freeman, and Jeremy Davey. 2010. "Applying Stafford and Warrs Reconceptualization of Deterrence Theory to Drug Driving: Can It Predict Those Likely to Offend?" Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2): 452 - 458.
White, William. 2003. Management of the High-Risk DUI Offender. Springfield, Illinois: Institute for Legal, Administrative and Policy Studies, University of Illinois.
White, William, and David Gasperin. 2006. Management of the High-Risk Offender. Springfield, Illinois: Institute for Legal and Policy Studies, Center for State Policy and Leadership, University of Illinois.
Whittle, Shirley. 2000. "New York's Property Clerk Forfeiture Act: Can They Do That?"Journal of Law and Policy 4:361 - 376.
Free Bound Copies of the Problem Guides
You may order free bound copies in any of three ways:
Online: Department of Justice COPS Response Center
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Phone: 800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480
Allow several days for delivery.
Email sent. Thank you.
Drug-Impaired Driving
Send an e-mail with a link to this guide.
* required
Error sending email. Please review your enteries below.
- To *
Separate multiple addresses with commas (,)
- Your Name *
- Your E-mail *
Copy me
- Note: (200 character limit; no HTML)
Please limit your note to 200 characters.


text:
CEO Rajasthan is part of Rajasthan, literally meaning 'Abode of Kings', is the largest Indian state by area. This state has a history of over 5000 years old. It is perhaps the most tribally diverse, architecturally majestic and regal of all the states of India. This land, divided into 33 districts and with a population of more than 7.3 million, presents a huge challenge for the Government of India when it comes to managing election-related activities. This is where CEO Rajasthan or Chief … [Read more...]
You are here: Home / Archives for Voter ID Status Rajasthan

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Machias Elementary
- Online Payments/TouchBase
Online Payments/TouchBase
Snohomish School District uses the TouchBase system to pay online fees. Student food service accounts, athletic fees, fines and other fees may be paid online using your debit or credit card through our TouchBase link - https://wa-snohomish.intouchreceipting.com/ School bookkeeping offices can accept cash or checks as well as credit/debit cards.
Please pay online to avoid wait times at your school bookkeeping or main office. The link is - https://wa-snohomish.intouchreceipting.com/. Payments made to a student's food service account will be reflected within 12-24 hours.
For parents/guardians with multiple students in the district, you are able to see all of your students with your one username and password. Once you've selected your student, the shopping experience will be specific to that student. You must be signed with the parent's or guardian's Skyward/Family Access login in order to view all of the students in your household. If logged in as a student, you will only be able to see that individual student.
Click here to view and download a handout with TouchBase tips and tricks handout for new users.
Family login
- Username: Skyward Family Access Username
- Password: Skyward Family Access Password (CaSe SeNsItiVe)
Student login
- User Name: (your child's student number, including leading 0)
- Password: (student's last name — with a capital first letter and any other letter that may be capitalized in the last name - example McDonald)
Click on student's name
- This will give you options to pay the fines or shop for other items.
- You may also view the student's purchase history through the TouchBase system.
Do not pay textbook fines online if you are turning in the book. Textbook fines will be removed 24 hours after books are returned.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
[245 U.S. 198, 199] Messrs. James R. Offield and Charles K. Offield, both of Chicago, Ill ., for petitioners.
Mr. James Q. Rice, of New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Suit for infringement of a patent embraced in letters patent No. 821, 580 and a reissue thereof, No. 13,542. [245 U.S. 198, 200] The suit was originally brought by Frederick F. Baldwin, patentee. John Simmons Company, licensee, having the exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented device, subsequently intervened and became complainant.
The patents are for a lamp designed to generate and burn acetylene or similar gas 'intended for use,' to quote the description of the patents, 'and adapted to use as a bicycle, automobile, yacht, or miner's lamp, or for any other analogous purpose, it being necessary only to change its form or dimensions to adapt it to any one of the purposes mentioned.' Stress in this case, however, is put upon the use of the asserted invention as a miner's lamp, such use conspicuously displaying its commercial utility.
Answer was filed by the Justrite Manufacturing Company, who was made a party defendant to the suit as manufacturer of the asserted infringing lamp, and by stipulation its answer was considered the answer of the Abercrombie & Fitch Company. It denied invention with great detail, set up anticipating patents, denied its utility, attacked the validity of the reissue on the ground that the first and fourth claims of the original patent were held invalid by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (199 Fed. 133, 117 C. C. A. 615), and for the further reason that the application for the reissue was not made until seven years after the original letters patent were issued and rights had accrued in the meantime to defendants (petitioners here) and to others. Infringement was denied.
A decree was passed sustaining the validity of the original patent and of the reissue, the originality of the invention and its utility, and adjudging defendants (petitioners) had infringed claim 4 of the reissue, that plaintiffs recover the damages they had incurred by reason of the infringement and the profits defendants had received, an accounting being ordered for this purpose. A perpetual [245 U.S. 198, 201] injunction was also adjudged against further infringements. (D. C.) 227 Fed. 455. The decree was affirmed in all respects by the Circuit Court of Appeals (228 Fed. 895, 143 C. C. A. 293) and subsequently this certiorari was granted ( 239 U.S. 649 , 36 Sup. Ct. 284).
The plaintiffs (we shall so designate respondents) struggled through some years and some litigation to the success of the decrees in the pending case. In a suit brought in the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois a device like that of the defendants herein was held to be an infringement of certain claims of the original patent. The holding was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Bleser v. Baldwin, 190 Fed. 133, 117 C. C. A. 615.
Subsequently, the reissue having been granted, suit was brought in the Western District of Pennsylvania against an asserted infringer. Unfair competition was also alleged, and, holding the latter to exist, the court granted a preliminary injunction. (D. C.) 210 Fed. 560. Upon final hearing that holding was repeated, and infringement of a claim of the reissue patent decreed. (D. C.) 215 Fed. 735. The decree was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (Third Circuit) on the ground that the claim of the reissue patent found to have been infringed was broader than a corresponding claim of the original letters patent and therefore void. The holding of the District Court as to unfair competition was sustained. 219 Fed. 735, 135 C. C. A. 433. Aided by the reasoning in the opinions of those cases and the discussion of counsel, we pass to the consideration of the propositions in controversy.
First, as to the original patent. Its contribution to the world's instrumentalities was, as we have said, an acetylene lamp and was represented by the following figure, designated as Figure 1:
It will be observed that the device consists of a receptacle divided into two compartments, an upper one for [245 U.S. 198, 202]
water and a lower one designed to serve as a gas-generating chamber, adapted to contain a receptacle for calcium carbide, which is attached to and forms the detachable bottom. There are means of introducing water into the reservoir and thence to the carbide and means of conducting the gas to the burner.
The device is a means of using the gas (acetylene) formed by the decomposition of water with calcium carbide and necessarily must bring them into contact in an effectual way and use the gas generated in a controlled flow. A tube (L) hence leads from the water-reservoir into the carbide receptacle and forms a duct which introduces the water into the body of the carbide. Various means, the specifications recite, have been employed to regulate or control the flow of water to the carbide, which were found objectionable or not adequate. [245 U.S. 198, 203] The patentee then says:
That the method which be has invented 'for securing the proper feed under all circumstances' without 'objectionable features is to make the bore of the duct of comparatively large size and then restrict the duct by means of a wire or rod preferably centrally located therein to leave a channel of the proper size.'
It is then said:
There is also a figure attached to the patent which shows a valve upon the constricting rod, and it is said:
There are some further descriptive details not necessary to be repeated, and this was said:
The claims of the patent which are pertinent to our inquiry are as follows:
The words in italics are the addition of the reissue.
Whether the lamp exhibits invention, when both patents are considered, we shall discuss later. Our attention is more immediately challenged by the stress put upon other defenses, especially upon the contention that the patent is confined to a special form and, so confined, is not infringed, and that the extension of the patent by the reissue is void. The controversy is therefore brought to a consideration of the original patent as added to or developed by the reissue. And their comparison centers in the water-feeding duct or tube and its restriction by means of a wire or rod and the shape and use of the rod to pierce or stir the carbide. In the original patent, as we have seen, it was said that the invented method for securing a proper feed (flow of the water to the carbide) without certain specific objectionable features was 'to make the bore of the duct of comparatively large size and then restrict the duct by means of a wire or rod preferably centrally located therein to leave a channel of the proper size.' In the reissue, after the words 'comparatively large size,' it was added, 'extend the tube which forms the duct downward so that its end will be always em- [245 U.S. 198, 206] bedded in the carbid.' In other words, the tube is explicitly described as extending to and its end embedded in the carbide, and this, it is contended, was an enlargement of the original patent.
The contention is untenable if there was in the original patent an implication of such length and termination of the tube, and we think there was. To conduct water to the carbide it necessarily had to extend to the carbide receptacle and as necessarily had to penetrate the carbide if the rod located in it, whether straight or bent, was to act 'in the nature of a stirrer, which on proper manipulation' might 'be used to break up the mass of carbid surrounding the outlet of the water duct,' which is the purpose that the patent ascribes to it. And Fig. 1 shows such ending and embedding. It would be impossible otherwise to perform its function or secure the 'proper percolation' of the water 'to the unslaked carbid in the receptacle G, Fig. 1.'
But there was another addition in the reissue which, it is contended, enlarges the invention and assigns a new shape and function to the stirrer of the original. In the latter the rod is described as extending 'from the top of the lamp down through the water-reservoir, as shown in Fig. 3.' To this the reissue adds:
There is nothing in this but what was clearly implied in the original, except the shape of the stirrer. In the original it is described and represented as bent. In the reissue it is stated to be obvious that the stirrer need not always be bent 'or extend radially from the mouth of the tube.'
We are unable to assign to this the extent of alteration that counsel do, nor do we think it necessary to rehearse the details of their argument. We have given it attention and the cases it cites, especially the decision and reasoning of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit in Grier Bros. Co. v. Baldwin et al., 219 Fed. 735, 135 C. C. A. 433, but we are constrained to a different conclusion. Indeed, we are of opinion that the original patent did not need the exposition of the reissue. It exhibited an invention of merit, certainly one entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents. Paper Bag Patent Case, 210 U.S. 405 , 28 Sup. Ct. 748. Baldwin, the patentee, complied with the statute ( section 4888, R. S. [Comp. St. 1916, 9432]) by explaining the principle of his invention and the mode of putting it to practical use; there was a clear exposition of the principle and the instruments of its use were defined and their purpose and manner of operation. It left nothing in either for further experiment or contrivance. As we have said, the invention was a means of using the gas formed by the decomposition of water with calcium carbide, and necessarily the water and carbide must be brought into contact and under a controlled flow; hence the tube and its centrally located rod extending downward to the carbide. It was foreseen and stated that the carbide might become torpid or slaked by the action of the water and might have to be disturbed or dispersed in order that there might be percolation of water to unslaked carbide, and this was provided to be performed by a simple manipulation of the [245 U.S. 198, 208] rod. Whether the rod was bent or made straight was unimportant. In either form it removed the slake and secured the continuous operation of the water and carbide and through them the formation of the gas and its illuminating purpose. One or the other might be better, according to the extent of the dispersion required, and one naturally suggested the other.
It is, however, contended that plaintiffs were required to give up and did give up in the Patent Office a claim which had the extent which we have indicated. A claim, numbered in the application as 6, described the rod as: 'A rod extending from a point outside the lamp through the tube into the carbide receptacle.'
Counsel say, 'It is to be particularly noted' that, while other claims 'mentioned the stirring function of the rod, claim 6 omitted this feature,' but that the solicitor who drew the claim 'unquestionably had in mind the straight form of rod construction without any stirrer at the end, for the claim specifies, 'through the tube into the carbid receptacle." It is hence argued that when the claim was given up the straight form of construction was given up, and, having been given up to secure the patent, it cannot be insisted upon to prevent its use by others. But counsel is in error as to the extent of the surrender. The straight construction was not given up, but such construction through the tube into the carbide receptacle, and this was in deference, and only in deference, to other patents that showed such use, that is, showed a penetration into the receptacle, but not its duct ending and embedded in the carbide.
We do not think the case calls for extended discussion. It is best considered in broad outline. The scope and merit of the patents are of instant and assured impression, and to the attempt to defeat or limit their invention by the state of the prior art we adduce the discussion and reasoning of the opinions of the lower courts, which we approve. [245 U.S. 198, 209] The denial of infringement is also easily disposed of. Indeed, it has been in effect disposed of. It is based on the contention that the stirrer is an essential of plaintiff's lamp and that a stirrer is absent from defendants' lamp, which is in all other particulars, as far as this case is concerned, similar to the plaintiff's lamp. To the contention of defendants, therefore, we cannot assent. There is a stirrer in both, and its form, as we have seen, is not of the essence of the invention. There is nothing occult in the act of stirring; it is causing movement or disturbance, and this may be performed by a straight rod as by a bent one. There may be difference in their dispersing power, but no difference in function, and one or the other would be instantly selected according to the need, under the clear description of the patent. This ready adaptation of the form of stirrer to the work to be performed Baldwin demonstrated even before the grant of the patent. Early in 1906 he put upon the market a lamp with a straight rod, 'which, among other things,' as the District Court has said, 'has characterized the commercial lamp ever since.'
To the contention that the Justrite Company, the manufacturing defendant, acquired rights before the reissue, we again may oppose the reasoning and conclusion of District Judge Mayer and their affirmance by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The learned judge said:
Decree affirmed.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 245 U.S. 198
Docket No: No. 67
Decided: December 10, 1917
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Forget the old times! Because the most delicious game of colored candies is here! Are you bored of the orthodox color match games? : Candy Monster is here to make you taste the delicious flavor of the candies around! Reach out for the colored candies quickly, or else they will reach you, and it's game over! Candy Monster, the best game for any age group. This fun and delicious puzzle matching game will have you entertained for hours! The goal of this match 3 puzzle game is to swap matches, three in a row or more, horizontally or vertically with other candy blocks to create divine combinations. Clear all the candy blocks by making combos and enjoy every moment as you progress through hundreds of levels. Find out why so many people love playing this addicting game- it's easy to play but hard to master! Welcome to the best candy egg puzzle game! In this game, find a matching combination of candy blocks. You can swap matches for free or more delicious combinations with horizontal and vertical games that have three in a row or more. Burst various barriers with fun Trick moves and smarts and be rewarded to the next level. This is an amazing game that has hundreds of levels waiting for you to play! The graphics are also very good. If you're looking for something new, give it a try now! Candy Monster has been a popular mobile game for years. With its unmatched popularity, many other companies have tried to emulate its success with their own sugar-rush games. There are now dozens of different options that are available on both Android and Apple devices. However, none of these games can compare to what we think is the best new option: Candy Blast! This game offers hours upon hours of addictive game play with over 100 levels in an adorable package. It's easy to learn but difficult to master which means it never gets boring or stale! You'll be hooked before you know it! Candy Monster features: Candy Monster is a fun, challenging puzzle game Download the best Match 3 and candy game for free! Match 3 puzzles are easy to play and fun to complete Use your sense of spatial awareness in this puzzle match 3 game A quick and fun game for those who want to play a puzzle match 3 This game is perfect for anyone who can't put down their phone Refreshing take on the classic billiards physics Do you love candy? Candy Monster Has plenty of it! A fun and challenging puzzle game Brain teasers for players who love a challenge Candy never looked so good! Cute Combos For Divine Matching Combinations. Super addictive puzzle game Time flies while you play the game, and it's easy to just keep playing for hours Playable by any age group Unique features that make game play more challenging than your average puzzle game Best new game for candy lover connoisseurs and puzzle gamer alike. Hundreds of levels to choose from Satisfies your hunger for sugary puzzles with a match 3 Candy Monster game! You can play the game with your friends or family as a team The candy block puzzle matching combination is simple and addictive You get rewards when you complete levels It's free to download Play this addicting, colorful and fun game Have the best time of your life in crazy candy combos Match blocks to achieve high scores Blast barriers to advance through levels Incredible puzzle game with delightful graphics Fun and addicting match 3 brain teaser candy blast
Swipe Control
Embed this game


text:
[Image: Two landscapes photographed from above by David Maisel; from Terminal Mirage].
I'm excited to announce that I'll be participating in a roundtable discussion, on June 28, hosted by the Nevada Museum of Art in Reno.
Some long-term BLDGBLOG readers might remember that I interviewed photographer David Maisel about a year and a half ago for Archinect; well, David will be leading a guided tour of his photographs (at noon on June 28) at the Nevada Museum of Art, followed by a lecture about those images (at 7pm, the same day), by writer William L. Fox – ending, finally, with a roundtable discussion featuring Fox, Maisel, and myself.
The Nevada Museum of Art describes Fox as an author and independent scholar who "has spent three decades studying and writing about the ways in which humans understand where they are in landscapes, often focusing on art, mapping, and cognitive science." His many, many books include Driving to Mars: In the Arctic with NASA… and Terra Antarctica: Looking into the Emptiest Continent. He's also got a website.
Fox's work has come up many times on this blog; see this post, for instance, about high winds in Antarctica, carving musical instruments out of the rocks, or this post, in which huge underground spheres in the south polar glaciers are used as a new kind of cathedral, or even this post, in which settlers on Mars confront seemingly inescapable geo-simulations…
Finally, if you haven't read it yet, don't miss the Archinect interview with David Maisel.And I owe a huge thanks to the Nevada Museum of Art for inviting me up to participate in the first place.


text:
Before I settled on the Asylum for my Mixology Monday drink, I was batting around the idea of posting this one. It's actually a much tastier drink, and after I became enamored of the whole Seabrook story, I resolved I'd come back around to this one, just so I could post a really engaging pastis cocktail. So, before I completely forget about it, here's a pastis-containing drink that's worth trying at least once.
I'd just shout out the name, but the problem is, the drink has two of them. But given the names and all they imply, I'd estimate the drink to be a product of the turn of the last century. I first came across it in Charles H. Baker, Jr.'s The Gentleman's Companion, where he refers to it as
REMEMBER the MAINE, a Hazy Memory of a Night in Havana during the Unpleasantnesses of 1933, when Each Swallow Was Punctuated with Bombs Going off on the Prado, or the Sound of 3″ Shells Being Fired at the Hotel NACIONAL, then Haven for Certain Anti-Revolutionary Officers
["Remember the Maine," of course, was the jingoistic rallying call to arms in 1898, following an explosion aboard the USS Maine which was blamed (using dubious evidence) on Spain, and led to the Spanish-American War–kind of like the WMD situation of its day. In cocktail circles, the war also led us to the Daiquiri and the Cuba Libre–and, arguably, the whole panoply of pre-Castro Cuban drinks–but those are for other posts.]
The other source for this drink is Albert Stevens Crockett's Old Waldorf Bar Days, which refers to it as "McKinley's Delight." Crockett wrote,
Just why it was McKinley's delight, I am unable to ascertain. The chances are that President McKinley never found out whether it was or not. In its favor, I may mention that the Bar was a great hangout for the G.O.P.'s of yesteryear, who may have passed their emotion for their candidates across the counter for the barkeep to translate into terms of liquid intensity.
Partisan political issues aside, the drink certainly stands its claim to liquid intensity. Basically a rye Manhattan, seasoned with a little cherry brandy (the sweet stuff, like Cherry Heering, not the dry kirschwasser) and a little absinthe (or the like), this cocktail has a flavor in which neither the brandy's fruitiness or the pastis' elegant funk take over. Pastis, put in its place.
Remember the Maine, or McKinley's Delight
- 2 ounces rye whiskey
- 3/4 ounce sweet vermouth
- 1 to 2 teaspoons Cherry Heering
- 1/2 teaspoon absinthe or legal substitute
Stir with ice–"briskly in clock-wise fashion–this makes it sea-going, presumably!" writes Baker–then strain into chilled cocktail glass or saucer champagne glass. Twist a curl of lemon peel over the drink.


text:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Grammy-winning country group Lady Antebellum is changing its name to Lady A, with members saying they are regretful and embarrassed for not taking into consideration the word's associations with slavery.
The band, made up of Hillary Scott, Charles Kelley and Dave Haywood, made the announcement Thursday on their social media.
The group's first self-titled album came out in 2008, and included the Grammy-winning No. 1 country hit "I Run To You," then it achieved crossover success on the pop charts with the nine-times platinum "Need You Now." They won three Grammys for that song, including Record of the Year. They have also won numerous Country Music Association and Academy of Country Music awards during their nearly 14 year career.
The statement said that they chose the name after the antebellum style home where they shot their first band photos, and it reminded them of Southern styles of music. Antebellum means before a war and the term has been widely associated with the pre-Civil War period in the United States when slavery was practiced.
Band members said that in recent weeks, their eyes have been opened to "blindspots we didn't even know existed" and "the injustices, inequality and biases black women and men have always faced."
The band said it is deeply sorry for the hurt this has caused and for anyone who felt unsafe, unseen or unvalued.


text:
This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. It's difficult to get jazzed about smartphones and social networks when they might be ruining the world. That's what my guest, Farhad Manjoo, writes. And he's been covering tech for 20 years. For the last three, he's written the New York Times column "State Of The Art" in which he explores how the latest tech ideas are shaping the future. Now he's writing a series about the Frightful Five. That's his name for tech giants Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft, which make up half of the top 10 most valuable companies on the American stock market and which Manjoo says collectively influence just about everything else that happens in tech, as well as the rest of the global economy. He's also writing a book about the five.
Farhad Manjoo, welcome to FRESH AIR. What makes the Frightful Five frightful? What did they have to do to get on your list?
FARHAD MANJOO: So what makes them frightful, first of all, is that they are very, very big. And they play a huge role - they all play sort of huge roles in our lives kind of personally and at a kind of society-wide level. So if you live kind of a modern American life, it's impossible to, you know, to live without all of them for most people. And more than that, they sort of are being asked to do and they kind of know more about us than any corporations in history. They're more - they've become kind of more like governments than companies with the amount of money they have, with the kind of power they have over democracy in society.
We're seeing that with the way that, you know, news on Facebook and Google affected the election, with their impact on the economy, you know, the way they're disrupting kind of how retail works, with their impact on jobs and inequality. And eventually, you know, they're all working on artificial intelligence. And their technologies will affect probably most of our jobs. Most of the ways that people make money now are going to be changed by technologies that these companies make.
GROSS: Yeah. And when you say that they're like governments, they're sometimes more like governments than corporations, you point out that they're doing things that government - that our government used to do in terms of innovation. What are some examples that you're thinking of?
MANJOO: Yeah. So, you know, many of the technologies that we use today at kind of their earliest levels were started by grants for the Defense Department or just kind of basic science research. Now a lot of that is being done by these companies. Artificial intelligence is kind of the primary example. These companies are going to be building the future of transportation in the United States, in the world. You know, they're building self-driving cars. They're building drones. They're building kind of the infrastructure of the United States - the infrastructure of the next 20, 30, 40 years in ways that we used to look to kind of governments to do.
You know, Amazon has a fleet of planes, drones. It is in the kind of shipping business. It affects stores around you. Much of the kind of physical world around you is being shaped by, you know, that one company. And you can point to kind of similar ways that all the other companies are shaping the world around you in ways that are sort of huge economically and socially and that are kind of unavoidable. Like essentially - in one of my pieces, I wrote that they kind of blanket the entire society in their technology, and you can't really escape them.
GROSS: When we talk about Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft, we're also talking about companies that most people don't know are owned by these five mega tech companies. So what are some examples of things that we might not associate with Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft but really are part of them?
MANJOO: Right. So Facebook, for example, also owns Instagram - one of the most popular social networks in the world. It owns WhatsApp, which is I think the most popular messaging app other than a couple that are in China. And, you know, it owns Facebook, which reaches 2 billion people a month. Google, in addition to kind of the Google search engine, it has a whole suite of mapping technologies. So there's Google Maps, but there's also Waze, another popular app for getting around. Google owns YouTube. Amazon, in addition to Amazon the store, it owns many different kind of media and publishing properties, so Audible, which has audio books. Amazon also owns Zappos the shoe company. It sort of owns this suite of different e-commerce sites.
And Amazon is sort of doing more than shopping now. One of its huge ventures is artificial intelligence. And you can personify it through their device called the Amazon Echo, which you put in your house and you talk to. It's your assistant. So, you know, these are examples of companies and products that are part of the five. And they really exemplify the way the five are going into - you know, they're really stretched far horizontally. Kind of every product or service that you might want to use, you're going to touch one of these companies.
I think Google is the most - is the perfect example of this. So what Google did a couple years ago is they switched from being Google, Google incorporated to Alphabet. So Alphabet is a holding company, many people may not have heard of it. Every time I write about Alphabet I have to very - I have to specify that we're actually talking about Google. But what Alphabet is is it's a holding company that has Google. Google is its sort of biggest property, but then it has a whole bunch of other companies you may not have heard of.
One of them is like their research lab called Google X, another is something called Google Brain, which is a company that is looking at ways to have artificial intelligence do things like medical diagnosis. There is a self-driving car company called Waymo. There's another health company called Verily. There's sort of a suite of companies that are under this alphabet umbrella related to Google. So they get all their money from Google but, you know, in the future, the plan is that Google as an entity will be just one of many different companies owned by this larger company that will, you know, affect everything that we do.
GROSS: So like the origin stories for like Google, Facebook and Apple, they're all about like a guy or a couple of guys in a garage or dorm room dreaming up these great ideas that lead to something remarkably innovative. But now you're saying now that these companies that they dreamed of are so big, they're actually in some ways suppressing innovation - the innovations of other, you know, men and women in their dorm rooms or garages dreaming up ideas. So in what ways do you think that these companies now sometimes suppress innovation?
MANJOO: This, I think, is the huge change in how the tech industry works now versus how it worked back when some of these companies were starting up. It's still possible to come out to Silicon Valley and start, you know, some new app, some - create some new piece of hardware that lots of people like and that takes the world by storm. But there's now kind of a ceiling on how successful your idea can be, and the ceiling is kind of determined by these five companies.
So one of the things that these five companies have done kind of masterfully is create these platforms that startups have to use to get to customers. So they all own these cloud-storage services. So Amazon is an example. If you want to store your media online - so, for example, all the movies that you watch on Netflix are actually stored on Amazon servers - so every time you use Netflix, Netflix is kind of paying Amazon for that kind of storage.
GROSS: I have to tell you, I was really surprised when I read that. I didn't know that.
MANJOO: Yeah. It's surprising, first of all, because they're such different companies. You wouldn't really know - you wouldn't really think that they would have that kind of connection. And then they're also competitors. Netflix makes original TV shows and so does Amazon. And so, you know, in this way, Netflix has this dependence on one of its competitors. There are lots of different examples of this though.
There - you know, all app makers have to put their apps in the Apple app store or the Google app store. And when they sell in those apps, 30 percent of that money goes to Apple or Google. They all have to advertise on Facebook or Google to get customers because that's become the way to advertise on digital platforms. And so any new app - Uber, Airbnb, Netflix, all the other sort of smaller companies online - have to go through these five to get to their customers. And what ends up happening is that other companies succeed, but always these five benefit off of that success.
GROSS: So what's an example of how one of these big companies dealt with a new startup or a new innovation that might've been competitive or appealing?
MANJOO: Yeah. The best example we've seen recently is sort of what's happened to Snapchat. So Snapchat is a very popular and really innovative idea. So Snapchat is an app where primarily teenagers, young people, send messages that disappear. So they don't last forever. You send a picture and kind of a caption to your friend. They see it for a little while, and it disappears.
And the other thing you do on this app is you make something called a story, which is like a slideshow of your day. And after a day, your friends see it and then it goes away. And these were very popular. And Facebook, which is obviously the leader in social networking, they noticed the popularity of Snap, and several times they tried to buy the company. Facebook offered Snap $3 billion, and Snap turned them down. And then earlier this year Snap went public on the stock market, and it was sort of this huge event for them. You know, this is the next step in kind of the evolution of their company.
And right after that, Facebook copied Stories, this format that's very popular on Snapchat. It copied it to essentially all of Facebook's platforms, and basically overnight the version of Stories in Instagram, in Facebook's company, became far more popular than Stories in Snapchat. And ever since then Snapchat's stock has suffered, and analysts and other people I talked to have a much kind of dimmer view of the future of that company than they did before because Facebook is gunning for them, and it's just really hard to see how they can kind of get out from under that competition.
GROSS: So you see that as an example of how one of the big companies can suppress or co-opt the innovation of a startup?
MANJOO: Yeah. It's the role of startups in the modern tech economy is to provide, you know, ideas for the big companies to kind of run with and make money from. And the other thing that the startups do is they pay a lot of money for the goods and services that the big companies provide. So half of Snapchat's revenues actually go to Google because Google hosts the actual content on Snapchat.
So in this weird way, you know, Snapchat is paying half of its revenues to Google, one of the five. It's being copied left and right by another of the five, Facebook. And it's trying to make money in the Internet ad economy, and the biggest players in the Internet ad economy are Google and Facebook. So it's also competing with them for advertisers. It's a really unenviable position to be in.
GROSS: Well, let's take a break here, and then we'll talk some more about what my guest, Farhad Manjoo, calls the frightful five, which is Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft. He writes the tech column "State Of The Art" for The New York Times, and he's doing a series on this group that he calls the frightful five. We're going to be right back after a break. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR, and if you're just joining us, my guest is Farhad Manjoo, who writes about tech for The New York Times. He writes the "State Of The Art" column, which explores how the latest tech ideas are shaping the future. And he's now writing a series about big tech companies, the ones he calls the frightful five - Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
Now, you say the frightful five are so big, and yet they're not regulated by the government and they don't really fit into the standards that we measure monopolies by. Like, they don't conform to monopoly standards. So what's different about these tech companies from companies that we might consider a monopoly?
MANJOO: So one of the differences is that they're new and they're growing in new markets. And in those markets, it's sort of - in some ways it's kind of too early to call them the winners, according to regulators. And other ways, they've sort of grown really quickly, but many people see sort of more room to grow. So it's, according to regulators and others who study these markets, kind of perhaps too soon to say that they've won.
But for example, you know, Amazon has disrupted essentially all of the retail business, like, everyone from Walmart to, you know, every mom and pop shop has some fear and strategy for responding to the threat of Amazon. But if you look at kind of the size of Amazon and the scope of the entire retail business, it's not that big. It's not even half of all online sales, and it's something like 8 percent of all retail sales in the United States.
So it's growing very quickly, and it has built this infrastructure for kind of the future of commerce. It's built all these warehouses and this very efficient way of shipping goods to people. And everyone who understands e-commerce understands that, like, the future of retail in America belongs to Amazon. But at this point, it's small. And so for regulators who worry about...
GROSS: Wait. Small when measured against overall retail numbers and...
MANJOO: Right. So yes. So at this point...
GROSS: 'Cause there's nothing small about Amazon so (laughter)...
MANJOO: (Laughter) You're right.
GROSS: ...Sounds like a contradiction.
MANJOO: Yeah. But at this point it's, you know, it's about a quarter of the size of Walmart. It's growing very quickly, growing faster than than Walmart is, but it's only a quarter of the size of Walmart. It just beat out last year sales of Costco, and it is a very small percentage of overall retail.
So if you're a regulator worried about kind of monopolies, a monopoly threat, it's difficult to kind of look at traditional ways of measuring monopolies, like how much market concentration there is. Or another thing you'd worry about is, is this company big enough that it's able to kind of control prices? Well, Amazon is not that big. It's not sort of, you know, if you're worried about suppliers of goods being priced out, you really would worry about Walmart more. I mean, Walmart is sort of known for low prices and its demands on suppliers to constantly lower their prices.
And so for regulators who are worried about the dominance of a single company on a sector, Amazon presents this real puzzle for them. In fact it's such a puzzle that progressives and people on the left who've studied antitrust say that we need a whole new slate of laws and regulations to contain Amazon and to regulate it than we do now. The fundamentally kind of antitrust laws that we have today don't work for Amazon.
GROSS: So what kind of laws are they thinking about?
MANJOO: So there was this - one of the interesting things I discovered in looking at these five companies is that there's been this sea change in America in how we think about dangerous kind of corporate dominance. And before the 1980s, we were essentially a lot more strict in the United States about corporate size. And you know, the government was a lot more interventionist in preventing mergers that may affect how a market works.
And what happened in the 1980s is that, you know, a group of economists and lawyers known as the Chicago School and the Reagan administration kind of completely changed how we looked at corporate dominance in America, especially about sort of the danger, how we thought of the dangers of monopolies. And so the upshot of that is they looked mostly at price when determining whether a merger could go through, whether a company could get bigger. And they didn't look at sort of non-price effects like customer service or the effect on suppliers or the effect on the environment or adjacent industries.
If you look at price only, you won't - you're not likely to kind of stop Amazon because one of the benefits that Amazon has had is that investors sort of have been betting on kind of constant growth from Amazon, and as a result they don't really expect Amazon to be very profitable. Amazon is sort of famously not profitable at all because it reinvests everything it makes into building out more warehouses and building, you know, to getting bigger for the next year.
And so Amazon really doesn't have to raise prices. It constantly lowers prices. It has this effect on the rest of the of the retail business that results in lower prices. So if you were looking at prices alone, you would say this is a great company. It's great for customers that this company is kind of constantly lowering prices and forcing everyone else to lower prices. Under the kind of current view of antitrust, Amazon seems like a positive force rather than a negative force.
But if you go back, according to, you know, the people who want us to rethink how we do antitrust, if you go back to kind of a pre-1980s view of this structure and this market, you would see that Amazon is sort of, you know, getting its kind of corporate tentacles into a large part of the economy, into shipping, and how warehouses work and robots. Things that will allow it to dominate in the future that we're kind of just not good at regulating at this point.
GROSS: My guest is Farhad Manjoo, who writes The New York Times tech column "State Of The Art," and he's writing a series about the tech giants he calls the frightful five - Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Facebook. After we take a short break, he'll talk about the dark side of Google and smartphones and why he set up cameras in his home that record everything his family does in the living room and dining room. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross back with Farhad Manjoo, who writes The New York Times tech column "State Of The Art" about how the latest tech ideas are shaping the future. He's now writing a series about the tech giants he calls the frightful five - Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft. The frightful five are also the subject of a book he's writing. He says there's an ongoing debate about whether they should be regulated, but they're hard to regulate because they're so different from the type of corporate giants that antitrust laws were designed for.
So, you know, one of the things people are wondering, like, should this be regulated is, fake news. And, you know, Facebook and Twitter are responding to concerns about fake news and where are ads coming from. So Twitter has issued, like, new guidelines for what it's going to do. You want to run through - Twitter's not part of your frightful five, but it's still pretty big, and it's important in the context of what we're talking about. Do you want to just run through some of the things they plan on doing?
MANJOO: Yeah. Both Twitter and Facebook sort of had these - posted these guidelines earlier, which is they plan to - they say they plan to show you who's running these ads, who's sort of - who's paying for the ads and to be more transparent about other ads that those people have posted. So If you - so one of the problems that we've seen is that, you know, these kind of shady groups that are not kind of identified - you don't know where the money is coming from. You don't know what their agenda is. You don't know what other advertisements they've run.
They've been able to kind of place these ads all over Facebook and Twitter and kind of affect the news and, you know, protests and kind of just society in America under these guidelines that companies are rolling out voluntarily. But you know, there might be legislation to this effect. That will be less possible because you'll be able to - it's plausible you'll be able to kind of find out who's running these campaigns.
GROSS: In terms of Facebook, aren't they considering, like, working with fact-checking partners and labeling stories that are disputed as fake news?
MANJOO: Yeah. So one of the real difficulties about looking at these companies is that in some ways, regulating them, making them better gives them more power. So Facebook is now - so Facebook's news feed is sort of one of the most popular places for getting news in the world. It's you know - combined, more people read it than, you know, all the major newspapers in the country, the TV networks. It's extremely influential.
And right now there's very little fact-checking that Facebook does, which is, you know, what led to this proliferation of fake news and these kind of echo chambers that people have. The solution to that could be that Facebook decides it's going to partner with fact-checking companies, and perhaps it might do fact-checking itself. And Facebook would sort of be in some way the arbiter for what's right and wrong on Facebook. That may help with the fake news problem. I think it's unclear at this point.
But the kind of upshot of that is, on the other hand, you get Facebook kind of acting as something like the ministry of information for kind of every country in which it operates, where, you know, it might be able to decide, like, this is true, and this is not true. How it'll make those decisions and who it'll employ to make those decisions I think is a big question. And, like, suddenly it's going to have this power, and it's going to come about perhaps as a solution to another problem that it itself caused.
GROSS: So throughout this interview, we've been hearing a lot of your, you know, kind of criticisms about these five companies. And we should say you're hardly a technophobe. And reading about how you have your house wired (laughter) - you've got, like, everything in your house. You've got, like, all the gadgets and all the new, like, Internet of things kind of things. So let's start with, like - you wrote a column about how you've basically made your home into a reality show because your living room and - is it dining room...
MANJOO: Yeah.
GROSS: ...Are wired with cameras that - kind of like a lot of public bathrooms, when you walk in in those bathrooms, the lights turn on. When you walk out, they turn off because they have, like, motion sensors. And that's how these cameras are wired. So describe for us the setup that you have with these cameras and why you're doing it.
MANJOO: OK, so I'll describe the setup first. So they're - it's sort of in the public places of our house so, I mean, not the bedrooms - so the dining room, the living room, the kitchen.
GROSS: And not the bathroom (laughter).
MANJOO: Not the bathroom, yes. And there are a bunch of cameras. I think there are five now. And they kind of get all angles. And the reason I'm doing it is because I have two kids - young kids, 7 and 5 - almost 5. And you know, like everyone else who raises kids today, I take a lot of photos of them and a lot of videos, but I always feel like I'm missing stuff. They're extremely, like, cute. And I'm busy, and they say things, and I - and, like, I always worry that I'm just, like, missing their lives.
So I got this idea because I saw some researchers had done this. Like, psychology researchers had a videotaped their own children to kind of look at their language development. And I thought, wouldn't that be super interesting to do that, to just have memories of my kids? It took a lot of lobbying of my wife, who is just not a tech person at all. And she, you know, was worried about the privacy implications and just, like, the idea of being surveilled in your house.
Eventually I convinced her. I managed to kind of get her buy-in. We've been doing it for about a year now. And it'll be interesting, you know? It'll be really just, like, fascinating to me to watch those videos in the future and to show my kids those videos, you know, like, if my daughter who's now 5 is, like, 25 and to show her, like, what she looked like and what she said. And you know, I'd love to have memories of my own childhood from then. And I think they will appreciate that in the future.
GROSS: OK. So part of what I'm hearing here is you saying, like, you're too busy to watch your kids grow up, so you retire, you'll be able to watch the TV version (laughter).
MANJOO: Yeah. I mean, I'll cop to that. It's - that is a slightly cynical way to put it, but I don't think it's wrong. I mean, I think in many instances, we do now miss out on our children. I try not to. And you know, one of the things this helps me with is I don't have to pick up my phone to take videos of them. I can sort of just be in the moment. Like, we were - I was playing video games with my son last night, and he, like, said - you know, he was just, like, very - it was just very interesting and memorable for me to watch him, like, learn how to play this video game. And I would like to see that again (laughter) at some point. And so the idea of having that is - and it just feels like I'm capturing these memories that will one day be useful.
GROSS: So have you been using those videos to settle arguments such as, no, I did tell you about this; you say I didn't, but I'm telling you I did, and now we will watch the tape and prove that I am right?
MANJOO: It has been tempting.
MANJOO: I have wanted to do that. I've just resisted 'cause I don't - especially with my wife, like, I don't want to have the video sort of come between us. I have used it as, like, a disciplinary tool with my kids. So like, I've told my son, you know, like, not to start a fight with his sister. And then, like, I've sort of slyly mentioned I will be able to see if you did, you know, if they're alone in the room or something. And that's the kind of extent that I've used it - just kind of as a warning that I can look back at what's happening.
GROSS: So my understanding is - right? - that the system that you have, the camera system - it records for a week, and then it deletes everything at the end of a week except for the things you've asked it to save.
MANJOO: Yeah, that's how it works. It's like a surveillance camera at a convenience store, you know, it has a loop.
GROSS: (Laughter) Just what everybody wants in their home.
MANJOO: Exactly. It has a loop, a seven day, you know, storage of everything you take. So when something memorable happens, something I just want to capture, I write a note to myself of the time in my phone. And then once a week, I look at the videos. I go back to that time, and then I save those videos.
GROSS: So what's a moment you're really glad you were able to preserve on video?
MANJOO: It's the small things. So it's like we're having dinner and my daughter says something completely unexpected, like, makes a joke for the first time - like, this has happened - you know, says something that makes the whole rest of the family laugh. And she's 5. And so that's like - it happens once for the first time. And it like surprised her. And she got kind of embarrassed about it. And she didn't know that, like, making everyone laugh was like a good thing, was like something that people wanted to do. She thought that we were laughing at her.
It was like a cute moment and a touching moment. And, you know, ordinarily, like, we'd just forget that. You just never have that moment. And now I have that. It's just like - dinners - really interesting things happen at dinner, I've realized after this. And just having those moments is going to be really fun in the future.
GROSS: So your kids are 7 and 4 now. Do they understand that cameras are recording them? And if so, does it make them self-conscious?
MANJOO: They do understand that cameras are recording them because I've shown them the videos. It hasn't made them self-conscious. What's actually happened is it's sort of done the opposite. It's made them performative. So my daughter will like - like if we play a song, she'll like go to the camera and sort of do a dance for the camera.
And I think this is the influence of YouTube. They watch YouTube. And on YouTube, there's, you know, kids their age performing for cameras. Like, they have their own sort of YouTube shows. And because my kids watch YouTube and have these cameras that they know sort of are recording things that can be on YouTube, it seems like they act like - they try to act like YouTube stars, like people are watching them and they're trying to cultivate an audience.
GROSS: Well, I think about how really different that was from like when I was growing up and the only people who were on video were people on TV. And there were only a few channels, so very few people were on TV. And it just seemed so, like, remarkable and impossible. And it's just amazing how like in a few decades how radically things can change. I know I'm stating the obvious, but it's no less remarkable even though it's obvious.
MANJOO: Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree with that. I mean, I really wonder what my children's sort of conception of celebrity is going to be. They follow a YouTube star who's - it's weird even calling someone a YouTube star. He has - he's, you know, I think around 10 years old. And he has a following of, I think, a few million people on YouTube. And he just does kid stuff. Like he plays and he plays with toys and plays video games. And other kids watch him do this.
We were on vacation in Hawaii, and we passed a kid that my kids swore was that kid, the sort of the YouTube star. And it was as if they had seen like, you know, the biggest celebrity. Like, they were shy. They were talking to each other about, like, whether that was him. They wanted to like go and search for him and get his autograph. It was like, you know, very cute and wondrous to see, but it was something I'd never heard of in like in my own definition would not sort of qualify as a celebrity, as someone worth meeting. But for them, he was like the biggest star of all time.
GROSS: Also interesting. (Laughter) OK. If you're just joining us, my guest is Farhad Manjoo. And he writes the "State Of The Art" column at The New York Times, which explores how the latest tech ideas are shaping the future. He's now writing a series about the tech companies he calls the Frightful Five - Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft. He's also writing a book about these companies. We're going to take a short break and then be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is Farhad Manjoo, who writes the "State Of The Art" tech column for The New York Times and is now writing a series of articles about the tech companies he calls the Frightful Five - Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
So throughout this interview, we've been hearing a lot of your, you know, kind of criticisms about these five companies. And you write, it's difficult to get jazzed about smartphones and social networks when they might be ruining the world (laughter) and that technologies that we were most excited about 10 years ago are now implicated in just about every catastrophe of the day.
MANJOO: Yeah. It is difficult for me to get excited about technology anymore. Like, you know, I write a column about technology. And like, as a result of that, I get to try out basically everything there is. And it's sort of been my dream job because I like wanted to do that. I'm interested in the future, and I'm interested in sort of what's going to happen with all this new stuff. But my sort of default position about whether this stuff is going to be good or bad in the world has changed.
So in the past, my kind of reflexive bias of a new piece of technology was - tended toward optimism. You know, I had the feeling that probably it's better than the stuff we have now, and because it's better than the stuff we have now, it's going to kind of make us more efficient or help us like connect with people. And that has to be good.
And, you know, that's the way - that's sort of the default position of, I think, everyone in Silicon Valley. Like, people who run these companies have this idea that any new piece of technology is probably going to be good. And my own view has shifted on that. I think that we should all be more skeptical of the unseen and longer-term potential dangers of these technologies before we kind of rush to embrace them.
And my default view is no longer sort of optimism. It's more - it's, like, skepticism and just a more balanced view of, like - like, this thing could be big. It could be important. But it could be important in positive ways and plausibly very negative ways and that we should consider sort of both of those things.
GROSS: What's an example of something that you initially thought was really positive and you came to see the dark side of it? I'm sure there's many examples to choose from here (laughter).
MANJOO: (Laughter) Yeah. I mean, a really kind of clear example is Google, the search engine. So it just sounds - it sounds obvious that providing the world information for free on demand is going to be good. Like, throughout human history, we have been better when we learn more, when we get more information, when we produce more, when we share more. That's sort of the story behind public libraries and, like, encyclopedias and just books and printing in general.
And so you would imagine that having that be accessible to the whole world would just naturally be good. And there are many arguments that, you know - there's sort of a lot of benefit I think from having Google as a search engine and having all this information. But on the other hand, there's no doubt that Google has led to, you know - has fed the rise of conspiracy thinking in America.
Like, anyone can produce some piece of content that questions some completely valid fact about the world. They can put together a lot of information that suggests there's another point of view. Like, there are people who believe that the Earth is flat. And they can make YouTube videos about it, and they can make web pages about it. And then a lot of people start talking about it, and that starts trending on Google. Like, you will search for 9/11 or, like, whether the Earth is flat or not, and you will find at the very, you know, in prominent locations on Google this other view of the world.
And you can get sucked into that and you can start believing things that are completely not true as a result of this tool that was made to enlighten the world. So you know, that's, like, an example of, you know, something that people thought would be obviously good. And it's just much more complicated than we initially thought.
GROSS: OK, well, (laughter) you have an interesting job. Thank you so much for telling us about it.
MANJOO: Thanks so much for having me. This was really fun.
GROSS: No, my pleasure. Farhad Manjoo writes The New York Times tech column "State Of The Art" and is writing a series on the tech giants he calls the "Frightful Five: Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon." He's also writing a book about them. After we take a short break, Justin Chang will review the new film "The Square," which won the top prize at this year's Cannes Film Festival. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
Submitted by Jay Riestenberg on
As Comcast moves forward with its plan to take over Time Warner Cable, their legislative agenda is facing greater scrutiny. As CMD has documented, both Comcast and Time Warner Cable are funders of ALEC, a corporate bill-mill where corporations and state lawmakers vote behind closed doors on bills that benefit the corporations' bottom line, often at resort meetings where legislators are wined and dined at corporate expense.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable also financially underwrite a large network of state-based "think tanks" that work to push ALEC's corporate agenda into law.
As detailed in CMD's November 2013 report, "Exposed: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-wing Network Helping To Hijack State Politics and Government," the State Policy Network is a network of 64 right-wing "think tanks" -- which CMD dubbed "stink tanks" -- that was founded in part by ALEC. These in-state special interest groups push largely the same national corporate-backed agenda of ALEC in state legislatures.
CMD has uncovered that a number of ALEC's funders are also funding SPN and its network of think tanks -- including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Microsoft, Verizon, and Facebook. Other SPN funders include large corporations and right-wing CEO families like the Koch brothers' family fortune, the Bradley Foundation, and the Walton family.
The Washington Policy Center Leads SPN's Efforts to Support Big Telecom
Perhaps more than any other SPN affiliate, the Washington Policy Center (WPC) has been the leading the stink tank network on telecom issues. WPC is ALEC's state chair in Washington and has had a seat on ALEC's Communications and Technology Task Force along side Comcast, AT&T, Facebook, Yahoo, and Yelp.
A corporate representative of Microsoft currently sits on WPC's board of directors. Throughout its history WPC has published posts and reports that specifically favor Microsoft, including on a 2004 European Union against Microsoft and a 2001 U.S. federal case alleging Microsoft was an illegal monopoly.
WPC has launched a "Technology & Telecom Project," where it publishes reports that support lowering taxes on telecoms corporations and oppose the FCC's regulations of the telecom industry. In September 2012, WPC President Dann Mead Smith and John Stephenson, director of ALEC's Communications and Technology Task Force, teamed up to write an op-ed in The Seattle Times claiming that FCC regulations were stopping "rural Washington's farmers, students, and small business owners" from receiving broadband access.
The Washington Policy Center has also led SPN's Tech/Telecom Policy Exchange, a monthly online publication providing updates on telecom policy from SPN and the stink tank network. The materials in the "exchange" often include articles and blog posts written by SPN affiliates and aligned organizations calling for the deregulation of the telecom industry, advocating against municipal broadband, and pushing for tax cuts that would benefit telecom and tech corporations.
Their August 2013's exchange included information pointed against FCC regulations and another group of posts focused on "keeping the internet free of taxes," despite the budget difficulties many states face and how many brick and mortar small businesses have been crushed by online merchants like Amazon that are not required to impose state sales taxes in general.November/December 2013's exchange reveals that WPC leads monthly group conference calls on the issue, and again includes posts against FCC regulations on telecom corporations.
Just as lobbyists for corporations like Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T vote behind closed doors with lawmakers on "model bills" at ALEC, corporate executives from Comcast and Time Warner Cable recently presented at a closed-door session at the State Policy Network's September 2013 conference in Oklahoma City. The session, titled Technology: A Freedom Frontier, focused on limiting democratic regulation of the telecommunications industry.
The panel was moderated by WPC President Dann Mead Smith and speakers included Susan Patten (VP of Government Affairs at Time Warner Cable), Mike Rose (Senior Director of External Affairs at Comcast), Matt Tooley (Senior Director of Broadband Technology at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association), and John Stephenson (ALEC's Communications and Technology Task Force Director). Additionally, according to SPN's conference website, representatives from the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity, the Franklin Center for Government Accountability, and several other SPN affiliates were in that session.
Other Stink Tanks Get in on the Action
WPC is not the only SPN stink tank active on telecom issues. Over the years, several SPN affiliates have pushed policies that would benefit the network's big telecom corporate funders, including:
Colorado's Independent Institute strongly opposed Colorado's Telecommunications Modernization Act in 2012, which would eliminate subsidies to telecom corporations, expand rural broadband service,and phase out phone fees. Not surprisingly, ALEC member CenturyLink opposed the bill.
Missouri's Show-Me Institute has called for regulatory reform to allow statewide franchises for cable companies.
The Georgia Public Policy Foundation has supported rolling back several regulations on telecom corporations including eliminating utility commission jurisdiction over consumer issues and filing requirements that helps keep prices and costs fair for consumers. GPPF has also called for removing sales taxes on telecom corporations' investments.
North Carolina's John Locke Foundation has consistently called for removing taxes on telecom corporations, claiming it would lead to lower costs.
Maryland's Free State Foundation, an associate member of SPN, receives "nearly all of its funding from telecommunications companies and trade groups," including AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon, according to a report by Communications Daily. The group focuses on telecommunications issues, and regularly calls for the deregulation of FCC and lowering taxes on telecom corporations.
Total Scope of Telecom Funding Remains Unknown
It is unclear how much big telecom corporations have funneled into the stink tanks network. Based off a document of SPN's 2010 funders CMD has uncovered, AT&T contributed between $25,000 to $99,000 to SPN in 2010, while Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon all contributed between $5,000 and $25,000 each in that year. Last year both Comcast and Time Warner Cable were sponsors of SPN's September 2013 conference in Oklahoma City.
Although SPN and its affiliated think tanks are not required to disclose their donors, a list of 2010 corporate and individual contributors of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of SPN's Texas affiliates and one of the largest SPN stink tanks in the country, provides insight into the big telecom funding behind the stink tanks network. In 2010 alone, that Texas stink tank received funding from AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable totaling at least $133,950.
yorkmapper replied on Permalink
Big Telecom Bankrolls
leucippus67 replied on Permalink


text: ARIES (March 21 to April 19): You enjoy the attention early in the week, but it might be a good idea to opt for some privacy by week's end so that you can have more time to consider an upcoming decision.TAURUS (April 20 to May 20): You unearthed some surprising facts. Now you need to consider how to use them to your advantage. Meanwhile, it might be best to keep what you've learned secret for now.GEMINI (May 21 to June 20): A comment by a colleague piques your curiosity to know more. Best advice: You'll find people more likely to offer information if you're discreet when making your inquiries.CANCER (June 21 to July 22): Your energy levels begin to rise by midweek. This allows you to catch up with your heavy workload and still have plenty of get-up-and-go to go out on the town this weekend.LEO (July 23 to Aug. 22): You're probably roaring your head off about a perceived slight from a longtime critic. Ignore it. That person might just be trying to goad you into doing something you might later regret.VIRGO (Aug. 23 to Sept. 22): The early part of the week is open to spontaneity. Then it's time to settle into your usual routine to get all your tasks done. A personal situation could require more attention from you.LIBRA (Sept. 23 to Oct. 22): A meeting of the minds on a workplace project might well develop into something more personal for Librans looking for romance. Aspects are also favorable for platonic relationships.SCORPIO (Oct. 23 to Nov. 21) A more-positive mood might be difficult to assume in light of a recent problem involving the health of someone special. But by week's end, your emotional barometer should start to rise.SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22 to Dec. 21): Look for a changed attitude from a former adversary once he or she realizes you have your colleagues' full support. Now you can refocus your energies on that workplace project.CAPRICORN (Dec. 22 to Jan. 19): This time, a difference of opinion might not be resolved in your favor. But be patient. It ultimately could all work out to your advantage, as new information begins to develop.AQUARIUS (Jan. 20 to Feb. 18): A tug of war develops between the artistic Aquarian's creative aspect and his or her practical side. Best advice: Prioritize your schedule so you can give appropriate time to both.PISCES (Feb. 19 to March 20): You could be entering a career phase awash with job-related demands. But avoid being swamped by the overflow and, instead, keep treading water as you deal with demands one by one.BORN THIS WEEK: You are an exceptionally loyal person, and you're respected for your ability to keep the secrets entrusted to you.(c) 2013 King Features Synd., Inc.


text:
A Southern Affair Mural
Columbia Affordable Housing Task Force
|On December 8th our Chief Executive Officer, Lauren Taylor, and our Chief Operating Officer, Jennifer Gunnels, had the opportunity to speak to the Columbia Affordable Housing Task Force about the newly founded non-profit, Haven Home; an organization created to address the affordable housing crisis in South Carolina. "Haven Home focuses on solving an epidemic level […]
Read More The Affordable Housing Crisis
|To not admit that there is a housing crisis, is to turn a blind eye to the current state of affordable housing. The year 2020 has amplified economic challenges, particularly for low-socioeconomic-status communities. We are in a position to bring about sustainable change through extensive and intentional efforts to address systemic barriers. According to the […]
Read More Self-Guided Touring through Rently
Multi Family
|Rent Haven has been a proud partner of Rently since 2018, which gave us an advantage with the institution of social distancing in 2020. While many property management companies had to stall their leasing operations, our team was able to keep working and keep conversion rates high. Contactless viewing allows prospective residents to self-tour the […]
Read More A Southern Affair Mural
|A Southern Affair mural was commissioned in 2020 by Lauren Taylor, the Chief Executive Officer of Realty Haven and Rent Haven – a local real estate conglomerate. McClellan Douglas, the artist, used the piece as an opportunity to depict what he treasures most about his home state, honing in on the contrast between warm and […]
Read More Affordable Housing
Management Services
|Nullam eget nunc vitae nisi commodo tincidunt id vel elit. Vestibulum maximus sollicitudin nunc, id suscipit nisl molestie at.
Read More Single Family
Management Services
|Nullam eget nunc vitae nisi commodo tincidunt id vel elit. Vestibulum maximus sollicitudin nunc, id suscipit nisl molestie at.
Read More


text: The views expressed here are those of this author only and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, bikejournal.com's owners. All blogs must follow the terms set forth in the blog agreement. Report any problems to the web administrator. Copyright © 2001-2024 bikejournal.com | All rights reserved |


text:
Security Update 2016-001 El Capitan…
[Teavana] Open Redirect
Open Redirect on connect.teavana.com
This report highlights an open redirect and abuse on a subdomain of teavana.com. The attacker could create an account with a third party company and use that to create a fake campaign. Such a vulnerability could be remediated by whitelisting certain domains to avoid arbitrary usage of subdomains of teavana.com.


text:
K 2019 – New products from plastic waste: BASF customers showcase prototypes made from chemically recycled material
July 9, 2019
More and more companies from the plastics industry are working on improving the recyclability of plastics and thus helping to create a circular economy. One way that BASF is contributing is the ChemCycling project: At the end of 2018, the company first used pilot volumes of a pyrolysis oil derived from plastic waste as a feedstock in its own production.
At a press conference in advance of K 2019, the world's largest trade show for the plastics and rubber industry, four partners have showcased the first prototypes that were created during the pilot phase of the project.
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), a leading automotive manufacturer, developed a plastic front-end carrier prototype for its first electric SUV, the I-Pace, out of Ultramid® B3WG6 Ccycled Black 00564. "As part of our commitment to accelerate closed loop manufacturing across our operations, we are always looking for advances in technology that will help to reduce waste," said Craig Woodburn, Global Environmental Compliance Manager at JLR. "The ability to convert consumer waste into safe, quality parts for premium products through the ChemCycling process is an important step in advancing our ambition to deliver a zero-waste future."
Storopack, a globally active supplier of protective packaging and technical molded parts, used Styropor® P Ccycled to make insulation packaging for temperature-sensitive pharmaceutical products as well as boxes for transporting fresh fish and protective packaging for electronic devices. "We were particularly impressed by the fact that Styropor® P Ccycled can be used in food packaging. There are already various recycling options for Styropor, and ChemCycling helps raise the recycling share even further," said Storopack's Chairman of the Management Board, Hermann Reichenecker. Storopack and BASF are thus forging a new path in the circular economy.
Südpack, a leading producer of film packaging in Europe, produced a polyamide film and a polyethylene film that were processed into specially sealed packaging for mozzarella. Until now, multi-layer packaging has usually been considered to be only recyclable to a limited extent. "Film packaging must fulfill important roles: product protection, hygiene and shelf life while using a minimum amount of plastics. That is why it is made up of several materials and layers with various properties and barriers. Through innovations such as ChemCycling we come closer to solving the problems associated with recycling of flexible packaging," said Johannes Remmele, Managing Partner of Südpack.
Schneider Electric, a leader in the digital transformation of energy management and automation, manufactured a circuit breaker from chemically recycled Ultramid®. "We actively assess the ability of secondary raw materials, such as recycled plastics, to meet our demanding quality standards, and stringent industry regulations and norms. We rely on BASF expertise to demonstrate the end-to-end sustainability benefits while offering an appealing cost. We are hopeful this experimentation with BASF will open room for more circular innovations in Energy Management and Distribution," said Xavier Houot, Schneider Electric's Senior Vice President Group Environment, Safety, Real Estate.
"The pilot projects with customers from various industries show that products made with chemically recycled raw materials exhibit the same high quality and performance as products made from primary materials. ChemCycling, which uses a mass balance approach to mathematically allocate a share of the recycled material to the final product, can help our customers to achieve their sustainability goals," said Jürgen Becky, Senior Vice President Performance Materials. The certified products are indicated with the addition of "Ccycled" to their name. The prototypes presented at the press conference are part of the ongoing pilot phase of the ChemCycling project.
Potential for increasing share of recycled material
"With the ChemCycling project, BASF is aiming to process pyrolysis oil derived from plastic waste that currently cannot be recycled, such as mixed or contaminated plastics. If we are successful in developing the project to market readiness, ChemCycling will be an innovative complement to existing processes for recycling and recovery to solve the plastic waste problem," said Stefan Gräter, head of the ChemCycling project at BASF.
The significant potential of chemical recycling was confirmed by the consulting firm McKinsey in a December 2018 study: If established recycling processes are combined with new ones such as chemical recycling, the experts believe that a 50% reuse and recycling rate for plastics worldwide can be reached by 2030 (today: 16%). The share of chemical recycling could then rise from 1% currently to around 17%, which is equivalent to recycling of around 74 million metric tons of plastic waste.
Technological, economic and regulatory challenges
To move from the pilot phase to market roll-out, however, various issues will need to be resolved. The existing technologies for transforming waste plastics into recycled raw materials must be advanced and adapted for the use at industrial scale, in order to ensure the consistently high quality of the pyrolysis oil. BASF is currently investigating various options for supplying the company's Production Verbund with commercial volumes of pyrolysis oil in the long term. Besides the technical issues, economic aspects also play a role. For chemical recycling to find acceptance in the market, regulators must also recognize the process officially as recycling. Within this framework, they have to define how chemical recycling and mass balance approaches can be included in the calculation of recycling rates required by law.
Responsible use of resources
"Our ChemCycling project is a good example of how BASF is working with partners on solutions to the key challenges of the 21st century," said Dr. Andreas Kicherer, sustainability expert at BASF. Besides ChemCycling, BASF is involved in many other projects and initiatives that strengthen the idea of the circular economy and prevent plastics from entering the environment. For example, BASF's product portfolio includes ecovio®, a certified compostable plastic partly based on renewable raw materials. BASF is a member of the World Plastics Council and takes part in two Ellen MacArthur Foundation programs. At all of its sites worldwide, BASF implements "Operation Clean Sweep," an international initiative of the plastics industry aimed at preventing the loss of plastic pellets into the environment. Furthermore, at the beginning of 2019, BASF joined forces with around 30 other companies to found the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW). In the coming five years, this initiative wants to invest up to $1.5 billion in various projects and partnerships, mainly in Asia and Africa. There are four main focus areas: developing infrastructure for waste collection, promoting innovative recycling methods, education and engagement of various groups and cleanup of concentrated areas of plastic waste in the environment.