text:
Friday, June 21, 2013 - Julius and Honza - FULL CONTACT
Latest Sets at WilliamHiggins.com
Julius Sekac and Honza Forst had a very good wrestling match, which was hard fought and quite close right up until the end. Honza ended up as the victor, so to him went the spoils. As his victory is acknowledged by his hand being rasied in the air by Julius Honza pushes his opponent to his knees, facing a swelling cock. Julius recognizes that in defeat he needs to pleasure Honza, and takes that big cock in his mouth. He sucks on the cock and soon it is rock hard. His mouth does a great job on that cock, sucking it deep and making it throb. Honza decides that he will return the favour, and they change positions so that Julius is standing as Honza begins to suck on his cock. It doesn't take long for that cock to respond to the feel of Honza's hot mouth and is quickly erect as it is sucked. The guys move into a 69 and work on each other's swollen dicks, sucking them real good. With Honza on the floor and Julius over him they work those dicks until Julius wants more. He sits himself down on Honza's big, stiff cock, and starts to ride it. He works his ass up and down on that cock, with his own dick bobbing up and down in its solid state as he does so. He really bounces on that dick, wanking himself as he rides. Then Julius gets over and lays over a punching bag, with his hard cock pushed down between his legs. Honza positions himself behind his partnet and slides his cock back into that eager hole. He pounds that ass nice and hard, with his balls slapping against it as he fucks. He really works that hole good. Julius flips onto his back and Honza fucks him some more. His cock slides in and out of that hole as Julius wanks himself. He works his cock hard and fast as his hole gets fucked nice and deep. Moaning as he speeds up Julius is soon shooting his creamy cum all over himself. Honza is ready too and pulls out of that ass and dumps his load all over his buddy. Then they go off to the shower to help each other clean up.
Tomas Berger is aged 19 and lives in Prague. He is a student who enjoys sports, football and fitness. What a handsome guy Tomas is. He does his interview and then starts his show, removing his tee-shirt to show off a very nice chest. He begins to feel his chest, with his hands running all over it. A hand drops to his groin and slips inside his jeans. Then he opens the jeans for easier access. Then he removes the jeans and we see his soft cock and very low hanging balls. Tomas takes hold of his cock and begins to wank it as he runs the other hand over his chest. It doesn't take much time before that cock is good and hard and Tomas is groping his balls too. Leaning back on the sofa he lifts his legs and lets us see his ass. With his cock rock hard, and showing off a nice curve Tomas wanks it as he also spread his ass showing a hole, surrounded by hair. He really pulls those cheeks apart so we get a great close-up of his tight hole. Then Tomas stands up, showing off that lovely body, as he takes some oil and rubs it over his chest. That cock is a real big one and looks great as he lets it hang. Then Tomas turns around and kneels on the sofa on one knee and lets us see his ass again as he wanks his cock with his big balls swinging. Turning over and laying of the sofa Tomas wanks himself as he also plays with a nipple. Soon his cum is ready and he creams over his belly for us before moving to the shower to wash off all that oil. What a great shoot from a really handsome guy.
In the fully remastered final scene of Inside Jirka Gregor we find Jirka in the Vlatva River with Pepe Richter splashing each other on a hot day. Then they come out of the water and go inside. Jirka begins to do some work on his body, using dumbbells. Pepe stands behind him ready to assist if necessary. After lifting for a while, which shows off his lovely muscles, Jirka stands up. He looks perfect in just his shorts. Pepe kneels in front of him and runs his hands over that hot body. He lowers Jirka's shorts and continues to feel his body, before beginning to gently kiss his chest. He turns Jirka around and checks out his hot ass and legs. Taking some oil Pepe rubs it all over Jirka's back and ass, making it glisten. When Jirka turns around again his cock is rock hard as Pepe oils his chest. He moves his head and gently kisses Jirka's throbbing cock. Then he licks it and takes the head in his mouth. He sucks on Jirka's cock, taking it deep in his mouth. Jirka is keen to return the favour and, as Pepe stands,he drops to his knees and takes that big, hard cock in his mouth. He he sucks that cock real good, licking and kissing it too as he wanks himself. Pepe sits down and leans back so that Jirka can climb over his and slide his cock into the waiting mouth. Pepe is hot for more and moves Jirka onto his back, with his legs over his head. That ass is nicely exposed and Pepe starts to tongue the hot hole. Having got it nice and wet he stands and slides his big cock deep inside. He fucks that ass with long, slow strokes, stretching it real well. The guys move onto a massage table, into a spoon position with Pepe's cock deep in Jirka's ass. He continues to fuck his friend as Jirka wanks his own hard cock. Jirka moans in pleasure as he takes that big cock and soon they change so that Jirka can sit right down on that dick and ride it. He slides up and down on Pepe's long, thick pole taking it as deep as he can. It's not long before Pepe is ready to cum, so Jirka climbs off and wanks himself as he watches Pepe shoot a big load of cum all over the floor. Jirka bends to kiss his buddy, wanking himself and then dropping his cum over him. They kiss once more before Pepe helps Jirka back into his shorts and then kiss once more after a very hot scene.
Zdeno Jaro is aged 19 and comes from Lostice. He is a student who likes Parkour and jogging. What a lovely looking guy he is. He has a beautiful face and a very winning smile, which appears very easily indeed. As he poses for the camera Zdeno removes his tee-shirt and shows off a well developed chest. He drops the jeans a little, as he turns and shows off his sexy ass before flexing his biceps as well. Turning back the jeans are still down and we see his cock and low hanging balls. Reclining on the bed, with the jeans down further Zdeno looks very good, with his cock semi-hard above his big balls He moves onto his knees to show us that hot ass again. The he works on his cock, getting it nice and hard for the camera. Standing up we then see Zdeno pose, with his cock rock hard before laying on his back and lifting those big thighs to let us see his tight hole. A big smile crosses his face as he shows off his ass, moving onto his knees and really spreading those cheeks. He finishes off his shoot with some more poses, flexing his biceps, with his cock nice and hard. What a great looking guy and a really lovely shoot.


text:
From the day after the attack, this reporter has covered every stage of the arrest, interrogation, and trial of the man inelegantly dubbed the "Underwear Bomber." As part of my research for one of the articles in that series, I interviewed Mr. Haskell, an attorney specializing in bankruptcy and family law. At that time, Haskell related to me that he and his wife Lori were on their way back to Michigan from a Ugandan safari when they boarded Northwest Flight 253 in Amsterdam.
Haskell reported that as they sat near the gate waiting to board their flight, they witnessed a well-dressed man, who was accompanying a poorly dressed younger companion, trying to convince boarding agents to allow the poorly dressed man, whom they now recognize as Umar Abdulmutallab, to board the plane, despite not having a passport. Haskell recalls having his attention drawn to the shabby dress of the man without a passport and then listening with curiosity to the unusual conversation between the suited man and the ticket agent.
The ticket agent told the well-dressed man that she would need to inform her manager of the situation, and the man in the suit responded, "He's from Sudan. We do this all the time." Abdulmutallab is Nigerian, so Haskell suspected that the other man was trying to garner sympathy for Abdulmutallab by portraying him as a Sudanese refugee. At this point in the story, Haskell recalls that the two men were escorted by the airline representative to another location, and so he is unsure as to whether Abdulmutallab ultimately was permitted to board the plane without a passport.
Finally, both Haskell and his wife were interviewed by the FBI along with all their fellow passengers. Haskell said that upon concluding his interview, he witnessed government agents taking two men into custody. When I called the FBI, a spokeswoman for the Bureau's field office in Detroit disputed Haskell's story and claimed that Abdulmutallab was the only person arrested after the incident.
At the sentencing hearing last week, Haskell recounted this incredible story in open court as part of his "Victim Impact Statement." Haskell describes the purpose of this aspect of Michigan law:
Every victim of a crime in Michigan is entitled to make a statement in open court regarding the impact of the crime on their life. The statement is limited to the victim's physical, emotional and financial well being as it relates to the crime.
Describing himself not as a witness for Abdulmutallab, but on "behalf of the truth," Haskell reprints his statement on his family blog.
The details of the story testified to by Haskell in open court are nearly identical with the version Haskell told me (and other media outlets) in the days following the narrowly avoided tragedy.
Other elements of the Haskells' tale not previously reported are worth reading, however. Haskell testified:
For one month the government refused to admit the existence of the man in the tan suit before changing course and admitting his existence in an ABC News article on January 22, 2010. That was the last time the government talked about this man. The video that would prove the truth of my account has never been released. I continue to be emotional[,] upset that the video has not been released. The Dutch police, meanwhile … also confirmed that Umar did not show his passport in Amsterdam which also meant that he didn't go through security as both are in the same line in Amsterdam. It upsets me that the government refuses to admit this fact.
I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar's accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counterterrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.
During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber, the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government's own explosives experts had indicated that Umar's bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn't go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.
In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.
The effect this matter has had on my life has been astounding and due to this case, I will never trust the government in any matter, ever.
What Haskell is describing is known as a False Flag operation. For those unfamiliar with this concept, consider the case of the supposed enemy attack on the USS Liberty during the Six-Day Arab-Israeli War in 1967.
The USS Liberty was an obsolete reconnaissance ship sailing in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. While thus underway, the ship was bombed by Israeli jets and the attack was subsequently blamed on the Egyptians in a ruse designed to draw the United States into the war.
Ultimately, Israel confessed to the attack, claiming that it was a case of mistaken identity. The actions taken by the Israeli pilots evinced an intention to sink the boat and kill all those aboard. This assertion is supported by the fact that the jets machine-gunned the life rafts of American sailors abandoning the stricken vessel.
The government of the United States was complicit in the lie, foisting the story on a trusting American citizenry. The American government's role was to refuse to send in nearby ships to the rescue of the Liberty and her crew while yet being fired upon. In fact, Admiral McCain (father of Arizona Senator John McCain) ordered planes to return to the carrier under his command, although those fighters could have returned fire and thwarted the Israeli assault. The ship and the crew were left seemingly hopeless and vulnerable.
The valiant men of the Liberty fashioned a crude antenna and were able to send an S.O.S. that was received by a Russian ship. Thus, the brunt of the attack was avoided as was a wider Middle Eastern war, with the Soviet Union as a belligerent.
Those interested in reading a fuller account of the events of the USS Liberty should pick up the book What I Saw That Day, by Phillip Tourney, a sailor serving onboard the Liberty.
Lest anyone believe that such government-sponsored conspiracies are a thing of the past, consider the case of Amine El Khalifi, who was arrested on Friday and charged with attempting to carrying out a suicide bombing attack against the U.S. Capitol. "Today's case underscores the continuing threat we face from homegrown violent extremists," CNN quoted Assistant Attorney General for National Security Lisa Monaco saying on Friday. "Thanks to a coordinated law enforcement effort, El Khalifi's alleged plot was thwarted before anyone was harmed." Yet USA Today quoted Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd as saying,"Explosives the suspect allegedly sought to use in connection with the plot had been rendered inoperable by law enforcement and posed no threat to the public." Law enforcement was apparently aware of Boyd for some time. Not only that, but "during the year-long investigation, El Khalifi detonated explosives at a quarry in the capital region with undercover operatives," USA Today reported.
Unfortunately, Kurt and Lori Haskell are now reluctant witnesses to the truth of the government's "frequent practice" of concocting false terroristic associations and intentions.
In light of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act and its provisions permitting the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens, all of us should be wary.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thanks for sharing it with us. We love to travel and will check it out.
iStopOver: Earn Extra Income or Travel on the Cheap, and a Special Promotion for Wise Bread Readers
Many people have put their vacation on hold with the current economic downturn, or are searching for alternative ways to travel on the cheap. Other people yet are looking to earn some extra income on the side to help pay the bills. iStopOver is a solution for both of these groups. And they are offering a special promotion just for Wise Bread readers.
Hometel: Home + Hotel
The premise of iStopOver is that it is an online platform which connects people who want to rent out extra rooms in their homes to travelers who want to save on costly hotel bills.
It has the added benefit of offering travelers a taste of "home" on the road; a cozy place to stay that is far from the sterile cubicle environment of a hotel or motel.
Where are the Listings?
As a fairly new entity, iStopOver currently has listings in the
How Much?
As a traveler, you can browse the listings, converse with "hometel" owners (hosts) using the secure online platform, and pay for your stay online with credit card or PayPal. There is no cost to the traveler, aside from the cost of accommodation (which is only fully paid to the host after your stay, as a security measure).
As a host, listing your accommodation is free. When a traveler books, iStopOver deducts 9% of your nightly rate as a transaction fee. (This too, is only fully paid to iStopOver once the traveler's stay is complete, again as a security measure).
Hosts set their own nightly rates, so depending on your location, amenities, the time of year, and the going rate in your area for accommodation, you can set a competitive and attractive rate that, after the 9% transaction fee is deducted, makes the venture worthwhile.
Is it Safe?
Staying in somebody's home – and as a host, having a stranger in your home - could be dodgy, and iStopOver is all over it. Personal contact information is shielded while the potential host and traveler converse on the iStopOver platform.
Once the booking is made, it is highly recommend that the host and traveler connect and converse in-person or over the phone prior to the stay to put all minds at ease.
If the traveler feels upon arrival that the scene is not what was portrayed on the listing or is not a safe place to be, they can leave and receive a refund in full from iStopOver.
iStopOver also uses social media sites like Facebook and Linked In to help users authenticate each other and get to know one another better. (Users need not be active members on such Sites; it is simply an advanced and optional feature).
And of course, travelers can rate hosts and post reviews of their stay for future travelers to read.
Hosts set the accommodation parameters, such as check-in and check-out times, no-smoking, pets, and curfews. As a traveler, every listing will be different, so it behooves you to read the listings carefully to ensure a good fit.
There is a lot more information on the iStopOver website, so if you still have unanswered questions, take a peek at the FAQs or contact them directly, and they will be happy to help.
Special Promotions and Contests
As a special incentive to Wise Bread readers, any reader who posts a listing on iStopOver before
Also, starting Monday April 13th, iStopOver is hosting a contest in their Facebook Group, with a grand prize of a free night of accommodation from iStopOver, as well as gift certificates to the iTunes music store.
Disclaimer: The links and mentions on this site may be affiliate links. But they do not affect the actual opinions and recommendations of the authors.
Wise Bread is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
We have kids, so I doubt we'll use this. Bringing our kids to a stranger's home doesn't seem like such a good idea. Maybe if I was a college kid again, though, I'd consider doing it. This is probably the only kind of travel I could have afforded, hehe.
I checked out istopover and will defs use them for my next trip to NYC. Thanks for sharing this little gem.
After all, America is the most developed capitalist country in the world, so I want to take a look at it


text:
SIC Notícias / Portugal – Portuguese chefs triumphed in the US
Silicon Valley region, a technology global reference, is more than ever into the Portuguese cuisine. Five Michelin chefs conquered the US market with Portuguese dishes and wines. Rob Jensen, Testarossa Winery owner, was featured on the interview as a Portuguese cuisine and wine lover. See Article and video


text:
SRCP Program
SRCP Faculty
SRCP Syllabi
SRCP Resources
1999 Course Award Winners
Course Title
Dr. Paul Adams
University of Michigan - Flint
The Evolution Controversy
Prof. Nathan Aviezer
Bar-Ilan University
Torah, Medical Ethics, and Science
Dr. Gregory Bassham
King's College
Science and Religion
Dr. Fred W. Beuttler
University of Illinois
Science, Religion and American Democracy, 1890-1980
Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt
South Dakota State University
Evolution, Cosmology and God
Dr. Craig A. Boyd
Greenville College
Christianity and Science: Historical & Contemporary Problems
Dr. David M. Brookman
Hastings College
Science, Religion and Human Identity
Dr. C. Mackenzie Brown
Trinity University
Of Gods, Monsters and Scientists
Dr. Frank E. Budenholzer
Fu Jen Catholic University
Religion and Science
Dr. Barry W. Butcher
Deakin University
God, Genes and Genesis
Dr. John Byl
Trinity Western University
Foundations of Mathematical Sciences: Theological & Philosophical Issues
Prof. Geoffrey Cantor
University of Leeds
Science and Religion
Dr. William E. Carroll
Cornell College
Creation and Science: The Medieval Heritage
Dr. Robert
C. Christie
DeVry College of Technology
Quantum Physics, Evolution, Neuroscience and Theology: Scientific Evidence and Religious Implications
Dr. Anne Clifford
Duquesne University
Classic and Contemporary Theology: Creation Theology and the Natural Sciences
Dr. D. Bruce Conn
Berry College
Natural Sciences & Possibilitites for Divine Action: Correlations of Science and Religion
Dr. Robert Cook
Redcliffe College
God's Cosmic Mission
Dr. Nicola Hoggard Creegan
Bible College of New Zealand
Seminar in Biology and Religion: Questions at the Interface
Dr. John Jefferson Davis
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Frontiers of Science & Faith:
Christian & Islamic Perspectives
Rev. Dr. Peter H. Denton
Concord College
Encounters in Science and Religion
Dr. Shanti Devi
University of Hawaii Center at West Hawaii
The Dialogue between Science and Religion
Dr. Svetlana Devyatova
Moscow State University
Modern Christianity and Science
Dr. Gary Diver
Mary Baldwin College
Science, Religion and the Search for Meaning
Dr. Peter Dodson
University of Pennsylvania
Science and the Sacred
Dr. Brian Edgar
Bible College of Victoria
Genes, Sex and Science: Issues for Ministry
Dr. Denis Edwards
Catholic Theological College
Theology, Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology
Rev. Paul Fayter
York University
Science, Faith, and Science-Fiction
Dr. Rebecca J. Flietstra
Point Loma Nazarene University
Neuroscience: Brain, Mind and Soul
Dr. Gary Gaffney
Art Academy of Cincinnati
The Science/ Religion Dialogue
Prof. Mary Gerhart
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Metaphoric Process in Science and Religion
Dr. Robert Ginsberg
The Pennsylvania State University
The Interrelation of Science, Philosophy and Religion
Dr. Klara Hajnal
University of Pecs, Hungary
Buddhist Economics
Dr. Paul Halpern
University of the Sciences Philadelphia
Views of the Cosmos
Dr. Sarojini Henry
Gurukul Lutheran Theological College
The Encounter of Faith & Science in Inter-religious Dialogue
Dr. Jack M. Holl
Kansas State University
Science and Religion in Western Culture
Dr. Suzanne Holland
University of Puget Sound
Issues in Science and Religion
Dr. David M. Holley
The University of Southern Mississippi
Philosophical Issues in Religion and Science
Dr. Nancy R. Howell
St. Paul School of Theology
Science, Theology & Ministry
Dr. John L. Hubisz
North Carolina State University
Science and Religion: Taking Our Questions Seriously
Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal
Islam and Science: Scientific & Religious Perspectives on Life and Cosmos
Dr. Glenna S. Jackson
Otterbein College
Darwin and Genesis: A Paradigm for Integration
Dr. Michael Johmann
University of Louisville
Honor Seminar: Toward a Science and Religion Dialogue
Dr. Abrahim H. Khan
Trinity College, University of Toronto
The Interplay Between Science and Religion
Dr. Lois M. Kieffaber
Whitworth College
The Scientific Tradition
Dr. Thomas M. Knadig
Widener University
Science, Spirituality and Worship
Dr. Alfred Kracher
Iowa State University
Extraterrestrial Life: Science & Human Reflection
James Kraft
Laney Community College
Modern Science and World Religions
Dr. Sehdev Kumar
University of Toronto
Orientalism & Occidentalism: Encounter of Western Sciences
Dr. Thomas M. Lessl
University of Georgia
Case Studies in Public Communication: Science and Religion
Dr. David Livingston
Mercyhurst College
In Face of Mystery
Dr. Milos Lokajicek
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Physics and Religion
Dr. William L. MacDonald
The Ohio State University at Newark
Science, Religion & Society
Dr. Albert Magro
Fairmont State College
Evolutionary Aspects of Theology, Ethics, and Aesthetics
Dr. John Mecham
Catawba College
Genes, Genesis and God
Dr. Hubert Meisinger
Technical University of Darmstadt
Friendly Interaction or Irreconcilable Separation-Science &Theology in
Dr. Wingkee Mok
Holy Spirit Seminary
Contemporary Science and Christian Belief
Dr. Jean Molesky-Poz
University of California Berkeley
Myth, Memory, History: Religion and Science
Dr. Isaac M. T. Mwase
Ouachita Baptist University
Science and Religion: Processes and Products
Dr. Paul Nelson
Wittenberg University
Religion and Science
Dr. Andrew B. Newberg
University of Pennsylvania
Body & Spirit: Toward a Mutual Understanding
Dr. Mark Noll
Wheaton College
Science & Belief from the Copernicans to the Creationists and the Way Ahead
Dr. Sean O'Connell
Albertus Magnus College
Religious & Scientific Narratives: Do They Bridge or Do They Break?
Dr. Margaret J. Osler
University of Calgary
Science and Religion in the 17th Century
Rev. Dr. Sally Lentz Palmer
University of Wyoming
Ecocentrism: Where Religion and Science Meet
Dr. Robert Pennock
Michigan State University
God and the Scientist
Dr. Daniel J. Philippon
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Science, Religion & the Search for Human Nature
Dr. Lawrence M. Principe
The Johns Hopkins University
Science & Religion
Dr. W. Duncan Rankin
Reformed Theological Seminary
Science and Theology: Past Paradigms, Present Dialogue, Future Directions
Dr. Sal Restivo
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Issues in the Intersection of Science and Religion: Challenges and Opportunities
Dr. Philip A. Rolnick
Greensboro College
Science and Theology: Expanding Perspectives
Dr. Matt Rossano
Southeastern Louisiana University
Psychology, Science & Religion
Dr. Steven J. Sandage
Bethel Theological Seminary
Integration Seminar: Religion and Social Science
Dr. Daniel N. Schowalter
Carthage College
Creation and Apocalypse: Exploration in Religion and Science
Dr. Tom Settle
University of Guelph
Five Ways: The Challenge of Pluralism
Dr. Ragaa Shalaby
Point Park College
A Dialogue Between Science and Religion
Prof. Jae-shik Shin
Honam Theological University and Seminary
Christianity and Science: Method History and Issue
Dr. Walter Shropshire, Jr.
The Wesley Theological Seminary
Space, Time and Deity - An Introduction to the Dialogue Between Science & Religion
Dr. LeRon Shults
Bethel Theological Seminary
Theology and Science
Dr. Jack R. Sibley
Texas Woman's University
The Philosophy of Science and Religion
Dr. Lisa Sideris
Indiana University
Science, Religion & the Environment
Dr. Arnold E. Sikkema
Dordt College
Law, Contingency, and Divine Prescription
Ms. Kimberly Skyelander
Salish Kootenai College
Nature as Being, Nature as Machine
Dr. William Slater
Bluffton College
Cognitive Sciences and Religion
Dr. Michael L. Spezio
University of California
Becoming Human: Religion & Science on Human Origins & Human Moral Agency
Dr. S. Brian Stratton
Alma College
Religion and Science: Exciting New Developments in an Old Debate
Dr. Linda Stryker
Arizona State University West
Science and Religion: Cosmologies and Wordviews
Dr. Donna Teevan
Seattle University
Theology and Science in Dialogue: History, Issues, & Visions
Dr. Adrian Teo
Whitworth College
Mind of God, Mind of Humans: Psychology and the Christian Faith
Dr. Wilfred R. Theisen
St. John's University
The Integration of Science and Religion
Dr. J. Milburn Thompson
Bellarmine University
Religion, Science, and the Environment
Dr. Mihaly Toth
Theological College of Szeged
Cosmological Anthropology
Dr. Andrew Trew
John Carroll University
Introduction to Religious Studies
Dr. Paul Waldau
Tufts University/Boston Theological Institute
Religion, Science and Other Animals
Dr. Bruce K. Ward
Thorneloe College, Laurentian University
Issues in Religion and Science
Dr. Nicholas Warren
John F. Kennedy University
Science and Religion as Ways of Knowing
Dr. David A. Williamson
University of North Texas
Social Theory and the Sociology of Religion
Rev. James Wiseman
The Catholic University of America
Spirituality & Religion in a Scientific Era
Dr. Avihu Zakai
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
From Physics to Metaphysics: The Changing Face of Scientific Imagination
2400 Ridge Road, Berkeley, CA 94709-1212
Tel: 510-649-2564 Fax: 510-649-1417
Site Map


text:
4EXT Recovery Control|不限時間玩工具App
Needs root access! S-OFF or unlocked bootloader required.
Refund policy: 2 weeks.
I must still dedicate all time into finishing the next generation of 4EXT Recovery, which is needed to support any new devices and features.
Please have a look at
for status updates.
Thank you very much for your patience!
Currently supported:
HTC Sensation / XE, Incredible S / 2, Desire Z / G2, Desire S, Desire, Desire HD, Inspire 4G, myTouch 4G, Nexus One, Thunderbolt, Evo 3D GSM / CDMA, Amaze
About requests to add new devices:
As a single developer I must concentrate on one task at a time:
Feature requests for Recovery Control or 4EXT Recovery, or on adding new devices, while providing personal support to my users.
That's why it takes a longer time until I'm able to add new devices.
By buying this app, you not only get a feature rich application that lets you control, configure and handle the advanced features of 4EXT Recovery with comfort, you also contribute to the future of the recovery itself!
Thanks to the great community the project will continually improve and stay as active as possible!
Translations: it's a community project at crowdin.net. Big thanks to everyone participating!
- Start on boot:
*) deactivated by default
*) Needed to setup schedules in Android.
(!no background process!)
- Vibrate:
*) haptic feedback settings for recovery
*) to not try to connect if you are offline
*) to stay awake while you are downloading.
Updates, recovery downloads
Please see www.4ext.net for a complete feature list and the recent changelog.
*) Restore: Let the App do the md5sum check INSTEAD of recovery!
-> To make sure the backup will restore before you even reboot into recovery! This also gives you the opportunity to fix md5sums in case you really need that backup badly.
-> this prevents situations where you might be left with a non-bootable device.
*) Start Backups, Advanced Backups, Restore, Advanced Restore directly from inside the app
*) Check your backups' health to ensure they will restore later when you need them.
*) Convert backups between EXT3 and EXT4
*) Calculates real values for the space needed to create a new full or advanced backup
-> for "Advanced Backups": While you are selecting / deselecting partitions, it will display and update the currently needed space to complete that custom backup set.
*) Install multiple zip files at once ->
*) Optionally display the md5sums of all the files you are going to flash in one go!
-> So you can make sure all are ok before you flash them.
*) Prefer to stay inside recovery after all your selected operations are done? No problem.
*) Individualize your recovery: install, uninstall 4EXT Themes without the need to reboot.
*) Had a bad Recovery session and didn't have the time to save the log file? No problem, let the app save it to your sdcard!
*) Encountered a problem? Use the report issue button to tell me about your problem and optionally attach valuable info such as your last recovery log to help me help you much better.
*) Safely online install or upgrade 4EXT Recovery (md5sums are automatically verified)
*) View all changelogs or known issues of any version available to your device.
*) Stay informed about any newly discovered bugs
*) The following example would be possible to do in just one session (one reboot in to recovery):
-> Restore a backup
-> Create a backup or advanced backup before the restore process starts
-> Format all you partitions in a file system of your choice before the restore process starts
-> Flash as many zip files you want after the restore is complete
-> Fix permissions afterwards if you like
-> Select to stay inside recovery or reboot automatically once all actions are complete
*) .. and much more! Please see www.4ext.net
4EXT Recovery Control 線上APP手遊玩免費
不限時間玩4EXT Recovery Control App免費
|台灣 Taiwan
Google Play
下載 App
Google Play
下載 App


text: On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Joe Landman wrote: > It is *long term* behavioural, driver, and interface stability. > Changing an ABI midway through (4k stacks) is *not* behavioral > stability. You have no real reason to expect a code to work correctly > when you alter one of the critical underlying structures that it relies > upon. Many drivers rested on 8k kernel stacks, it was in the ABI as a > (defacto) standard. RHEL3 did not (properly so) change its underlying > kernel structures in such a way to render some portions of the system > unworkable. RHEL4 is not likely to change its underlying kernel > structures in such a way to render some portions of the system > unworkable. FC-x is likely to (and has) changed its underlying kernel > structures. I don't understand this assertion at all. Are we talking about the linux kernel here? The one that Linus Torvalds and friends are working on? I would think that whether or not the kernel stacks change size, and how drivers insert into the kernel, and oh so much more are utterly out of the hands of BOTH RH and the FC people (who are, after all, largely the same people). If/when the kernel changes stack size and other things (for example, the layout of /proc) as it has in the past, we will all have to live with it and yes things will break. The only way RH could avoid it is to either run a twinned kernel configuration with the change backed off or to freeze on a legacy kernel, both of which are such stellarly bad ideas that I hope there is no need to even discuss them. So sure, RHEL 3.x may be "frozen" with 8k kernel stacks as long as they choose to use and support the last kernel release with that set as the default or where RH is willing to back off a shift, but RHEL in general is going to break this kind of thing from release/upgrade to release/upgrade. Again, one DEFINITION of major release upgrade is that it is one that breaks binary compatibility of at least something major (e.g. kernel, libc, x). Minor releases break or add features in userspace, updates fix bugs. So the only thing you're discussing is WHEN FC does it vs WHEN RHEL does it. RH will do it more slowly, for sure, but you'll be just as pissed off about it when it does. In either case, your biggest problem isn't with the distro itself (which IS, as Mark has repeatedly pointed out, beta tested and a real release) -- it is with packages or programs that are NOT in the distribution and were NOT beta tested -- they de facto go through a whole alpha/beta/pilot/production cycle from a point that STARTS in many cases when the new distribution is first released. For just one example -- how many people would notice it (or DID notice it) the minute that the kernel starts outputting numbers in /proc that were ulls instead of uls? I notice it because stuff I write breaks like all shit. Most people wouldn't/didn't notice it because they got the change at the same time they got a fixed procps that managed it. Only people like me running software that was coded on the older no longer valid assumptions see it break. Then it is usually a straightforward task to fix it in an open source world where things are well documented. Even in the closed source world companies like NVIDIA tend to be at least REASONABLY responsive and eventually fix it if their marketplace demands that it be fixed. So be aware that things like this DO change fairly regularly in ALL distributions, commercial or non. Most of the time the changes are hidden, especially for folks that use the properly beta-tested software that comes "with" the distribution. Sometimes they are not, and obviously can strongly affect people whose source is e.g. 32 bit source but they are suddenly running on a 64 bit platform. The real question is: Feature or Bug? I tend to think of dynamical evolution as an unquestionable feature. Who here really WISHES we were still running the 0.9x kernel? SLS linux? X11R5? Raise those hands high, folks, can't make them out from here. Hmmmm, not a whole lot of you. Everything after that is a question of rate and degree. FC is "fast" but has a full development cycle and (most important) has engaged developers with a well-defined, yum/repository based mechanism for distributing updates from the toplevel repositories to end-user computers in no more than 1-2 days (faster than that in an emergency). RHEL is "slow" and has pretty much the same update mechanism (or up2date, used by an increasingly vanishingly small segment of hapless humanity given that it scales, um, "poorly" and costs the moon). SuSE is different, Debian different again. Viva la choice. > So you have pre-release testing as "beta-testing" but you deny that > "proving ground" is beta-testing? Seems to be same side of a coin here. > Having a normal release management does not a production quality > system make. It is most definitely one of the requirements for such a > system, but it does not, in and of itself, make the OS a production > class OS. A reasonable definition of production class OS will likely > incorporate inherent stability of the underlying structures of the > system, and a guarantee that they will not change for some fixed > interval. Production specifically implies a repetitive behavior, > specifically for HPC, a cycle shop. If the next incompatible change in > FC-x renders your IB drivers unworkable for your cluster, does that in > fact make the OS that you have installed on the system production ready > or not? If you have to continuously chase hacks/patches/etc to keep > your system operational after every upgrade, does that make your system > production ready? > Here is where you keep getting hung up on this whole beta thing. Look, beta testing (as previously noted) referes to a specific phase of a commercial-grade software development cycle. It is fair to apply the term to "Fedora Core X" as a whole, as it goes through such a cycle. It is crazy to assert that Fedora Core X is a "beta" product because e.g. "Matlab" (to pick on one commercial package) may not run on it the day it comes out the door. In actual fact, matlab might run on it, or might not. FC does not guarantee binary compatibility across major release numbers. Neither does RH. They can't. The very definition of a major release is one that shifts at least some ABI's. In actual fact, the matlab people technically need to undergo a whole product cycle of their own including alpha and beta testing ON FC or RHEL's new release to port to it if necessary and certify the result. It is entirely possible that RH has a relationship with many vendors and includes them IN their beta cycle so that those vendors can complete their own port and betas in time to update their product at the same time as the new release. So perhaps RHEL 4 comes out Monday, and by Monday evening customers can upgrade matlab to run under RHEL 4 for free or for an additional fee. If a LOT of their customers use FC, though, they are also likely to do that port and testing as rapidly as they can manage it. SO, please differentiate between: * the kernel -- in a space by itself outside ALL distributions. All you can choose here is how soon you want your next major release to also be a major kernel release, but when 2.8 is released in the fullness of time, all distros will eventually use it even if it breaks the hell out of every driver in current existence. Note well that complaining about "breaking drivers" is really complaining about the kernel and that Mark's point about closed source binary insertion modules is really well taken. This has nothing to do with FC per se, only with their decision to track the kernel fairly rapidly. The real issue here is that Nvidia and others should clearly keep up with the current linux kernels and not release a product and let it just sit static forever, or they should release their code so that it can be built into and beta tested WITH the kernel. * the major compilers -- also in a space outside of all distributions, also a major driver of incompatibility. A conservative approach to gcc would have features like SSE still unsupported, which is a bad thing for HPC systems. Remember the problems that ensued when the kernel required a different variant of gcc to build than the production gcc in many distros. * the major libraries -- libc, libm, and a slew of other core dynamic libraries ARE the ABI for the "distribution". The only requirement for a stable distribution (that I'm aware of) is that the entire distribution be built self-consistently from the kernel and compilers through the primary/major libraries down through the applications. A binary built for e.g. RH 7.2 is supposed to run on 7.1 or 7.3 but is absolutely not guaranteed to run on 6.2 or 9. Nobody would be horribly surprised if a binary built on 7.2 in fact fails on 7.1 or 7.3, though. This is what "rpmbuild --rebuild" is for...and why open source portable, rebuildable packaging of standards compliant sources are a really really good thing. It is also one of the things many vendors utterly fail to cope with -- since their code is often built according to proprietary shop standards, it ends up being reviewed only by a limited set of inbred eyes and ends up non-portable or maintainable crap. Since it costs money (in the eyes of the board) to actually invest in the development process, underfunded crap at that. The board would LOVE it if they could pay just once to have the sources developed and then fire the whole development team and sell the product forever, as that is the way THEY view intellectual property -- as a commodity they can purchase and exploit for a profit and wealth, not as a participatory exercise from which they happen to earn a well-deserved living. So why should we be surprised by vendors that are still trying to sell software that "only runs on RH 7.3" libraries? They'd actually have to assemble a team of competent programmers redevelop their product again to get it to work on anything more recent instead of just make money... * X -- Again, X is on a separate development cycle outside of most distributions (as are many other packages, but X is a low-level sine qua non to many, many applications and hence qualifies as a "distribution" of sorts in its own right). In few places are the costs of both sides of the rapid release coin as visible as with X. OTOH rapid updates break applications and require admins to learn new configuration tools and are more likely to have bugs including serious ones. OTOH everybody gets pissed off if the brand new bleeding edge video card they got with their high-end visualization or gaming workstation doesn't work perfectly with linux. To add insult to injury, you're getting all irritated at FC-X for a change made in the KERNEL that broke an X DRIVER (Nvidia) that is deliberately engineered to live OUTSIDE the X, library, and kernel cycle. What do you expect? Sooner or later, the kernel, a key library, X itself were bound to change. When that happened Nvidia's driver was BOUND to break. How could it not break? Surely you don't expect Linus Torvalds to freeze the kernel development cycle just so Nvidia never has to actually WORK on its proprietary driver and can just keep making money on the basis of its original investment? * applications. There are two parts of application space. The part that is "inside" the distribution, and add-ons. The part that is inside the distribution is the part that is beta tested as part and parcel of the whole shebang -- kernel, compiler, libraries, X and applications (GUI and otherwise). There are a lot of moving parts, dependencies, dynamic libraries, and complex interactions. Incredibly, when any new distribution is released (after beta testing!), it is a matter of WEEKS before nearly all of this works on nearly all systems the distro is installed on. This is an effin' miracle and a testament to the incredible strength and robustness of the open source development cycle. The "gamma testing" in linux is ongoing, but it is also very, very efficient and rapid because everybody has the sources, and tens of thousands of competent eyes look at every emerging problem. The add-on part is NOT beta tested by the distribution developers, obviously. How could it be? Why is this a problem? How is this an AVOIDABLE problem? It is a simple reality of modern software that it is complex and typically has a complicated dependency tree on many libraries all with slowly varying ABIs. The safest way to get software to run perfectly on any new distribution is to rebuild it (if possible) and test/port/patch it as needed until it both rebuilds and functions properly. Binary compatibility is mostly an illusion, and will become INCREASINGLY illusory as the systems become still more complex and intertwined in the future. However, because of rebuildable, standards compliant packaging and sources, in MOST cases rebuilding is a matter of entering a simple command or two, and in cases where this isn't true it is a clear signal that the product badly needs a major rewrite. Perhaps what this discussion should really morph to is one of "standard linux" -- the Linux Standard Base -- a low level ABI for all major linux libraries to assure binary compatibility across all flavors of linux. Naturally, there is www.linuxbase.org and a lot of committed people. Equally naturally, commercial linux vendors are in no rush to implement it as far as I can see, and it is by no means clear that the goals of the project CAN or SHOULD BE accomplished. Standardization can equal stagnation, and there is an alternative. The alternative is that represented by gentoo but really possible within all packaged linuces. Non-binary packaging that autobuilds on your system. Shrink "linux" to little more than an LSB-standard core plus an enhancement of any of the packaging schema that permits source packages with complicated dependences to be automatically retrieved from a repository via e.g. yum and built and installed as a part of the system installation process. However, that's not something that I'm pushing -- just noting to emphasize that there are a number of software distributions competing here, and the one that is suffering most is the one that relies on the distribution of generic static binary images of software. The fundamental problem is that this is an outmoded paradigm and one that is likely to disappear altogether in the next few years. This has nothing to do with choice of distribution except that some distributions cater less strongly towards the desire of those software companies that rely on this scheme to make money without an ongoing maintenance and development effort, with clear tradeoffs. > > the existence of commercial products which specify RH-whatever vX.Y > > does not magically turn FC into a beta-test. if you redefine words > > that way, you might as well call all of SunOS a beta for Solaris. > > Er... you are the only one who indicated this, so if you want to argue > this, I would suggest you contact the person who generated this idea > (that commercial products dependent upon RH make FC a beta test) who can > be found at hahn _at_ physics _dot_ mcmaster _dot_ ca. > > I said "My customers care about running on distributions (whoops, there > we go with that word again) on which their apps are supported. I am not > aware of active support for FC-x for applications from commercial > program providers. If I am incorrect about this, please let me know > (seriously, as FC-3++ looks to be pretty good)." Prior to this I said > "It is by Redhat's definition, a rolling beta (proving ground)." The > two are specifically independent ideas. I know of few commercially > supported applications that will accept support calls from FC-x running > users. > > Note: Debian has very little in the way of commercial support (none > from the distributer). It is most definitely not a beta. You can use > the beta version in unstable. This is analogous to Fedora. > > What makes FC a beta is that Redhat specifically is note that, and is > using Fedora as a "proving ground" (c.f. > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proving+ground ) as in "It is > also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its > way into Red Hat products." (from http://fedora.redhat.com/ ) From the > reference.com site "prov·ing ground (prvng) n. A place for testing new > devices, weapons, or theories." Would you call a system that is defined > by its maker to be a proving ground to be a production environment (e.g. > stable, unchanging) ? As I repeatedly say (as self-appointed referee) here is where you guys are REALLY fighting -- about nothing. FC is not a beta for RH any more than Debian is. RH is a collection of packages. So is FC. So is Debian. So is linux itself. Those packages include things as diverse as kernels, compilers, libraries, x, and applications of all sorts. MOST of those packages are NOT maintained by RH per se, and the ones that are are often "co-maintained" by RH and SuSE and Gnu and the kernel team and xorg and a host of contributing programmers from all over the world. ALL of them are a "beta" for RH, and for FC, and for Debian, and for SuSE, by this sloppy a definition. I reiterate -- the fundamental problem is that alpha/beta testing refer to specific phases present in the development cycle for most commercial-grade (monolithically supported) software. They do not fit comfortably into the open source development process where there often isn't a single well-defined "team" with "responsibilities". In lots and lots of cases, the "team" is a single person who wrote and accepts full responsibility for a product, and an associated "list" of active users that serve as some mix of co-developer (as they contribute working codons back to the project memetic source code set), alpha tester as they implement new snapshots, beta tester as they implement new snapshots (oops, failed to see much difference there) and user as the new snapshots they implemented prove to be stable and are put into production. Then there is a whole NEW cycle when the product is distributed outside of that group, and there may be several such cycles in parallel as the product goes into several distributions. "FC-X" is most definitely NOT pre-RHEL in anything like the sense that rawhide was pre RH. Sure, packages there migrate eventually into RHEL -- how could they not? So do packages that are actively developed under Debian. In fact, a lot of those packages "get into" FC-x as well. Other packages (e.g. PVM or LAM) might be packaged by groups that have nothing to do with any linux distro. Also, FC goes through multiple cycles of development betweeen RHEL upgrades. How specifically is FC-1 contributing to RHEL4? FC-2? FC-3? All three releases have overlapped with the RHEL 3 timeframe -- so how is a package that appears and is distributed, stable, for an entire FC release, then re-released and distributed, stable, for an entire FC release, then re-released somehow "being tested for RHEL" in two of those three releases? It just isn't. FC is a release in and of itself, and has a lot of energy going into it for its own sake. Sure, it is important to RH as a "proving ground for new software" because RH has to be (or chooses to be) conservative to the edge of insanity within the EL distribution. Remember, now that they are selling it for so much money, customer tolerance to "gamma" releases in the best of open source traditions is doubtless greatly reduced. Note well that RHEL is frozen WAY out to the point of insanity. I can't get packages I'm actively working on under FC-2 to BUILD under Centos 3.x because -- guess what -- they froze the GSL along with everything else. This is doubtless very comforting to somebody that built something to work with just that GSL snapshot, but that snapshot was broken in many ways and is missing all sorts of new features. So here's an out for the two of you. Call FC-X a "gamma release", not of RHEL (it isn't) but of itself. That's ok since gamma release is a joke anyway, but to the extent that it means anything it is probably accurate because ALL linux distributions are "gamma" releases. Accept the fact that FC-X is beta tested and quality assured before release, and that the testing and assurance are likely lower than they are for RH because they cost money and RH is trying to minimize investment here, so it probably (to be fair) DOES rely more on the gamma phase for end-stage debugging, which so far, for a community-based linux, seems to work just gangbusters well. Leave the entire issue of commercial software and library compatibility alone, as it is something you don't NEED to agree on. It is what it is. Mark's environment uses FC (as does mine) because we rely very, very little on commercial code and are comfortable telling consumers of our resource that their commercial products need to run on top of FC or don't bother. We both have Centos as an alternative or can always pay for RHEL or SuSE if we need more. You have particular customers with particular needs that are orthogonal (in some cases) to FC -- that's fine too! I think we'd all agree that this is FUNDAMENTALLY not FC's problem -- its an open source/closed source issue, and at its ROOT is probably due to inadequate investment in the software development process in the owning corporation and poor methodology, with some obvious exceptions -- but that doesn't make it less validly a problem with your customers. It does make it wrong to give as knee-jerk advice "never install FC on clusters" as that's just plain silly, even as it makes it perfectly reasonable to say "don't install FC on your cluster if you want to run product X, as it may have binary/library compatibility issues". > > the customer needs to evaluate how fragile a commercial product is: > > how well it conforms to the ABI. NVidia is a great example of > > an attractive product which is inherently fragile since NVidia > > chooses to hide trade secrets in a binary-only, kernel-mode driver > > which (by definition and example) depends on undefined behavior. > > VMWare is another good (flawed) example. > > Hmmm. I hear this argument time and again from people about the closed > source nature of nVidia's drivers. nVidia does not (as far as I know) > own all the intellectual property in their driver, and they do not have > the right to give that IP away via GPL or any other mechanism. The > fundamental flaw in the arguments against the nVidia driver are an > inherent presumtion that nVidia is hiding trade secrets in order to make > its life better and get end user lock-in. The behavior it (the driver) > depends upon has been built into the kernel, and when that behavior > suddenly changed, nVidia wasnt the only driver affected. Many open > source drivers were impacted. Are you going to argue that this makes > them (the open source drivers) inherently fragile? This is a natural > extension and simple application of your argument. This is a weak > argument at best, and some of its fundamental premises are fatally > flawed. If nVidia owned all the IP in everything they released, and > chose simply to release binary only drivers, that would be a completely > different case. Unfortunately, a fair amount of the IP in OpenGL and > other related standards is owned by companies that have no interest in > open source other than demolishing it. SGI sold off most of its IP in > OpenGL to some other outfit. Hmmm, I'm skeptical about this specific argument. Cynical might be a better word. After all, there exist nvidia drivers in the open source world -- see "nv" in xorg. They simply don't work as well. I find it very, very difficult to believe that -- with access to the internals -- nvidia couldn't write an open source driver that worked as well as their "proprietary" driver. Of course I'm also a radical person who doesn't believe that there can or should be "IP" in a software driver. Their product is a hardware device; it has an ABI, whether or not they choose to publish it. It isn't easy for me to see how that ABI is IP. If they published the ABI with full documentation, open source people could write as good a driver as they could without their help. One encounters similar things for everything from palm pilots to NICs. There is always some argument for a hardware vendor protecting their "trade secrets" in their drivers, where the real trade secret may be that they're using some standard chipset with a tiny bit of nonstandard glue and their board is really a piece of crap. In linux, it is evolution in action -- unsupported boards aren't purchased by linux users, and that is finally adding up to something pretty significant in the marketplace. Nvidia is something of an exception because they are very popular with gamers and visualization labs and because there is SUCH a big difference between nvidia's driver and the nv driver. However, this may not last. Note also that the kernel has NEVER guaranteed that drivers built for one revision will remain valid for all revisions. How could it? Will drivers that aren't "part" of the kernel break when the kernel changes something major (the ones that are "part" of the kernel are again beta tested in situ and tend not to break -- as much -- so we're obviously talking about add-ons)? Sure, how could they not? Either participate in the kernel development process and work all these kinks out snapshot to snapshot or accept that you'll have to port/debug every time the kernel changes enough to break your driver. Just don't complain. There's nothing to complain about. It's like complaining that those consarned rattletraps with four wheels and a stinkin' engine and horn scare the horses and should be banned from the roads. > > "supported configuration" is nothing more or less than a way to > > "download" support costs to the platform vendor (PV). it's a lever, > > acting on the customer as a pivot, to force the PV to avoid changes > > of any sort, since its impossible to tell what internals the proprietary > > product depends on. > > Uh.... I think we disagree again. A supported configuration is > something that a customer, an end user, a developer should have a > reasonable and fighting chance of having it work right. This means that > the internals that are exposed to developers will no change (including > driver developers). This means that end users and customers have a > reasonable expectation that their configuration on the supported list > should work, and the onus is on the platform vendor (nice to see you > switched to the definition of platform that I was using BTW) to make it > work without breaking other stuff. Oh, but that's easy. Just lock into Red Hat 5.2 and tell customers that any hardware older than a Pentium is out of bounds. What, you meant that you wanted CONTEMPORARY hardware configurations to work? But DON'T want bleeding edge kernels (most likely to have the requisite drivers), modern libraries (most likely to be posix compliant, most likely to have useful features), modern compilers (most likely to have e.g. SSE support and other bells and whistles) and modern applications to help you run, configure, and otherwise support the systems in question? Don't want MUCH, do you, but your cake and its consumption all at the same time. FC-x is far more likely than RHEL to have: contemporary kernel, good 64 bit support, large list of supported devices. up to date compilers up to date libraries (e.g. GSL given above) lots of nifty -- and new -- applications, and relatively bug-free and feature-rich version of older ones e.g. Open Office that might have been under active development when RHEL was "frozen". So I don't think you mean this. I think what you mean is that you wish that VENDORS rewrote and updated their SOFTWARE PRODUCTS so they would REBUILD on FC-x with less pain than months of work porting and debugging and testing. Since they won't do this and are instead insisting that YOU use the ancient kernel and libc where their last build still worked, you wish that somehow that ancient kernel could use newer drivers for modern networks and busses, that libxml had been rebuilt for the older libc (presuming that it COULD be rebuilt for it, by no means a given), that xorg had bothered to port their latest set of devices and applications back to that ancient OS release so that your customer could still use their nifty new monitor and graphics card. I'm not trying to be cruel here -- I'm just pointing out that there are some fairly fundamental conflicts here that cannot easily be resolved by YOU or YOUR CUSTOMER. The only way to fix this problem properly is (perhaps) the LSB, and even then it would only work if the SOFTWARE PROVIDER learned how to write portable and cheaply rebuildable software and made a siginficant and revolving investment in development and maintenance of same. In the meantime you literally cannot have what you want -- you can only choose the place where you make the compromises that let you make things work well enough to get by. > > drastistically > > similarly, SOP in the Fibrechannel world is to provide only negative > > definitions of support (nothing but HP disks in HP SANs.) this can be > > seen as a flaw in standard-defining, since Ethernet provides a fairly > > decent counterexample where interoperability is the norm because > > products need to conform, not "qualify". > > A standard is only useful if people pay attention to it, and > engineer/design/build to it. Standards are very useful to developers, > in that if they code in a particular manner that adheres to the > standard, they have a fighting chance of developing something that will > work. If the standard suddenly changes on them, and their stuff breaks, > who do they turn to? If the target is moving, how much time/effort will > they expend to chase it? Sigh. Somehow there are (how many? lots!) mountains of linux packages -- hundreds and hundreds -- that are written so that they will work. Not only work, but keep working distribution release to distribution release, often with nothing more than that aforementioned "rpmbuild --rebuild". It isn't an issue with "creeping standards". The most common problem is "failure to code to standards", followed by "failure to invest in maintaining the code". Most real standards have consortia associated with them. Some are defined by IEEE docs (a process that I abjure, because it is both elitist and non-open). I prefer the RFC-defined standards as exemplary of the open standard development process. In such a process there is really never any reason for a vendor or developer to be caught by surprise. Surprises are more likely to occur when vendors are heavily involved in writing the "standard" and yank it around for customer lock-in and commercial advantage. M$ being past masters at the game, but they are far from the only ones. > In some cases (development tools) it makes sense to chase some specific > moving targets (though it costs time/effort and therefore real money). > In other cases it makes sense to wait for stable releases where things > will not change, so your customers/end users can get your stuff and make > it work, because you have a fighting chance at making it work. > > Greg's company (and the folks at the Portland Group) have to chase these > targets... many of their customers are there (I'd bet that a small > fraction of their collective total customer base are using the > development tools to generate commercial code, most are using the tools > for their research/development tasks). These are a notable exception to many of the things I say above, but then, no compiler company survives for long without a sustained investment in the world's MOST serious programmers who know MORE about product development cycles and hardware features and interoperability and maintenance and all that than nearly anybody. However, I know of numerous projects that are developed (one can WATCH them being developed) and then most of the development staff goes away with only a small skeleton hanging out to do debugging and solving those "gamma release" problems. This lets the company make a lot of money without having to pay a full development team of pesky programmers. It also means that if they wrote a Windows version of the application and you want a linux version you're SOL. If you want a new feature you're SOL. If you want new hardware to be supported, well, their two remaining programmers will get around to new hardware in roughly 13 months as maintenance issues and putting out fires run down. In fact, if you just want them to fix a damn bug get in line -- those same two guys are booked up fixing bugs that have already been reported for the next nine weeks, but they'll try really hard to do yours then. I'm not criticizing this -- it may be that this is the only way for them to maintain any sort of profitability at all. Or maybe, just maybe, the VC guys want to maximize profit for long enough to sell their stock and/or make their investment x 20 back some other way, and don't give a goddamn if the company still exists two years from now. I've seen both things openly expressed in board rooms, with the latter usually NOT said but perfectly obvious. Rape, pillage and burn, right? Take no prisoners. > Yeah, there are significant interoperability problems in things like SAN > and what-not-else. These are unfortunate. This is part of the reason > why I try to avoid such things (I don't like vendors locking me in, and > I know my customers don't like being locked in, so I don't waste my > companies time trying to figure out how to do this). Don't assume that > a companies / end users misapplication of a standard, hijacking of a > standard, or abuse of a standard somehow makes all standards bad. They > are not. Standards are sometimes the only lever you have in a > commercial closed source context... demanding that a company adhere to > what it claims to sell is sometimes a necessary path. Interoperability > means that when people interpret the standards, that all parties agree > on the definitions, and that they guarantee that their products will in > fact conform to the standard, and that there will be tests of the > standard compliance, and out of compliant systems will be adjusted to be > in-compliance, and that interoperability with other standards will be > guaranteed. This is why IDE, SCSI, and Ethernet work so well. This is > why some others do not. IB is likely to work quite well going forward. > This is why the SAMBA folks are chasing a moving target, as the CIFS > "standard" is a moving one (just go ahead and update that XP with a > SAMBA server around .... grrrrr). > > I like and use FC-x, we run FC-2 and FC-3 on various machines (AMD64, my > laptop as part of a triple boot, and x86). I make sure our software > runs on this, we compile and test on FC as well as for others > (RH/Centos, SuSE, looking at Ubuntu/Debian) . I am happy that our > binary packages seem to work nicely across multiple distributions > (though we usually bring the source along to be sure), and our large > systems are built from source, so they should work (as long as the > underlying technology works). Our software works at a high level, and > depends upon lower level bits. I don't see the effect of the OS changes > as much as the tool/hardware vendors do, though every now and then > something breaks a driver. But, and this is the critical point for us, > if our software breaks at our customers site, we own the fixes, it is > our job to make them happen. More importantly, if something breaks in > the chain of software (whether we own it or not), we try to help, as it > is critical to make sure that failure modes are understood, and problems > are resolved. We have been and will be helping our customers resolve > problems with third party software, commercial and otherwise. If our > target platform were moving, so that the C compiler structures were > changing, and we had to rebuild time and time again with each OS update, > I would wait until we saw this settle out. Otherwise we are spinning > our wheels, as each change is more work, and in the end, it should > converge to a final state. It is the final state that is worth > targetting (for us, for others such as PathScale, they have to follow > what their customers use). It sounds like you too take the software end seriously. This is just what you need to do to maintain a viable and interoperable product. Good job. > The issue in FC-x is that it is open to internals changing. I think > this is a good thing. It is doing what it was intended to do, and I > like seeing the directions I need to worry about going forward. I will > not likely deploy this as an OS for a cluster customer without the > customer understanding exactly what they are getting, and making sure > they understand what is needed to support this. If they really want a > cheap RH, they can get Centos/Tao. If they want internal structural > stability, and support from commercial vendors for their commercial > codes, they will have to run something that the commercial vendors will > support. PathScale and possibly the Portland group (and I am going to > guess Etnus and a few others) do or will likely support it. LSTC, MSC, > Accelrys, Tripos, Oracle, ... will likely not (though it will probably > run fine with no issues). This is all very reasonable, and Mark would probably even agree. Run FC if it works and your software base permits it, use Centos or buy whatever you like if it doesn't. Don't expect apples to become oranges, remember that tanstaafl, and make the best compromises you can to get things to work (the important thing). And DON'T WORRY about what is a "beta" or what isn't. It isn't relevant. FC is without question more dynamic. It is without question already through a real beta before release. It is without question more "daring" as it evolves more quickly and will break things more often. It will also GENERALLY be a lot more functional, as breaking non-commercial things is confined to a relatively short phase right after release, and with yum fixes are RAPIDLY deployed. rgb -- Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305 Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:rgb at phy.duke.edu


text:
You have a choice of Dynamics Edge MOC Class 10993 exceptional Azure training course you can trust that best suits your needs. There are options for a custom class.
This course teaches IT professionals how to integrate their on-premises AD DS environment with Azure AD and how to use Azure AD as a directory service. It also teaches candidates how to use Azure RMS to protect sensitive documents. Additionally, it focusses on how to enhance authentication with multi-factor authentication and how to monitor directory synchronization health.
The primary audience for this course is existing IT professionals who have some knowledge and experience with Azure, and advanced experience with the Windows Server operating system. In addition, IT professionals who take this course typically want to develop knowledge of identity services integration between on-premises services and cloud services.
This would typically include: AD DS administrators who are looking to train in cloud identity and access technologies. System or infrastructure administrators with general AD DS experience and knowledge, who are looking for more advanced identity training for Azure services.
In this module, you will learn about the components that make up the System Center 2016 product including how they sit within it.
This module explains how to extend an on-premises Active Directory domain to Azure, and how directory synchronization works. It also describes how to implement and configure directory synchronization. Additionally, this module describes how to manage synchronized directories.
This module explains how to use Azure AD as a directory service for on-premises resources, and how to configure SSO in Azure AD. It also describes how to implement Azure AD Privileged Identity Management (PIM).
This module explains how authentication works in hybrid environments. In addition, it describes how to implement Azure Multi-Factor Authentication.
This module provides an overview of rights management, and describes the differences between Active Directory Rights Management Services (AD RMS) and Azure RMS. It also explains how to implement Azure RMS and integrate it with on-premises services.
This module describes how to use Azure AD reporting, and how to configure Azure AD notifications. It also describes how to monitor AD DS and Azure AD by using Azure AD Connect Health and Microsoft Operations Management Suite (OMS).
This course requires that you meet the following prerequisites:
If you need a custom class or class date not shown here: Take a look at our Azure complete Training Catalog of Courses
Or, call DynamicsEdge (800) 453-5961 for us to prepare you a Customized Training Class
Last updated: 2019-04-21
Dynamics Edge may need details about your Azure custom course that you need in San Jose, California . Please call Dynamics Edge at (800) 453-5961 or e-mail Dynamics Edge at firstname.lastname@example.com and ask for a custom class at this location.
Some of our locations in San Jose, California include:
*NOTE: if an average rating and rating count are shown on this page, they are based on all reviews associated with Dynamics Edge that are shown on the review page, and are not restricted to reviews only for the particular courses offered on this page.


text:
Join ILEA
ILEA Community Login
Sign Up For Our Newsletter!
Visit our new website
Current News
View Current News
About ILEA
ILEA members are regarded as the very best in what they do, creating a powerful and influential community of event professionals around the world, working together to find new ways to communicate through the power of live events. As ILEA continues to expand and engage, reaching new audiences and markets around the globe, so the ILEA brand continues to evolve. You are part of an industry that is essential, creative and communicates. It is a global industry that we, as the International Live Events Association, have supported for over 25 years. As a creative events professional you are looking to learn, to connect, to be inspired, to belong and above all be part of something special, something valued.
ILEA is the principal association representing the creative events professional, globally.
Popular Links
ILEA Calgary
ILEA Edmonton
ILEA Toronto
ILEA Vancouver
Contact Information
ILEA Toronto
312 Oakwood Court Newmarket, ON L3Y 3C8, Canada Tel: (866) 729-4737 Fax: (905) 895-1630
Join Today
© 2019 ILEA Canada | All Rights Reserved
Website by Inorbital


text: On 3 Apr 2009, at 3:17 pm, John Hearns wrote: > 2009/4/3 Robert G. Brown <rgb at phy.duke.edu>: > >>> There are similar questions associated with IBM. Sun provides >>> support >> for some major tools used in Linux these days, notably open office >> but >> also SGE. > > > Don't forget MySQL > Who knows what the result of the catfight between DB2 and MySQL > would be The death of MySQL, with any luck, and then people might be forced to use a real database. Sorry. A bit twitchy today. MySQL has been causing me particular irritation over the last couple of weeks. > I agree with what you say in the main though - we should be very aware > of what could come > out of these mergers. > Maybe I'm going too far in saying this, but what would a Linux > landscape consisting of > a very few commercially supported Linuxes plus the one alternative of > Debian (plus Ubuntu) > be like? Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I've been avoiding the commercial distros as much as possible for years. We switched our entire site to Debian about four years ago, and life has become a lot easier ever since. Fewer bugs, more openness, better management tools. The only places where Linux admin is still a pain are the few corners where I'm still forced to user Red Hat and its derived distributions. Oracle being a prime example. I'll probably eventually migrate everything to Ubuntu, especially if Oracle decide to support that distro. Ubuntu has a a slightly more pragmatic view of the world than some of the more extreme Debian zealots. That said, Ubuntu being backed by a commercial organisation might eventually lead to the same thing happening to it. At least if you go with Debian you know that you are fairly safe from the whims of commercial companies. Regards, Tim -- The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.


text:
Type the characters
Sign up to receive my monthly newsletter right in your inbox.
Enter your email address and I'll reply as soon as possible.
What my clients are saying
Frank knows the local market extremely well and was incredibly attentive to all our needs. He exceeded all of our expectations and I would recommend him in every circumstance as a buyer or seller agent in the New River Valley area.
~ M. Belay
Frank was absolutely wonderful to work with. My husband and I live out of state. Frank was there to show our home, take care of inspection and find appropriate services to address findings. He managed to sell our home in a record time at a very fair price (something our previous agent couldn't do!). We highly recommend him.
~ ddanelisen
Frank's easygoing style makes him a pleasure to work with. He is familiar with the local area and market and brought things to my attention that I would have otherwise overlooked. I'd be very comfortable recommending Frank to others seeking an agent to buy or sell a home with.
~ Denise D
Frank was honestly a pleasure in assisting us in finding our new home! He was extremely reliable, friendly and informative throughout the whole process, providing a fun but also professional experience. His hard work got us into our dream home and we couldn't be more happy and thankful!
~ ChassidyStaton
Frank kregloe is awesome! He went above and beyond for my family. We were very pleased with his ongoing work performance. He found our home for us in 2 days, and we love it. Frank will work for you to get you the home you want and give you the best deal. We enjoyed working with frank and his hospitality.
~ ahexcav8
Frank was simply wonderful to work with! I have actually already referred him to a friend and will certainly continue to do so in the future when I hear of someone looking for an agent. His expertise allowed for us to comfortably find the perfect home for our family and his negotiation skills allowed for us to purchase this home at a great price. He is extremely professional, and was always responsive no matter the time or day we reached out to him.
My husband is not a people person. There are very few he actually likes and trust. The fact he likes him and trusted him enough to work through the process speaks volumes! We are very proud, extremely satisfied and happy first time homebuyers thanks to Frank.
~ Brawling73
Great job of walking us through home buying experience. Awesome at his job! Found our Dream Home! If your looking to purchase home in The New River Valley Va Frank Kregloe is the guy you need to see!!
~ shuptdo
Frank is excellent. At each stage of the process he was helpful, knowledgeable, and he responded to every question / request immediately. As first time buyers we really appreciated that. He also knows everyone in the area so has been great at setting us up with various folks to help us after we bought our house.
~ paulavey
We were completely new to the process of buying a house, and went right for a larger property. We were very insecure and didn't know anything. Frank found an amazing place for us, was always responsive to all our questions, made the process extremely easy and helped us getting an amazing deal. I would work with Frank anytime again.
~ ninas0
When I listed my house with Frank, My wife and I were going through a very hard time, "and a stressful time at that." He really put our minds at ease when he showed up at our house. We instantly liked Frank. House sales were not so good when we put our house on the market. He always stayed in contact, always got feed back, let us know what to expect ahead of time. He talks the talk and walks the walk! He is on your side 100 percent. Very professional, very hard working.
~ coogancraig
We contacted Frank in mid-2015 after reading positive reviews on Zillow. We had moved out of the area and were looking for help selling our house from a distance. Frank took care of everything from listing to closing. After meeting him and handing over the keys we never needed to travel back to Christiansburg. Frank processed all of the documents electronically and took care of all in-person appointments - for appraisals, inspections, etc. He found a landscaper to keep the grass mowed and a contractor to address what the buyer wanted post-inspection. Frank seems to know everyone in the local business and was able to get things done for us, quickly. This was our first home sale, and as it turned out the process was easier than buying.
Frank is knowledgeable and easy to work with. I would not hesitate to recommend him to anyone in the NRV.
~ re68
We have worked with Frank several times over the past 10+ years. He is exceptionally personable, knowledgeable , and eager to help. His insight has helped to make our purchases easily successful.
~ cattailspring
Get Your FREE Home Market Analysis Report Right Now!


text:
By failing to use all available information, investors leave money on the table
Uday Karmarkar, L.A. Times Chair in Technology and Strategy, studies the impact of information technology on business practice and the economy in the U.S. and other countries. Since 2004, Karmarkar and colleagues in several countries have conducted annual surveys to monitor the impact of information technology around the world as part of the UCLA Business and Information Technologies Project (UCLA BIT). The studies have identified a variety of striking economic and demographic trends.
Many of the findings concern changes in employment. "The job picture in the U.S. has changed significantly since the year 2000," he says, "and it is a little unsettling. In the last few decades, there have been two big movements in the economy - one is toward services and the other is toward information. The last is more recent and is now the dominant factor. Both of these movements are changing employment patterns."
Karmarkar explains that the last half of the Twentieth Century saw a large growth in service employment in the U.S. "Prior to the year 2000," he says, "some 2.5 million new jobs were created each year." But U.S. job growth came to a sudden stop in 2000. "In effect," says Karmarkar, "Ten million jobs that we expected based on a straight line projection from 2000 until now did not appear, so there's a gap between where we could have been and where we are. We didn't lose jobs in services; they just didn't appear, which is just as bad." Usually, such slowdowns in job creation have been relatively short lived with a recovery to previous levels of growth. But this time, the picture may be different.
Karmarkar points to new uses of information technology - especially in information intensive service industries. "Information technologies are changing the nature of service industries," he says. "More and more things are being automated or transformed to self-service. Counter jobs are being lost as we go to kiosks and web-based transactions. Banking and financial sector jobs are being threatened all the way up to pretty sophisticated levels and, regrettably, this is going to continue."
So Karmarkar and his colleagues are studying the scope of this problem, anticipating how companies might adjust and pondering what skills will still be needed in the workforce. One type of job that continues to grow is what Karmarkar refers to as knowledge work. This includes everyone who creates or disseminates information. "The proportion of workers in that area has been growing for quite a while," he says. "It's kind of a paradox that the number of these jobs in the U.S. continues to grow even though this work is subject to automation, outsourcing and off shoring."
It's unclear how the U.S. job supply will fare as information technologies become increasingly sophisticated. But Karmarkar says one thing that may help future workers is the imminent retirement of baby boomers. As baby boomers retire, he says, they could release roughly a million jobs a year. But there is still a question of whether workers will have the right skills for these jobs.
Karmarkar expects the greatest demand for workers who are creative, highly educated, technologically savvy and able to work well with customers. "These are the kinds of skills that are hardest to outsource or automate," he says.
Karmarkar expects continued demand for MBA skills in the U.S. job market. "There will be a tendency to focus on personal qualifications like leadership, negotiation skills, interpersonal skills and cross-cultural skills," he says. "These skills involve what we call tacit knowledge, which cannot easily be codified, converted to software, off-shored or automated."
One of the most serious economic issues lying ahead, according to Karmarkar, is that the many workers around the world retiring soon will need to be supported. Some nations, such as Italy, face this problem acutely. "In 2020," he says, "the biggest segment in Italy's population will be women over 80. The second largest group will be men over 80. And they will have a very small workforce to support this population."
Germany, Japan, France, and Scandinavian countries face similar scenarios where, as Karmarkar says, "The demographic pyramid is starting to look upside down." The U.S. on the other hand, he says, appears to have enough workers to support retirees, providing they have skills that fit the available jobs. "There is a base to the population pyramid in the U.S.," he says. "But even here, it's not really a pyramid, it's more of a cylinder." Under these circumstances, legacy notions of social contracts, based on a certain demographic picture, are not sustainable.
Are the vast populations of China and India also facing job shortages? Karmarkar says that both countries are rapidly creating the economic infrastructures needed to support job growth. "Individuals in those countries were very unproductive," he says. "But they were not incapable. You could take somebody out of one of those countries, put them in a developed economy, and they'd do very well. But the economic systems just weren't there. It takes some time to get the machinery running."
So Karmarkar expects China, India and other emerging economies that have primarily been agricultural to create new jobs in physical services like transportation, energy, warehousing and construction. Other growth areas include services to support a growing workforce - such as health care and education.
"The Chinese picture is interesting," says Karmarkar, "because manufacturing employment is actually dropping. What was done unproductively in China 20 years ago is done with world class efficiency today. So they don't need as many people."
So, while the U.S. economy must create jobs in more complex information and knowledge-based services, Karmarkar believes that China's information sector will be dominated by infrastructure services for the next decade or two. "They are growing very fast," he says. "China has the world's largest telecom sector. It has the world's largest number of web surfers." So the emergence of an information economy in China seems inevitable, if not imminent. However, jobs in China will first come from physical services such as retailing, transportation, and construction.
Karmarkar and his colleagues plan to continue monitoring economic trends such as those described here with follow-up surveys every two years. The most recent book describing this research project is available at Amazon.
Visit the Business and Information Technologies Project Website.


text:
Accused Orlando cop shooter Markeith Loyd says police beat him
Video shows when the man was taken into custody
Video shows when the man was taken into custody
Video shows when the man was taken into custody
Orlando police on Thursday released helicopter video showing their arrest of suspected cop killer Markeith Loyd, who was arrested Tuesday in an abandoned house in the city.
Loyd faces five charges related to the death of Dixon. He is also charged in connection with the death of Orlando police Lt. Debra Clayton, who authorities say he shot and killed at Walmart Jan. 9. Loyd is charged with murder of a law enforcement officer, attempted first-degree murder with a firearm of a law enforcement officer, armed carjacking, wearing a bulletproof vest while committing a felony and aggravated assault.
Loyd's face was heavily bandaged as officers walked him out of Orlando police headquarters late Tuesday night. As Loyd was escorted out of headquarters he told reporters, "They beat me."
Angela Starke, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, said Wednesday that the FDLE will not be investigating Loyd's claims, because they did not involve "deadly force."
During a news conference Thursday, Mina said use of force was used because Loyd did not comply with officers' commands.
Loyd used the appearance Thursday to defend himself, saying the media has portrayed him unfairly.
WATCH: Markeith Loyd makes obscenity laced first appearance


text:
With over 60 years experience, our central plant is one of the largest
cold set printers in the northeast region.
$28.95 Business Card Special
Offer includes a quantity of 1,000 cards with printing on both sides in beautiful process color for just $28.95*.
Click here to place an order
Request a Quote
Whether you're looking to have your newspaper, coupon booklet, fliers or even posters printed, Denton Publications offers great prices & quality service.
Click here to complete the form.
Production Report
Getting ready to send your files to us? Great! Be sure to fill out this form for all commercial and inter-company web press run.
Click here to complete the form.
Production Guide
This guide will help you to prepare your files for our equipment, and to assure a high level of quality.
Click here to download guide
From start to finished delivered product, we can handle all your publication needs.
Our commercial printing features computer-to-plate digital reproduction.
We offer the following services
• CAPS Postage Payment System
• Carrier Delivery Sequence Addressing
• Delivery using our fleet of trucks & vans
• Digital Piece Count
• Distribution
• Creative Graphics Arts
• USPS Approved Alternative Mailing System
• USPS Postal Reporting
Types of Printing
• Broadsheet Newspapers
• Tabloid Newspapers
• Envelopes
• Newsletters
• Coupon Booklets
• Glossy Flyers & Covers
• Print 'n' Deliver Flyers
• Sheet Fed
• Process Color Posters
• Business Cards
Our Equipment
• 17 Unit Goss Community Web Press
• Up to 16 pages of process color on a 56 page tab, per section
• Harris Saddle Stitcher & Trimmer
• 3 26' Box Trucks
• Muller-Martini 227S Inserter with Online Kirk Rudy Injet
• Screen PlateRite News 2000S
Production Contacts
Lori Newcomb
315-434-8889 x333


text:
The 2013 Fluid Power Systems Conference, scheduled for November 19 to 21 at the Doubletree Hotel, Rosemont, Ill., will kick off with a keynote address by Gary W. Rogers, president and CEO of FEV Inc. Rogers, a commercial vehicle powertrain expert, has titled his presentation, "Reducing Energy Expenses Utilizing Hybrid Waste Trucks, Transit Buses, and Delivery Vehicles."
Rogers currently sits on the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Board on Energy and Environmental Systems and on the Medium and Heavy-duty Truck CO2 and Fuel Economy Phase 2 committee for the NAS. He will discuss the state of development of hydraulic hybrid systems with respect to commercial vehicles including factors such as efficiency, commonality of infrastructure and total cost of ownership. The technology will be compared to hybrid electric and CNG-fuelled alternatives.
Now in its third year, the conference will feature design workshops to communicate the importance of energy efficiency and reliability, hands-on maintenance instruction, roundtable discussions, and networking events, including an Innovations Showcase.
Hosted by the International Fluid Power Society (IFPS), the FPDA Motion and Control Network (FPDA), and the National Fluid Power Association (NFPA) this conference, now in its third year, will host more than 150 professionals responsible for specifying, designing and/or maintaining hydraulic and pneumatic systems in industrial settings or mobile applications.
The two-day educational conference will focus on:
- Design workshops to communicate why energy efficiency and reliability are increasingly a concern of machine builders and the role of fluid power in increasing machine efficiency and reliability and balancing cost issues for hydraulic and pneumatic systems;
- Hands-on instruction into practical maintenance techniques from fluid power component manufacturers, distributors, and system integrators;
- Facilitated roundtable discussions, where peers can share specific challenges associated with their industry and applications, learn about fluid power standards, best practices in building efficient and reliable fluid power systems, and the future of fluid power;
- Networking events, including the Innovations Showcase, to help participating engineers and technicians engage with technology providers from fluid power manufacturing and distribution companies to learn the newest, cutting edge developments in energy efficient and reliable developments in hydraulics and pneumatics.
Fluid Power Systems Conference schedule of events:
|Tuesday, November 19, 2013
|6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
|The Welcome Reception and Fluid Power Systems Conference Innovation Showcase offers FPSC attendees a unique opportunity not only to network during the reception but to peruse through a showcase filled with state of the art fluid power product designed specifically to make fluid power as efficient as possible.
|Wednesday, November 20, 2013
|7:30 am to 8:30 am
|Breakfast Served
|8:15 am to 9:00 am
Opening Remarks
Mark Perry, IFPS President
Reducing Energy and Expenses Utilizing Hydraulic Hybrid Waste Trucks, Transit Buses and Delivery Vehicles
Gary Rogers, FEV, Inc.
|9:00 am to 12:30 pm
|Best Practices and Standards for Efficiency and Reliability
|Room A - Pneumatic
|Room B - Hydraulic
9:00 am – 10:00 am
10:00 am – 10:30 am
10:30 am – 11:00 am
11:00 am – 12:00 pm
|Room C - Hydraulic
9:00 am – 10:00 am
10:00 am – 10:30 am
10:30 am – 11:00 am
11:00 am – 12:00 pm
|12:30 pm to 1:30 pm
|Networking lunch
|1:30 pm to 3:30 pm
|Component Selection for Reliable and Efficient Fluid Power Machines
|Room A - Pneumatic
|Room B - Mobile Hydraulic
|Room C - Hydraulic
|3:30 pm to 5:00 pm
|Break Out Discussions: Sharing Information to Solve Real World Problems
|6:30 pm to 9:00 pm
|Reception and Dinner
|Thursday, November 21, 2013
|7:30 am to 8:00 am
|Breakfast Served
|8:00 am to 9:45 am
|Break Out Discussion Recap
|9:45 am to 11:30 am
Safety in Fluid Power Systems – Mobile, Industrial & Pneumatic Systems
Kent Darnell, Womack Machine Supply
|11:30 am to 12:30 pm
|Applying Practical Techniques for Energy Efficient Fluid Power Systems
|Room A - Pneumatic
|Room B - Mobile Hydraulic
|Room C - Hydraulic
|12:30 pm to 4:30 pm
An afternoon program designed to inform and engage conference participants in a discussion about the future direction of energy efficient fluid power.
|12:30 pm
|Lunch Served
|12:50 pm
Opening Remarks
Eric Lanke, NFPA CEO
|1:00 pm
Fluid Power in Mobile Robotics and Current Obstacles to Walking the Distance
Aaron Saunders, Boston Dynamics
|1:45 pm
Advances in Hydraulic System Noise Control and Energy Harvesting
Ken Cunefare, Georgia Tech
|2:15 pm
Fluid Power Applications for Emerging Trends in Additive Manufacturing
Lonnie Love, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
|2:45 pm
|Roundtable Discussions
|3:45 pm
|Reports from Roundtable Discussions
|4:15 pm
Closing Remarks
Eric Lanke, NFPA CEO
|4:30 pm
Click here to register, or visit www.nfpa.com/events/fpsc.htm for more information.