text:
[Roberts] |
[Alito] |
[Stevens] |
[Scalia] |
[Thomas] |
[Breyer] |
[Ginsburg] |
HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
RALPH BAZE and THOMAS C. BOWLING, PETI-
TIONERS v. JOHN D. REES, COMMISSIONER,
CORRECTIONS, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the supreme courtof kentucky
Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito join.
Like 35 other States and the Federal Government, Kentucky has chosen to impose capital punishment for certain crimes. As is true with respect to each of these States and the Federal Government, Kentucky has altered its method of execution over time to more humane means of carrying out the sentence. That progress has led to the use of lethal injection by every jurisdiction that imposes the death penalty.
Petitioners in this case—each convicted of double homicide—acknowledge that the lethal injection procedure, if applied as intended, will result in a humane death. They nevertheless contend that the lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment 's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments," because of the risk that the protocol's terms might not be properly followed, resulting in significant pain. They propose an alternative protocol, one that they concede has not been adopted by any State and has never been tried.
The trial court held extensive hearings and entered detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It recognized that "[t]here are no methods of legal execution that are satisfactory to those who oppose the death penalty on moral, religious, or societal grounds," but concluded that Kentucky's procedure "complies with the constitutional requirements against cruel and unusual punishment." App. 769. The State Supreme Court affirmed. We too agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The judgment below is affirmed.
By the middle of the 19th century, "hanging was the 'nearly universal form of execution' in the United States." Campbell v. Wood, 511 U. S. 1119 (1994) (Blackmun, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (quoting State v. Frampton, 95 Wash. 2d 469, 492, 627 P. 2d 922, 934 (1981)); Denno, Getting to Death: Are Executions Constitutional? 82 Iowa L. Rev. 319, 364 (1997) (counting 48 States and Territories that employed hanging as a method of execution). In 1888, following the recommendation of a commission empaneled by the Governor to find " 'the most humane and practical method known to modern science of carrying into effect the sentence of death,' " New York became the first State to authorize electrocution as a form of capital punishment. Glass v. Louisiana, 471 U. S. 1080 , and n. 4 (1985) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Denno, supra, at 373. By 1915, 11 other States had followed suit, motivated by the "well-grounded belief that electrocution is less painful and more humane than hanging." Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 185 (1915) .
Electrocution remained the predominant mode of execution for nearly a century, although several methods, including hanging, firing squad, and lethal gas were in use at one time. Brief for Fordham University School of Law et al. as Amici Curiae 5–9 (hereinafter Fordham Brief). Following the 9-year hiatus in executions that ended with our decision in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976) , however, state legislatures began responding to public calls to reexamine electrocution as a means of assuring a humane death. See S. Banner, The Death Penalty: An American History 192–193, 296–297 (2002). In 1977, legislators in Oklahoma, after consulting with the head of the anesthesiology department at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, introduced the first bill proposing lethal injection as the State's method of execution. See Brief for Petitioners 4; Fordham Brief 21–22. A total of 36 States have now adopted lethal injection as the exclusive or primary means of implementing the death penalty, making it by far the most prevalent method of execution in the United States.1 It is also the method used by the Federal Government. See 18 U. S. C. §3591 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V); App. to Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 1a–6a (lethal injection protocol used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons).
Of these 36 States, at least 30 (including Kentucky) use the same combination of three drugs in their lethal injection protocols. See Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F. 3d 896, 902 (CA6 2007). The first drug, sodium thiopental (also known as Pentathol), is a fast-acting barbiturate sedative that induces a deep, comalike unconsciousness when given in the amounts used for lethal injection. App. 762–763, 631–632. The second drug, pancuronium bromide (also known as Pavulon), is a paralytic agent that inhibits all muscular-skeletal movements and, by paralyzing the diaphragm, stops respiration. Id., at 763. Potassium chloride, the third drug, interferes with the electrical signals that stimulate the contractions of the heart, inducing cardiac arrest. Ibid. The proper administration of the first drug ensures that the prisoner does not experience any pain associated with the paralysis and cardiac arrest caused by the second and third drugs. Id., at 493–494, 541, 558–559.
Kentucky replaced electrocution with lethal injection in 1998. 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 220, p. 777. The Kentucky statute does not specify the drugs or categories of drugs to be used during an execution, instead mandating that "every death sentence shall be executed by continuous intravenous injection of a substance or combination of substances sufficient to cause death." Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §431.220(1)(a) (West 2006). Prisoners sentenced before 1998 have the option of electing either electrocution or lethal injection, but lethal injection is the default if—as is the case with petitioners—the prisoner refuses to make a choice at least 20 days before the scheduled execution. §431.220(1)(b). If a court invalidates Kentucky's lethal injection method, Kentucky law provides that the method of execution will revert to electrocution. §431.223.
Shortly after the adoption of lethal injection, officials working for the Kentucky Department of Corrections set about developing a written protocol to comply with the requirements of §431.220(1)(a). Kentucky's protocol called for the injection of 2 grams of sodium thiopental, 50 milligrams of pancuronium bromide, and 240 milliequivalents of potassium chloride. In 2004, as a result of this litigation, the department chose to increase the amount of sodium thiopental from 2 grams to 3 grams. App. 762–763, 768. Between injections, members of the execution team flush the intravenous (IV) lines with 25 milligrams of saline to prevent clogging of the lines by precipitates that may form when residual sodium thiopental comes into contact with pancuronium bromide. Id., at 761, 763–764. The protocol reserves responsibility for inserting the IV catheters to qualified personnel having at least one year of professional experience. Id., at 984. Currently, Kentucky uses a certified phlebotomist and an emergency medical technician (EMT) to perform the venipunctures necessary for the catheters. Id., at 761–762. They have up to one hour to establish both primary and secondary peripheral intravenous sites in the arm, hand, leg, or foot of the inmate. Id., at 975–976. Other personnel are responsible for mixing the solutions containing the three drugs and loading them into syringes. Id., at 761.
Kentucky's execution facilities consist of the execution chamber, a control room separated by a one-way window, and a witness room. Id., at 203. The warden and deputy warden remain in the execution chamber with the prisoner, who is strapped to a gurney. The execution team administers the drugs remotely from the control room through five feet of IV tubing. Id., at 286. If, as determined by the warden and deputy warden through visual inspection, the prisoner is not unconscious within 60 seconds following the delivery of the sodium thiopental to the primary IV site, a new 3-gram dose of thiopental is administered to the secondary site before injecting the pancuronium and potassium chloride. Id., at 978–979. In addition to assuring that the first dose of thiopental is successfully administered, the warden and deputy warden also watch for any problems with the IV catheters and tubing.
A physician is present to assist in any effort to revive the prisoner in the event of a last-minute stay of execution. Id., at 764. By statute, however, the physician is prohibited from participating in the "conduct of an execution," except to certify the cause of death. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §431.220(3). An electrocardiogram (EKG) verifies the death of the prisoner. App. 764. Only one Kentucky prisoner, Eddie Lee Harper, has been executed since the Commonwealth adopted lethal injection. There were no reported problems at Harper's execution.
Petitioners Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling were each convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld their convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See Baze v. Commonwealth, 965 S. W. 2d 817, 819–820, 826 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U. S. 1083 (1998) ; Bowling v. Commonwealth, 873 S. W. 2d 175, 176–177, 182 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 862 (1994) .
After exhausting their state and federal collateral remedies, Baze and Bowling sued three state officials in the Franklin Circuit Court for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, seeking to have Kentucky's lethal injection protocol declared unconstitutional. After a 7-day bench trial during which the trial court received the testimony of approximately 20 witnesses, including numerous experts, the court upheld the protocol, finding there to be minimal risk of various claims of improper administration of the protocol. App. 765–769. On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court stated that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment when it "creates a substantial risk of wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, torture or lingering death." 217 S. W. 3d 207, 209 (2006). Applying that standard, the court affirmed. Id., at 212.
We granted certiorari to determine whether Kentucky's lethal injection protocol satisfies the Eighth Amendment . 551 U. S. ___ (2007). We hold that it does.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment , see Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660, 666 (1962) , provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." We begin with the principle, settled by Gregg, that capital punishment is constitutional. See 428 U. S., at 177 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). It necessarily follows that there must be a means of carrying it out. Some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution—no matter how humane—if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure. It is clear, then, that the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions.
Petitioners do not claim that it does. Rather, they contend that the Eighth Amendment prohibits procedures that create an "unnecessary risk" of pain. Brief for Petitioners 38. Specifically, they argue that courts must evaluate "(a) the severity of pain risked, (b) the likelihood of that pain occurring, and (c) the extent to which alternative means are feasible, either by modifying existing execution procedures or adopting alternative procedures." Ibid. Petitioners envision that the quantum of risk necessary to make out an Eighth Amendment claim will vary according to the severity of the pain and the availability of alternatives, Reply Brief for Petitioners 23–24, n. 9, but that the risk must be "significant" to trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny, see Brief for Petitioners 39–40; Reply Brief for Petitioners 25–26.
Kentucky responds that this "unnecessary risk" standard is tantamount to a requirement that States adopt the " 'least risk' " alternative in carrying out an execution, a standard the Commonwealth contends will cast recurring constitutional doubt on any procedure adopted by the States. Brief for Respondents 29, 35. Instead, Kentucky urges the Court to approve the " 'substantial risk' " test used by the courts below. Id., at 34–35.
This Court has never invalidated a State's chosen procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130 (1879) , we upheld a sentence to death by firing squad imposed by a territorial court, rejecting the argument that such a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Id., at 134–135. We noted there the difficulty of "defin[ing] with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted." Id., at 135–136. Rather than undertake such an effort, the Wilkerson Court simply noted that "it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, . . . and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden" by the Eighth Amendment . Id., at 136. By way of example, the Court cited cases from England in which "terror, pain, or disgrace were sometimes superadded" to the sentence, such as where the condemned was "embowelled alive, beheaded, and quartered," or instances of "public dissection in murder, and burning alive." Id., at 135. In contrast, we observed that the firing squad was routinely used as a method of execution for military officers. Id., at 137. What each of the forbidden punishments had in common was the deliberate infliction of pain for the sake of pain—"superadd[ing]" pain to the death sentence through torture and the like.
We carried these principles further in In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436 (1890) . There we rejected an opportunity to incorporate the Eighth Amendment against the States in a challenge to the first execution by electrocution, to be carried out by the State of New York. Id., at 449. In passing over that question, however, we observed that "[p]unishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life." Id., at 447. We noted that the New York statute adopting electrocution as a method of execution "was passed in the effort to devise a more humane method of reaching the result." Ibid.
Petitioners do not claim that lethal injection or the proper administration of the particular protocol adopted by Kentucky by themselves constitute the cruel or wanton infliction of pain. Quite the contrary, they concede that "if performed properly," an execution carried out under Kentucky's procedures would be "humane and constitutional." Brief for Petitioners 31. That is because, as counsel for petitioners admitted at oral argument, proper administration of the first drug, sodium thiopental, eliminates any meaningful risk that a prisoner would experience pain from the subsequent injections of pancuronium and potassium chloride. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5; App. 493–494 (testimony of petitioners' expert that, if sodium thiopental is "properly administered" under the protocol, "[i]n virtually every case, then that would be a humane death").
Instead, petitioners claim that there is a significant risk that the procedures will not be properly followed—in particular, that the sodium thiopental will not be properly administered to achieve its intended effect—resulting in severe pain when the other chemicals are administered. Our cases recognize that subjecting individuals to a risk of future harm—not simply actually inflicting pain—can qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. To establish that such exposure violates the Eighth Amendment , however, the conditions presenting the risk must be "sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering," and give rise to "sufficiently imminent dangers." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25, 33, 34–35 (1993) (emphasis added). We have explained that to prevail on such a claim there must be a "substantial risk of serious harm," an "objectively intolerable risk of harm" that prevents prison officials from pleading that they were "subjectively blameless for purposes of the Eighth Amendment ." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825 , and n. 9 (1994).
Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of "objectively intolerable risk of harm" that qualifies as cruel and unusual. In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459 (1947) , a plurality of the Court upheld a second attempt at executing a prisoner by electrocution after a mechanical malfunction had interfered with the first attempt. The principal opinion noted that "[a]ccidents happen for which no man is to blame," id., at 462, and concluded that such "an accident, with no suggestion of malevolence," id., at 463, did not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation, id., at 463–464.
As Justice Frankfurter noted in a separate opinion based on the Due Process Clause, however, "a hypothetical situation" involving "a series of abortive attempts at electrocution" would present a different case. Id., at 471 (concurring opinion). In terms of our present Eighth Amendment analysis, such a situation—unlike an "innocent misadventure," id., at 470—would demonstrate an "objectively intolerable risk of harm" that officials may not ignore. See Farmer, 511 U. S., at 846, and n. 9. In other words, an isolated mishap alone does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation, precisely because such an event, while regrettable, does not suggest cruelty, or that the procedure at issue gives rise to a "substantial risk of serious harm." Id., at 842.
Much of petitioners' case rests on the contention that they have identified a significant risk of harm that can be eliminated by adopting alternative procedures, such as a one-drug protocol that dispenses with the use of pancuronium and potassium chloride, and additional monitoring by trained personnel to ensure that the first dose of sodium thiopental has been adequately delivered. Given what our cases have said about the nature of the risk of harm that is actionable under the Eighth Amendment , a condemned prisoner cannot successfully challenge a State's method of execution merely by showing a slightly or marginally safer alternative.
Permitting an Eighth Amendment violation to be established on such a showing would threaten to transform courts into boards of inquiry charged with determining "best practices" for executions, with each ruling supplanted by another round of litigation touting a new and improved methodology. Such an approach finds no support in our cases, would embroil the courts in ongoing scientific controversies beyond their expertise, and would substantially intrude on the role of state legislatures in implementing their execution procedures—a role that by all accounts the States have fulfilled with an earnest desire to provide for a progressively more humane manner of death. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 562 (1979) ("The wide range of 'judgment calls' that meet constitutional and statutory requirements are confided to officials outside of the Judicial Branch of Government"). Accordingly, we reject petitioners' proposed "unnecessary risk" standard, as well as the dissent's "untoward" risk variation. See post, at 2, 11 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.).2
Instead, the proffered alternatives must effectively address a "substantial risk of serious harm." Farmer, supra, at 842. To qualify, the alternative procedure must be feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. If a State refuses to adopt such an alternative in the face of these documented advantages, without a legitimate penological justification for adhering to its current method of execution, then a State's refusal to change its method can be viewed as "cruel and unusual" under the Eighth Amendment .3
In applying these standards to the facts of this case, we note at the outset that it is difficult to regard a practice as "objectively intolerable" when it is in fact widely tolerated. Thirty-six States that sanction capital punishment have adopted lethal injection as the preferred method of execution. The Federal Government uses lethal injection as well. See supra, at 3–4, and n. 1. This broad consensus goes not just to the method of execution, but also to the specific three-drug combination used by Kentucky. Thirty States, as well as the Federal Government, use a series of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, in varying amounts. See supra, at 4. No State uses or has ever used the alternative one-drug protocol belatedly urged by petitioners. This consensus is probative but not conclusive with respect to that aspect of the alternatives proposed by petitioners.
In order to meet their "heavy burden" of showing that Kentucky's procedure is "cruelly inhumane," Gregg, 428 U. S., at 175 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), petitioners point to numerous aspects of the protocol that they contend create opportunities for error. Their claim hinges on the improper administration of the first drug, sodium thiopental. It is uncontested that, failing a proper dose of sodium thiopental that would render the prisoner unconscious, there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of suffocation from the administration of pancuronium bromide and pain from the injection of potassium chloride. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. We agree with the state trial court and State Supreme Court, however, that petitioners have not shown that the risk of an inadequate dose of the first drug is substantial. And we reject the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires Kentucky to adopt the untested alternative procedures petitioners have identified.
Petitioners contend that there is a risk of improper administration of thiopental because the doses are difficult to mix into solution form and load into syringes; because the protocol fails to establish a rate of injection, which could lead to a failure of the IV; because it is possible that the IV catheters will infiltrate into surrounding tissue, causing an inadequate dose to be delivered to the vein; because of inadequate facilities and training; and because Kentucky has no reliable means of monitoring the anesthetic depth of the prisoner after the sodium thiopental has been administered. Brief for Petitioners 12–20.
As for the risk that the sodium thiopental would be improperly prepared, petitioners contend that Kentucky employs untrained personnel who are unqualified to calculate and mix an adequate dose, especially in light of the omission of volume and concentration amounts from the written protocol. Id., at 45–46. The state trial court, however, specifically found that "[i]f the manufacturers' instructions for reconstitution of Sodium Thiopental are followed, . . . there would be minimal risk of improper mixing, despite converse testimony that a layperson would have difficulty performing this task." App. 761. We cannot say that this finding is clearly erroneous, see Hernandez v. New York, 500 U. S. 352, 366 (1991) (plurality opinion), particularly when that finding is substantiated by expert testimony describing the task of reconstituting powder sodium thiopental into solution form as "[n]ot difficult at all. … You take a liquid, you inject it into a vial with the powder, then you shake it up until the powder dissolves and, you're done. The instructions are on the package insert." 5 Tr. 695 (Apr. 19, 2005).
Likewise, the asserted problems related to the IV lines do not establish a sufficiently substantial risk of harm to meet the requirements of the Eighth Amendment . Kentucky has put in place several important safeguards to ensure that an adequate dose of sodium thiopental is delivered to the condemned prisoner. The most significant of these is the written protocol's requirement that members of the IV team must have at least one year of professional experience as a certified medical assistant, phlebotomist, EMT, paramedic, or military corpsman. App. 984. Kentucky currently uses a phlebotomist and an EMT, personnel who have daily experience establishing IV catheters for inmates in Kentucky's prison population. Id., at 273–274; Tr. of Oral Arg. 27–28. Moreover, these IV team members, along with the rest of the execution team, participate in at least 10 practice sessions per year. App. 984. These sessions, required by the written protocol, encompass a complete walk-through of the execution procedures, including the siting of IV catheters into volunteers. Ibid. In addition, the protocol calls for the IV team to establish both primary and backup lines and to prepare two sets of the lethal injection drugs before the execution commences. Id., at 975. These redundant measures ensure that if an insufficient dose of sodium thiopental is initially administered through the primary line, an additional dose can be given through the backup line before the last two drugs are injected. Id., at 279–280, 337–338, 978–979.
The IV team has one hour to establish both the primary and backup IVs, a length of time the trial court found to be "not excessive but rather necessary," id., at 762, contrary to petitioners' claim that using an IV inserted after any "more than ten or fifteen minutes of unsuccessful attempts is dangerous because the IV is almost certain to be unreliable," Brief for Petitioners 47. And, in any event, merely because the protocol gives the IV team one hour to establish intravenous access does not mean that team members are required to spend the entire hour in a futile attempt to do so. The qualifications of the IV team also substantially reduce the risk of IV infiltration.
In addition, the presence of the warden and deputy warden in the execution chamber with the prisoner allows them to watch for signs of IV problems, including infiltration. Three of the Commonwealth's medical experts testified that identifying signs of infiltration would be "very obvious," even to the average person, because of the swelling that would result. App. 385–386. See id., at 353, 600–601. Kentucky's protocol specifically requires the warden to redirect the flow of chemicals to the backup IV site if the prisoner does not lose consciousness within 60 seconds. Id., at 978–979. In light of these safeguards, we cannot say that the risks identified by petitioners are so substantial or imminent as to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.
Nor does Kentucky's failure to adopt petitioners' proposed alternatives demonstrate that the Commonwealth's execution procedure is cruel and unusual.
First, petitioners contend that Kentucky could switch from a three-drug protocol to a one-drug protocol by using a single dose of sodium thiopental or other barbiturate. Brief for Petitioners 51–57. That alternative was not proposed to the state courts below.4 As a result, we are left without any findings on the effectiveness of petitioners' barbiturate-only protocol, despite scattered references in the trial testimony to the sole use of sodium thiopental or pentobarbital as a preferred method of execution. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 18, n. 6.
In any event, the Commonwealth's continued use of the three-drug protocol cannot be viewed as posing an "objectively intolerable risk" when no other State has adopted the one-drug method and petitioners proffered no study showing that it is an equally effective manner of imposing a death sentence. See App. 760–761, n. 8 ("Plaintiffs have not presented any scientific study indicating a better method of execution by lethal injection"). Indeed, the State of Tennessee, after reviewing its execution procedures, rejected a proposal to adopt a one-drug protocol using sodium thiopental. The State concluded that the one-drug alternative would take longer than the three-drug method and that the "required dosage of sodium thiopental would be less predictable and more variable when it is used as the sole mechanism for producing death . . . ." Workman, 486 F. 3d, at 919 (Appendix A). We need not endorse the accuracy of those conclusions to note simply that the comparative efficacy of a one-drug method of execution is not so well established that Kentucky's failure to adopt it constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment .
Petitioners also contend that Kentucky should omit the second drug, pancuronium bromide, because it serves no therapeutic purpose while suppressing muscle movements that could reveal an inadequate administration of the first drug. The state trial court, however, specifically found that pancuronium serves two purposes. First, it prevents involuntary physical movements during unconsciousness that may accompany the injection of potassium chloride. App. 763. The Commonwealth has an interest in preserving the dignity of the procedure, especially where convulsions or seizures could be misperceived as signs of consciousness or distress. Second, pancuronium stops respiration, hastening death. Ibid. Kentucky's decision to include the drug does not offend the Eighth Amendment .5
Petitioners' barbiturate-only protocol, they contend, is not untested; it is used routinely by veterinarians in putting animals to sleep. Moreover, 23 States, including Kentucky, bar veterinarians from using a neuromuscular paralytic agent like pancuronium bromide, either expressly or, like Kentucky, by specifically directing the use of a drug like sodium pentobarbital. See Brief for Dr. Kevin Concannon et al. as Amici Curiae 18, n. 5. If pancuronium is too cruel for animals, the argument goes, then it must be too cruel for the condemned inmate. Whatever rhetorical force the argument carries, see Workman, supra, at 909 (describing the comparison to animal euthanasia as "more of a debater's point"), it overlooks the States' legitimate interest in providing for a quick, certain death. In the Netherlands, for example, where physician-assisted euthanasia is permitted, the Royal Dutch Society for the Advancement of Pharmacy recommends the use of a muscle relaxant (such as pancuronium dibromide) in addition to thiopental in order to prevent a prolonged, undignified death. See Kimsma, Euthanasia and Euthanizing Drugs in The Netherlands, reprinted in Drug Use in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia 193, 200, 204 (M. Battin & A. Lipman eds. 1996). That concern may be less compelling in the veterinary context, and in any event other methods approved by veterinarians—such as stunning the animal or severing its spinal cord, see 6 Tr. 758–759 (Apr. 20, 2005)—make clear that veterinary practice for animals is not an appropriate guide to humane practices for humans.
Petitioners also fault the Kentucky protocol for lacking a systematic mechanism for monitoring the "anesthetic depth" of the prisoner. Under petitioners' scheme, qualified personnel would employ monitoring equipment, such as a Bispectral Index (BIS) monitor, blood pressure cuff, or EKG to verify that a prisoner has achieved sufficient unconsciousness before injecting the final two drugs. The visual inspection performed by the warden and deputy warden, they maintain, is an inadequate substitute for the more sophisticated procedures they envision. Brief for Petitioners 19, 58.
At the outset, it is important to reemphasize that a proper dose of thiopental obviates the concern that a prisoner will not be sufficiently sedated. All the experts who testified at trial agreed on this point. The risks of failing to adopt additional monitoring procedures are thus even more "remote" and attenuated than the risks posed by the alleged inadequacies of Kentucky's procedures designed to ensure the delivery of thiopental. See Hamilton v. Jones, 472 F. 3d 814, 817 (CA10 2007) (per curiam); Taylor v. Crawford, 487 F. 3d 1072, 1084 (CA8 2007).
But more than this, Kentucky's expert testified that a blood pressure cuff would have no utility in assessing the level of the prisoner's unconsciousness following the introduction of sodium thiopental, which depresses circulation. App. 578. Furthermore, the medical community has yet to endorse the use of a BIS monitor, which measures brain function, as an indication of anesthetic awareness. American Society of Anesthesiologists, Practice Advisory for Intraoperative Awareness and Brain Function Monitoring, 104 Anesthesiology 847, 855 (Apr. 2006); see Brown v. Beck, 445 F. 3d 752, 754–755 (CA4 2006) (Michael, J., dissenting). The asserted need for a professional anesthesiologist to interpret the BIS monitor readings is nothing more than an argument against the entire procedure, given that both Kentucky law, see Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §431.220(3), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' own ethical guidelines, see Brief for American Society of Anesthesiologists as Amicus Curiae 2–3, prohibit anesthesiologists from participating in capital punishment. Nor is it pertinent that the use of a blood pressure cuff and EKG is "the standard of care in surgery requiring anesthesia," as the dissent points out. Post, at 6. Petitioners have not shown that these supplementary procedures, drawn from a different context, are necessary to avoid a substantial risk of suffering.
The dissent believes that rough-and-ready tests for checking consciousness—calling the inmate's name, brushing his eyelashes, or presenting him with strong, noxious odors—could materially decrease the risk of administering the second and third drugs before the sodium thiopental has taken effect. See ibid. Again, the risk at issue is already attenuated, given the steps Kentucky has taken to ensure the proper administration of the first drug. Moreover, the scenario the dissent posits involves a level of unconsciousness allegedly sufficient to avoid detection of improper administration of the anesthesia under Kentucky's procedure, but not sufficient to prevent pain. See post, at 9–10. There is no indication that the basic tests the dissent advocates can make such fine distinctions. If these tests are effective only in determining whether the sodium thiopental has entered the inmate's bloodstream, see post, at 6, the record confirms that the visual inspection of the IV site under Kentucky's procedure achieves that objective. See supra, at 17.6
The dissent would continue the stay of these executions (and presumably the many others held in abeyance pending decision in this case) and send the case back to the lower courts to determine whether such added measures redress an "untoward" risk of pain. Post, at 11. But an inmate cannot succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim simply by showing one more step the State could take as a failsafe for other, independently adequate measures. This approach would serve no meaningful purpose and would frustrate the State's legitimate interest in carrying out a sentence of death in a timely manner. See Baze v. Parker, 371 F. 3d 310, 317 (CA6 2004) (petitioner Baze sentenced to death in 1994); Bowling v. Parker, 138 F. Supp. 2d 821, 840 (ED Ky. 2001) (petitioner Bowling sentenced to death in 1991).
Justice Stevens suggests that our opinion leaves the disposition of other cases uncertain, see post, at 1, but the standard we set forth here resolves more challenges than he acknowledges. A stay of execution may not be granted on grounds such as those asserted here unless the condemned prisoner establishes that the State's lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. He must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives. A State with a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets this standard.
* * *
Reasonable people of good faith disagree on the morality and efficacy of capital punishment, and for many who oppose it, no method of execution would ever be acceptable. But as Justice Frankfurter stressed in Resweber, "[o]ne must be on guard against finding in personal disapproval a reflection of more or less prevailing condemnation." 329 U. S., at 471 (concurring opinion). This Court has ruled that capital punishment is not prohibited under our Constitution, and that the States may enact laws specifying that sanction. "[T]he power of a State to pass laws means little if the State cannot enforce them." McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 491 (1991) . State efforts to implement capital punishment must certainly comply with the Eighth Amendment , but what that Amendment prohibits is wanton exposure to "objectively intolerable risk," Farmer, 511 U. S., at 846, and n. 9, not simply the possibility of pain.
Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available, one it shares with 35 other States. Petitioners agree that, if administered as intended, that procedure will result in a painless death. The risks of maladministration they have suggested—such as improper mixing of chemicals and improper setting of IVs by trained and experienced personnel—cannot remotely be characterized as "objectively intolerable." Kentucky's decision to adhere to its protocol despite these asserted risks, while adopting safeguards to protect against them, cannot be viewed as probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the Eighth Amendment . Finally, the alternative that petitioners belatedly propose has problems of its own, and has never been tried by a single State.
Throughout our history, whenever a method of execution has been challenged in this Court as cruel and unusual, the Court has rejected the challenge. Our society has nonetheless steadily moved to more humane methods of carrying out capital punishment. The firing squad, hanging, the electric chair, and the gas chamber have each in turn given way to more humane methods, culminating in today's consensus on lethal injection. Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 503 U. S. 653, 657 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting); App. 755. The broad framework of the Eighth Amendment has accommodated this progress toward more humane methods of execution, and our approval of a particular method in the past has not precluded legislatures from taking the steps they deem appropriate, in light of new developments, to ensure humane capital punishment. There is no reason to suppose that today's decision will be any different.7
The judgment below concluding that Kentucky's procedure is consistent with the Eighth Amendment is, accordingly, affirmed.
It is so ordered.
1 Twenty-seven of the 36 States that currently provide for capital punishment require execution by lethal injection as the sole method. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13–704 (West 2001); Ark. Code Ann. §5–4–617 (2006); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §18–1.3–1202 (2007); Conn. Gen. Stat. §54–100 (2007); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §4209 (2006 Supp.); Ga. Code Ann. §17–10–38 (2004); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/119–5 (West 2006); Ind. Code §35–38–6–1 (West 2004); Kan. Stat. Ann. §22–4001 (2006 Cum. Supp.); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §431.220 (West 2006); La. Stat. Ann. §15:569 (West 2005); Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. §2–303 (Lexis Supp. 2007); Miss. Code Ann. §99–19–51 (2007); Mont. Code Ann. §46–19–103 (2007); Nev. Rev. Stat. §176.355 (2007); N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:49–2 (West 2007) (repealed Dec. 17, 2007); N. M. Stat. Ann. §31–14–11 (2000); N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §15–187 (Lexis 2007); N. Y. Correc. Law Ann. §658 (West 2003) (held unconstitutional in People v. LaValle, 3 N. Y. 3d 88, 130–131, 817 N. E. 2d 341, 367 (2004)); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2949.22 (Lexis 2006); Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §1014 (West 2001); Ore. Rev. Stat. §137.473 (2003); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 61, §3004 (Purdon 1999); S. D. Codified Laws §23A–27A–32 (Supp. 2007); Tenn. Code Ann. §40–23–114 (2006); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 43.14 (Vernon 2006 Supp. Pamphlet); Utah Code Ann. §77–18–5.5 (Lexis Supp. 2007); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7–13–904 (2007). Nine States allow for lethal injection in addition to an alternative method, such as electrocution, see Ala. Code §§15–18–82 to 82.1 (Supp. 2007); Fla. Stat. §922.105 (2006); S. C. Code Ann. §24–3–530 (2007); Va. Code Ann. §53.1–234 (Lexis Supp. 2007), hanging, see N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §630:5 (2007); Wash. Rev. Code §10.95.180 (2006), lethal gas, see Cal. Penal Code Ann. §3604 (West 2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. §546.720 (2007 Cum. Supp.), or firing squad, see Idaho Code §19–2716 (Lexis 2004). Nebraska is the only State whose statutes specify electrocution as the sole method of execution, see Neb. Rev. Stat. §29–2532 (1995), but the Nebraska Supreme Court recently struck down that method under the Nebraska Constitution, see State v. Mata, No. S–05–1268, 2008 WL 351695, *40 (2008). Although it is undisputed that the States using lethal injection adopted the protocol first developed by Oklahoma without significant independent review of the procedure, it is equally undisputed that, in moving to lethal injection, the States were motivated by a desire to find a more humane alternative to then-existing methods. See Fordham Brief 2–3. In this regard, Kentucky was no different. See id., at 29–30 (quoting statement by the State Representative who sponsored the bill to replace electrocution with lethal injection in Kentucky: "if we are going to do capital punishment, it needs to be done in the most humane manner" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2 The difficulties inherent in such approaches are exemplified by the controversy surrounding the study of lethal injection published in the April 2005 edition of the British medical journal the Lancet. After examining thiopental concentrations in toxicology reports based on blood samples drawn from 49 executed inmates, the study concluded that "most of the executed inmates had concentrations that would not be expected to produce a surgical plane of anaesthesia, and 21 (43%) had concentrations consistent with consciousness." Koniaris, Zimmers, Lubarsky, & Sheldon, Inadequate Anaesthesia in Lethal Injection for Execution, 365 Lancet 1412, 1412–1413. The study was widely cited around the country in motions to stay executions and briefs on the merits. See, e.g., Denno, The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Has Dismantled the Death Penalty, 76 Ford. L. Rev. 49, 105, n. 366 (2007) (collecting cases in which claimants cited the Lancet study). But shortly after the Lancet study appeared, peer responses by seven medical researchers criticized the methodology supporting the original conclusions. See Groner, Inadequate Anaesthesia in Lethal Injection for Execution, 366 Lancet 1073–1074 (Sept. 2005). These researchers noted that because the blood samples were taken "several hours to days after" the inmates' deaths, the postmortem concentrations of thiopental—a fat-soluble compound that passively diffuses from blood into tissue—could not be relied on as accurate indicators for concentrations during life. Id., at 1073. The authors of the original study responded to defend their methodology. Id., at 1074–1076. See also post, at 2–4 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). We do not purport to take sides in this dispute. We cite it only to confirm that a "best practices" approach, calling for the weighing of relative risks without some measure of deference to a State's choice of execution procedures, would involve the courts in debatable matters far exceeding their expertise.
3 Justice Thomas agrees that courts have neither the authority nor the expertise to function as boards of inquiry determining best practices for executions, see post, at 9 (opinion concurring in judgment) (quoting this opinion); post, at 13, but contends that the standard we adopt inevitably poses such concerns. In our view, those concerns are effectively addressed by the threshold requirement reflected in our cases of a " 'substantial risk of serious harm' " or an " 'objectively intolerable risk of harm,' " see supra, at 11, and by the substantive requirements in the articulated standard.
4 Petitioners did allude to an "alternative chemical or combination of chemicals" that could replace Kentucky's three-drug protocol in their post-trial brief, see App. 684, but based on the arguments presented there, it is clear they intended to refer only to other, allegedly less painful drugs that could substitute for potassium chloride as a heart-stopping agent, see id., at 701. Likewise, the only alternatives to the three-drug protocol presented to the Kentucky Supreme Court were those that replaced potassium chloride with other drugs for inducing cardiac arrest, or that omitted pancuronium bromide, or that added an analgesic to relieve pain. See Brief for Appellants in No. 2005–SC–00543, pp. 38, 39, 40.
5 Justice Stevens's conclusion that the risk addressed by pancuronium bromide is "vastly outweighed" by the risk of pain at issue here, see post, at 3 (opinion concurring in judgment), depends, of course, on the magnitude of the risk of such pain. As explained, that risk is insignificant in light of the safeguards Kentucky has adopted.
6 Resisting this point, the dissent rejects the expert testimony that problems with the intravenous administration of sodium thiopental would be obvious, see post, at 10, testimony based not only on the pain that would result from injecting the first drug into tissue rather than the vein, see App. 600–601, but also on the swelling that would occur, see id., at 353. See also id., at 385–386. Neither of these expert conclusions was disputed below.
7 We do not agree with Justice Stevens that anything in our opinion undermines or remotely addresses the validity of capital punishment. See post, at 11. The fact that society has moved to progressively more humane methods of execution does not suggest that capital punishment itself no longer serves valid purposes; we would not have supposed that the case for capital punishment was stronger when it was imposed predominantly by hanging or electrocution.


text:
Finding Strength In My Local Community Program
On Monday, April 2nd 2012, I had the privilege of being asked to speak at a Sharsheret Supports Breast Cancer Symposium at the Ruth Rales Jewish Family Service in Delray Beach, Florida. This one of a kind program was co-sponsored by 10 large companies and organizations, including our own, Sharsheret.
More than 150 community members attended the event and my breakout workshop on Sharsheret's programs was well attended by women, young and old. I was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in May of 2006, just 7 months after my mother passed away from breast cancer. As a motivational speaker and powerful advocate of personal empowerment before, during, and after illness, I believe that it is important to teach other women to grab hold of their courage, step out on faith, and be the best they can be when faced with a diagnosis of breast cancer. To be a Cancer Warrior.
Most of the women who attended this extraordinary program were breast cancer survivors. I was overwhelmed by their stories. In particular, one woman told us the story of her 23 year-old daughter who was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer and was BRCA Positive. Thanks to Sharsheret, this young girl does not have to face her diagnosis alone. She has an organization that can offer peer support, up to date information about her treatment, access to a genetic counselor, support for her caregivers, and a link to other healthcare professionals.
To say the least I am grateful for having won my battle, but also humbled and amazed at the fragility of life. I am awed by the women before me who have also won this battle. I celebrate the courage of those we have lost.
I now understand that when you are faced with a challenge in life, you have a choice: to find the hero within, or to give up. By choosing to uncover your own courage, strength, and determination, you become a role model for others.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This site is dedicated to those who are serious about security - specifically, Microsoft SQL Server security. Whatever your feelings about Microsoft, the bottom line is that these servers are showing up everywhere and its time we learned how to properly secure them. At this site we do just that. We find problems, post solutions, and get the word out. If anyone tells you that security ends with the OS, they are dead wrong. Many times excellent network and host-based security has been bypassed exposing the very heart of the enterprise: all because of poor SQL Server configuration.
"There is no 'patch' for stupidity."


text:
Former Friends star Matt LeBlanc faced a "dark time" following the end of the series as he dealt while a string of issues in his personal life.
The actor wrapped a 10-season run as Joey Tribbiani on the hit sitcom, but immediately signed up for a spin-off titled Joey, which was critically panned and subsequently cancelled in 2006 after just two seasons.
In an interview with the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, LeBlanc admits the high expectations to continue the legacy of Friends was too much to handle on his own.
He explains, "It was a dark time. The show had an unfair amount of pressure on it. It was meant to fill the shoes of Friends. But when you have six pairs of feet, and you take away five, it's harder to walk."
In addition, LeBlanc was also dealing with troubles in his personal life the same year Joey was cancelled, as he officially split from ex-wife Melissa MCKnight, and their daughter, Marina, was diagnosed with a with a form of dysplasia, a brain disorder that affects neurological functions, at just eight months old.
He continues, "I didn't feel like being funny. I had a lot going on in my personal life... I don't know if my marriage was doomed to fail. It was a great relationship once. Maybe it was my daughter's diagnosis. Maybe I got lost, focused on my work too much."


text:
Adil Tuğyan, an iTEC teacher from Turkey who has been closely involved with the project for a number of years, has created an emaze presentation to explain to teaches exactly how the project works.
Three teachers from three different countries - Spain, France, and Portugal - share their stories on how iTEC Learning Activities have helped them in introducing the principle of innovation to their teaching practice.
One of the aim of this project is to have the students ability to describe themselves and talk about their school life by using AR app.On the other hand,one should believe schools must move beyond a focus on basic competency in core subjects to promoting understanding of academic content at much higher levels by weaving 21st century interdisciplinary themes into core subjects:
At a glance
Lesson objectives
Give a simple description of the school staff and the school model as a short series of simple phrases and sentences by using "Simple Present Tense"
A "walk-through" of the lesson
The magical app "Aurasma" was used for making school bulletin board. The bulletin board made as for the new comers to the school. Teams are formed with team up.The school director came to the class and requested from the students to make a bulletin board of the school.This was inspiring for them. They have dreamt it and explored the school and the tools.Personally owned devices are brought to the class (BYOD) by the students.The teacher's role here was to give instructions and record activiesthe .They interviewed with teachers to get information about their school life and likes-dislikes. Some group of the students gathered information about the building.They used these informations to map them. The students who had the information about the teachers used it to animate them with "Crazy Talk" with their own voice. The other group of students used Sketchup for the building and animate themselves introducing the school. The aniamations about the staff and school building used as "overlays". Then they made teacher posters and some other made floor plan posters created by sketchup . These posters are used as trigger images. Posters sticked on the bulletin board in a hall way.When they hover over their tablet or smart phones on the images of the posters, the student created videos (animations) will automatically begin playing. It was emazig for them when the rest of the school got a show of it by the pilot students.
iTEC technologies and other tools used
Teacher feedback
The Aurasma app puts the power of augmented reality into my class.The students can simply be amazed with only a smart device, the free aurasma app, and trigger images, animations.The activities were the new ways to enhance learning and expand the horizons of students in an engaging and interactive way.Tablets and smart phones are being used in the classess nowadays.These devices are an integral part of more classrooms every day and are being used to complete class activities and participate in classroom collaborations.
The Students actively took role in the activities and motivated. The emphasis was on the students'obtained and selfexperiences. They valued themselves as the main actors of their work. They were involved in their own pace of learning processess, critisized co-workers and themselves.They have collaborated and shared, critisized other's work.The 21st cetury skills are mastered by the students.The main problems faced were about curriculum and learning environments during the project.
Students feedback
They have said that they are extremely emazed and learned from the activities.They have said that they can simply be amazed with only a smart device,tablet and the aurasma app. They all have requested to do the project activities instead of the other lectures.They wished to have the other lessons to be like İTEC project.
Key innovations identified
The key innovations: Developing,implementing and communicating new ideas to others effectively.Being open and responsive to new and diverse perspectives; incorporating group input and feedback into the work. Demonstrating originality and inventiveness in work and understand the real world limits to adopting new ideas
Success factors
View failure as an opportunity to learn; understand that creativity and innovation is a long-term.Learning new technology, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, self awareness of globalization.
Successful outcomes
The students thaught creativily and worked with other students. They have gained the behaviors of the objectives for the curriculum. It is observed that learning and innovation skills of the students increasingly are being recognized as the skills that separate students who are prepared for increasingly complex life and work environments in the 21st century, and those who are not. A focus on creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration has experienced during the project to preparestudents for the future.
Tips and advice to other teachers
I think the most core of success in teaching and learning environments reasults from "Personal Development" of teachers.A teacher should have the ability to gain the 21st century skills to the students.
İTEC Project website: http://tevfikileri-middleschool-itec5.wikispaces.com/
iTEC Augmented School Staff Bullettin Board Video-Show
iTECAugmented School Staff Bulletin Board Presentation
iTEC Augmented Teacher Poster Making:
Animating Teachers
Children develop video to help enhance understanding of action verbs, pronouns, nouns, proper nouns, and adjectives and some other parts of speech to develop oral fluency using creative story –like plots. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation
Before teacher allows for students to group up and collaborate, he/she should show students copy of rubric, so they know what is expected from project.
The students will spend today brainstorming ideas with their group members on how to introduce/review grammar topic for classmates.
Second Week/Explore
Mini-lesson: How to Use Flip Video?
Students will learn the important parts of the flip video. I will use the promethean board and document camera to help zoom in and out to see the buttons on flip video.
The students will then spend rest of time getting a chance to use flip videos for short little clips to help become comfortable with flip videos.
Third and Fourth Weeks/Reflect
Students will spend these days discussing and creating their videos. Each group will have the chance to use different flip videos to create best picture of video. The teacher will conference with each group at least two more times to make sure they are on task, working together, and collaborating ideas. The teacher makes sure that the group is identifying grammar topic, giving examples, showing the examples using concrete items, and leaving the classmates to use new knowledge to apply to work. Map , Students use mindmiester to organize their ideas and the parts of speech they are to use in their videos to get a clear plan of the activities and features will be presented through the videos.
Fifth and Sixth Weeks/Make
Students with teacher's help will edit their videos. This gives the children a chance to look at what they have and to decide on what to keep for video to teach classmates about grammar topic.
Seventh and eighth Weeks/ Ask and Reflect
Students will present their videos to classmates first and then the 9th grade students to get their feedback so as to make changes where necessary.They get the students back and take notes and and make slight changes on their products. Finally the videos will be presented to other English teachers to observe their relevance.
9th Week /Show
After taking students and teachers' feedback ,the teams create their final videos to be presented to parents school staff and prople from the directorate of National Education at a school event organized at the school conference center
The groups carried out all the tasks in every stages very successfully and achived desired results and outcomes.The only serious challenge we confronted was the lack of the equipment existed at our school and to overcome this challenge I arranged a flexible timetable for the groups to work on their design prototypes comfortably.The time alloted for the activities was not enough for groups practices so I had to arrange some extra hours on pre-defined days to enable groups to complete their tasks in time.Thanks to those arrangements the groups were able to work efficiently on their prototypes.
The students have been able to learn;
The foremost innovation is that the students created their own learning materials by themselves using both mobile and computer technologies as weel as IWBs.Creativity of the students enhanced and their integration of traditional learning with computerized 21st century learning ( Blended Learning ) as well as briging three learning activities together in one story was a perfect example of innovation.
The learning story was very clear and students were well informed before the work process.Design brief was held in an easy way so ato make students understand what they were going through.The technologies to have been used during the work process were introduced clearly and students were given time to excel in them.The groups were created taking students learning habits and abilities into consideration so the groups worked harmoniusly and shared tasks by themselves under my guidence.Flexible working hours enabled students to work effectively and the studets were asked not to go beyond the topic but think creatively and freely.A fair and pre arranged and rewarding assesment plan was one of the factors that turned our work into a success.
Teachers can easily observe how creative students can be if they are given the opportunity and right stuff. Creativity, working as a team in harmony, using technology rationally, developing sense of responsibility, learning from each other without patronizing each other, learning the process of a learning activity, making thir own decisions within their groups and having their own atonomy, assessing and reflecting each other works fairly and properly were the successful outcomes of this activity for my students.
A careful planning, taking students interests into account, flexible working hours,choosing suitable technology for their students age groups, guidence and positive feedback, letting students work on their own way and finaly a careful observation would be my tips to teachers. We should keep in mind that Change start with teachers
My students have learnt the mentality of coding system, they have also learnt they can manage lots of things by the power of imagination. They produced their own games and animations. By means of their successful contribution to the lessons, they have taken their initiative about their learning. They have gained enough knowledge on some matters, for example, how does a computer game works or how does an animation behave. To sum up, they have learnt doing, implementing and living (really) the learning process.
Students will learning computer programming for a long term goal. They are starting to learn the mentality of coding. They will be able to create their own games and instead of being technology consumers, they will start to produce technology. For a second long term goal but not very long as the first one they will start to earn money from their own games.
We implemented our learning story at ICT and software lessons. I am English Teacher but I am responsible also for ICT and sofware lessons. We have choosen the learning story of Creating a game. My students are very keen on computer games. I tried to make them produce their own games and told them you could also also earn money from your own games by unsharing it on SCRATCH.mit.edu web site. They liked it very much. Because of the lack of computers at school and at their homes we used my computers and a projection device (of the school) and some equipments (wireless, keyboards etc.) We had only a netbook, an ipad and an iphone for studies. At ICT and software Lessons we gathered at a classroom which is equiped with a projection device. Before the lessons I took a color copy of example code and instructions on it or we used ipad for instructions and netbook for doing the work. There were 16 students in my pilot classroom. Our computers were nearly enough. And one group studied with iphone to learn code system at code.org web site. At a final product we managed to produce a vocabulary quiz game, a car racing game, an underwater shark game, and tried prepare a space rocket game and some animations (an aquarium, a footballer making some movements, a dance scene) I have seen my students are enjoying very much from their learning experience and we couldn't understand how this lesson finishes nearly at a moment's notice:).
The most different situaion was students were enjoying very much from their learning experience, The challanges were all about the lack of enough knowledge on programing languages. I have tried to make it easy for my students. The others were the lack of enough computers and some equipmentss like smart board and tablets etc. For ICT and software lessons that may be the best choice of implementing the lessons and we can also produce vocabulary games animations for English language lessons. I learned about that if a program or web-2.0 tool is a real helper for students' learning, students like very much and they even don't want to give up studying on it.
We are learning by enjoyable ways really. The challanges may be not being able to reach instruction materials beacuse we live in a village. Moreover we are not so poor but our parents are villagers and they work on the farm most of the time or they are shepherds. Because of that they do not even know how to use computers and they are in the opinion of computers may distract us from our lessons. However, I liked this learning system becuse we are learing from our own experiences. I learned about that learnnig may be much enjoyable if the learing tool is really well eqiuped and provide the needs of the students'.
The success factors may be scratch's enjoyable learning environment, the attraction of computer world's new developments, and teacher's eagerness on computer science and well desires. For example, I have read 2 computer magazines and 2 computure games magazines evey month and give as gift their poster promotions etc. to the students.
In my opinion my students are more social nowadays because they see they can manage to achieve lots of things by effort and learning enjoyment, they have some ideals and skills which they will need in their future career. They believe, by means of their imagination and desire they can reach every goal.
Reading about computers and giving themselves to the attraction of computer world, taking the responsibilty of project based learning, taking the advantage of students enjoyment of learning in project based lessons, prefering to be active teachers and not to prefer being ordinary, taking radical risks by the permision of school administration and national project coordinators.
The scenario "Design and building of a terrestrial vehicle propelled by helix" was proposed in the context of the technology subject. It was carried out by learners of 2º ESO, with ages comprised between 13 and 14 years. The performance of the scenario had too well differentiated stages: design, which took 4 sessions; and building, which was completed in 9 sessions.
The project aims to have students work in groups to design and to construct a 3D object (i.e. a car).
The scenario "Design and building of a terrestrial vehicle propelled by helix" was proposed in the context of the technology subject. It was carried out by learners of 2º ESO, with ages comprised between 13 and 14 years. The proposal was made following the parameters of iTEC---Abalar-iTEC in Galicia---that has as its leiv-motiv "designing the classroom of the future".
Two classrooms with learners were involved in the scenario. Since the scenario was performed in an identical way in both groups and their characteristics were very similar, the conclusions of this report are valid for all 42 learners. In order to carry out the different activities, learners were divided on different groups of 2 or 3 members. There were 17 small groups in total.
The spaces used were: the ABALAR classroom, a computerised classroom for the design stage, and the classroom-workshop of Technology. The final testing of the prototypes was performed in the gymnasium.
The scenario involved contents from the entire curriculum of 2º ESO: the technological process; graphical design; materials, wood and metal; electricity; and the use of text processors.
This activity was made following the parameters of the iTEC project. This represented as the main initial advantage a detailed reflexion and planning of the scenario as well as of all the activities proposed. We tried---and I think we succeed—to put into practice the work philosophy of iTEC. We designed a radical scenario and a set of activities that was in accordance with the current educational trends. We got an improvement of the technological level of the students, even though we had to work hard to that end. All the above required a great effort in the preparation and tracking of the activities and in the production of documentation. This effort would only pay off if we are able to replicate this scenario in other schools. In my opinion, this should be one of the priority objectives of the people that work in the iTEC project.
Students highlight that, when they put into practice the concepts they have studied, they learn more and undertands the concepts much better. They also point out that it is difficult to work in groups because you have to deal with a lot of issues, but in the end, when they are solved, it is an optimal way of working. They also comment that this way of working is playful.
All groups were able to finish their prototypes, and the huge majority of prototypes worked well. Some of them even exceeded expectations---both teacher's expectations and their own ones--- because they were fast, or they had an aesthetic value, or they moved straight, or even because they worked (when the students did not think they would).
The level of motivation was high during the entire process, and it increased with every little achievement. The activities that they liked the most were the most formal ones such as: elaborating the list of materials every time they completed the design of the vehicle, or planning the work process. Motivation was increased by the preparation of the prototypes for the final test. There were a good atmosphere and fellowship, even when there were competitiveness too.
The complete realisation of this proposal had a certain difficulty for the level of 2º ESO, because learners from those ages find very exigent the design in a high level of detail of complex objects that afterwards they have to build. Usually, when they build objects in the classroom, they are not requested to build proposals as concrete as the one in this scenario. The 3D design was in itself a big challenge for them. In the light of the final results, and the fidelity between the vehicles designed and the prototypes they built, the scenario can be considered a success.
It is a demanding task for the students, since it is needed a previous technological training. They have to work on the theorical contents that help to design and build the object (the car). It is necessary to pay particular attention to the 3D desing so that the project may succeed.
We have worked with ecorinth objects for example with leaves and statues.
Here is our web link
Students from different countries will create a tourist guide which is supported by 3D objects. They will study inside and outside of the school , take photos upload them Google Maps and make interactive maps by using Corinth Classroom software.
Pinterest'te Yıldız adlı kullanıcının 3Discover your world! panosunu takip edin.
Francesca Panzica, a primary school teacher in northern Italy, uses iTEC learning activities and technologies to teach her class about other countries and cultures.
The pupils learned to use Google Maps, blogging tools, Google Docs, and the fundamentals of audio-visual production.


text:
Foamtech is an industry leading custom packaging company and full service foam fabricator.
We design, produce and deliver protective packaging solutions and specialize in fabricating engineered foams for both consumer and industrial applications. We also manufacture a proprietary Conductive Foam for use in packaging or handling materials that require greater protection than anti-static foam.
Foamtech has been in business for over 25 years and we have built our reputation on service. We are committed to meeting our customer's needs, no matter how big or small, at competitive prices. Contact us today for a quote, sample or to discuss your foam or packaging needs.


text:
Mass Appeal "Rhythm Roulette" With Nick Catchdubs
Posted on Feb 20th, 2014 in Downloads > Videos by Mr. Goldbar
Catchdini threw on the blindfold and hit the stacks with Mass Appeal for their Rhythm Roulette series, picking three random records from the bins at Good Records and making a beat from them on the spot. Watch it come together here, and grab the finished beat below. Check Nick next Friday (2/28) with DJ Rashad and DJ Spinn at American Museum Of Natural History's awesome One Step Beyond party.


text:
A few things might be going on here:
To find your way as quickly as possible, try searching for keywords associated with the page for which you were looking.
We encourage you to report this problem so we can correct it. Please send a message to firstname.lastname@example.com and include the address of the missing page and any other details as needed.


text:
Sold Out
Half Hard Front Wig HW045
Subcribe to back in stock notification
- Materials: Heat Safe Synthetic Fiber
- Approx. Length: 22 Inch
- Cap Size: Average
- Cap Construction: Wefted Glueless Cap
- Secure: Adjustable Straps for a Secure Fit
- Hairline: Bangs with a Skin Top Parting at the Crown
- Includes Free Wig Cap
- Note: It comes with a standard length bang for customers to trim themselves if required Because everyone has different sized foreheads and different preferences.
Weekendwigs usually use FedEx or UPS to shipping your order.
Shipping Time:
How long will it take for my order to be shipped?
Most of our wigs are in-stock and will be shipped out immediately once they are processed. However, styles in high demand and new arrival items may need additional production time.
You will be sent tracking information to the email address provided on the order.
Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com If you have any questions.


text:
Last update Aug. 17, 2019
Enzymes which are able to hydrolyze proteins.
They are found in all living beings and are an important part of digestive enzymes: pancreatic (trypsin and chymotrypsin) and gastric (pepsin)..
They are orally used for gastrointestinal disorders and topically on wounds and burns. Some (chymotrypsin) are used in cataract surgery.
There is an increasing trend on type and therapeutic uses (Craik 2011). There is no evidence of its efficacy in the treatment of post-traumatic or post-surgical inflammations or in respiratory diseases.
At latest update relevant published data on excretion into breast milk were not found.
Because the small dose used and low plasma uptake of most topical dermatological and ophthalmological preparations it is unlikely that significant amounts of it will pass into breastmilk.
Its high molecular weight turns further improbable any excretion into breastmilk.
Due to its protein nature, when orally taken it is digested by the infant's intestine, hence its absorption and passage to plasma should be nil.
The manufacturer considers it compatible with breastfeeding (AEMPS 2016).
Few studies with low levels of evidence on oral use of proteases to alleviate breast congestion have shown uneven results (ABM 2016, Mangesi 2016).
We do not have alternatives for Πεπτιδάσες since it is relatively safe.
Suggestions made at e-lactancia are done by APILAM team of health professionals, and are based on updated scientific publications. It is not intended to replace the relationship you have with your doctor but to compound it. The pharmaceutical industry contraindicates breastfeeding, mistakenly and without scientific reasons, in most of the drug data sheets.
Your contribution is essential for this service to continue to exist. We need the generosity of people like you who believe in the benefits of breastfeeding.
Thank you for helping to protect and promote breastfeeding.
Πεπτιδάσες is Proteases in Greek.
Is written in other languages:Πεπτιδάσες is also known as
Main tradenames from several countries containing Πεπτιδάσες in its composition:
Write us at firstname.lastname@example.com
e-lactancia is a resource recommended by El Parto Es Nuestro of Spain
Would you like to recommend the use of e-lactancia? Write to us at corporate mail of APILAM


text:
For years, programmability of the control plane has been dominated by APIs. From F5, that's meant iControl. First as a SOAP interface and then later as REST, iControl has afforded NetOps what its name implies: control over every aspect of a BIG-IP configuration.
That method is not going away. APIs provide the granular control many organizations need to manage their application service deployments. They are also key to integration efforts with partners and new environments.
That does not mean that APIs are the "one true way" to automate the operation of a BIG-IP. In fact, in the movement to adopt a more continuous approach to deployment of applications and application services, an alternative method has arisen. That method is declarative, in which a configuration end-state is described by the operator and responsibility for implementation off-loaded to the target system.
There are many reasons to adopt a declarative method of configuration, not the least of which is its alignment with DevOps approaches like infrastructure as code and continuous deployment. This is the goal behind F5 AS3 - to provide a declarative interface that decreases reliance on APIs and increases the ability to implement a fully automated, continuous deployment pipeline. It's more appropriate to call it configuration as code, as we're not actually building the infrastructure from code as the term implies.
AS3 is a declarative format that uses JSON key-value pairs to describe a BIG-IP configuration. From virtual IP to virtual server, to the members, pools, and nodes required, AS3 provides a simple, readable format in which to describe a configuration. Once you've got the configuration, all that's needed is to get it to the BIG-IP, where the AS3 extension will happily accept it and execute the commands necessary to turn it into a fully functional, deployed BIG-IP configuration.
Sample translation of VIP and pool description in bigip.conf as an AS3 declaration:
bigip.conf |
AS3 declaration |
ltm virtual /Common/serviceMain { destination /Common/10.0.1.10:80 ip-protocol tcp mask 255.255.255.255 pool /Common/web_pool source 0.0.0.0/0 translate-address enabled translate-port enabled } ltm pool /Common/web_pool { members { /Common/184.108.40.206:80 { address 188.8.131.52 } /Common/220.127.116.11:80 { address 184.108.40.206 } } monitor /Common/http } |
"serviceMain": { "class": "Service_HTTP", "virtualAddresses": [ "10.0.1.10" ], "pool": "web_pool" } "web_pool": { "class": "Pool", "monitors": [ "http" ], "members": [ { "servicePort": 80, "serverAddresses": [ "22.214.171.124", "126.96.36.199" ] } ] } |
The ability to describe a BIG-IP configuration in this manner enables ops to adopt a configuration as code approach to deploying application services. By taking advantage of a repository, we can automatically pull AS3 configurations for deployment. In addition to automation uses, repositories provide a more modern and integration-friendly way to version and manage configurations and enable rapid rollback in the event of a problem with the configuration.
For example, using GitHub's Webhook capabilities, we can automatically kick off a deployment upon commit of a new/updated AS3 configuration. To do this, we need a Webhook server waiting for a notification that a new service definition (AS3) has been committed. These notifications come in the form of a hook, which is a JSON object containing information about the event. Once received, the Webhook server parses the hook and retrieves the referenced AS3 from GitHub and kicks off the configuration process.
You can download the latest version of AS3 on GitHub. Documentation on deploying the AS3 extension as well as example AS3 configurations are available here.
The Webhook prototype was developed by Nathan Pearce, Developer Advocate in the Office of the CTO. For more prototypes and examples of integrating BIG-IP with CI/CD and telemetry pipelines, you can follow Nathan and F5 Networks on GitHub.


text:
If this sounds like you, you've come to the right place.
This website is where I share tips and tricks I've picked up in this hobby for the last 25 or so years. It's not rocket science, but sometimes the wheel gets reinvented one too many times in this hobby.
I do admire those that can spend several years, adding detail after detail on a single model. I truly envy the patience they possess and, more importantly: the time they have available!
Most of the techniques I use are time-saving ways to fast-forward through mundane and time consuming tasks. Because, let's face it - there are only so many hours in a day...
Little by little I'm building up a small catalog of plans for download. First out is the civil war era USS Monitor and her nemesis - the CSS Virginia. As time permits, I'll add more plans.
Current projects include a balsa PT 109 and a number of other model ship plans. Waiting in the wings are ironclads, pirate ships, torpedo boats, battleships, tugs, destroyers, a New York pilot schooner and many other.
OK, enough talk, let's build something. And don't forget to have fun doing it!


text:
SIESTA KEY'S Sol Y Mar - your paradise by the Sea! Located a few hundred feet from Siesta Key Beach! Two stunning bungalows on property; each features 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. Siesta Key duplex with private and gated Beach Access just steps away to the beautiful crystal sands and community pool located at Calini Beach Club, located in the heart of the vibrant South Siesta Key Village. Two cabana chairs located at the beach are also available for guest, if available. Propane grill on property as well as a shared hot tub! You won't need a car, with such easy and close access to the beach and across from the Village which features numerous restaurants, Including the Daiquiri Deck, bars, Pharmacy, full service grocery and much more - this is the epitome of your dream island vacation investment property! Included with your stay: Complimentary Bicycles, Beach chairs, Beach Wagon, Cooler, Beach-Towels, Free-rides around Siesta and a 7-day week office for your convenience and guest needs.
Property Name: Sol y Mar; by Beachside Management
Street Address: 1137 Sun N Sea Drive
City : Siesta Key - Florida
Postal Code : 34242
Phone: 941-203-8058
- Concierge
Check-in/Check-out Policies
This property has the following check-in and check-out times and policies:
Check-In: 4:00 PM
Check-Out: 10:00 AM
Property and Cancelation Policies :
Terms and Conditions
Minimum Age: 25 We do not allow persons under our age policies to occupy a property unless accompanied by someone over at or over age requirements.
*Minimum age requirement from February 1st through April 15th for all Beachside Managed properties, is 27 years of age.
Maximum Occupancy: 4
PAYMENT: Payment for your reservation can be made by Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover Card. All reservations require the reserving party to have a credit card on file. The first night's stay and cleaning fee, plus tax will be charged immediately upon booking. The balance will be charged in full 14 days prior to arrival. We recommend 3rd party trip insurance.
CANCELLATION POLICY: Within 14 days 100% of total revenue will be forfeited. We reserve the right to cancel any reservation, subject to issuing a full refund. In the event of a guest cancellation outside of 14 days, a $50.00 restocking fee will apply to all canceled reservations. Individual rate policies may vary.
Payment of the initial reservation charge constitutes acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. We may, in our absolute discretion, cancel the reservation if we are of the opinion that the reservation information provided is falsified or incomplete. We shall be entitled to vary, amend and/or otherwise change these terms and conditions at any time without prior notice. You shall indemnify and hold us harmless in respect of any liability, loss, damage, cost and expense of any nature arising out of, and/or in connection with the acceptance of the reservation. The reservation terms and conditions set out herein shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
A valid government issued identification or passport is required at check-in. Early check in and check out subject to additional fee and to room availability and occupancy level. Must contact the front desk for the request.
Hours of Operations The office is open Monday – Sunday: 9:00 am till 6:00 pm. For after-hours assistance, please call 941-203-8058 To comply with a county-mandated noise ordinance, the Tiki areas and or outside areas close at 10:00 pm SHARP!
OCCUPANCY OF UNIT: All persons occupying a unit ("Unit") must be listed by the reserving party on the reservation at time of registration and shall be the only persons entitled to occupy the unit or use any of the resort amenities during occupancy of the Unit. The person who made the reservation is responsible for the condition of the Unit, damages thereto or missing items therefrom and for ensuring that all occupants and guests comply with the Terms and Conditions herein. All occupants and guests of occupants must abide by all Federal, State and local laws and must conduct themselves in an appropriate first-class manner. Upon check out, the reserving party is responsible for leaving the unit in good order before departure and for ensuring that the Unit is, upon departure, in the condition that it was at the commencement of the stay. All furniture and accessories shall be returned to their original location. ALL GUESTS OF OCCUPANTS MUST REGISTER WITH FRONT DESK AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO OCCUPY THE UNIT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS.
Security Deposit/ Damage: In lieu of a security deposit, we require the reserving party to provide us with a valid credit card which will be authorized for $500 upon Check In. Authorization will be released no more than 7 days after departure when the unit is inspected. By booking this reservation, we reserve the right to charge the booking party's credit card up to an additional $500.00 for any missing items, or for any damage, the reserving party or any occupant and/or guest of the reserving party may have caused to the Unit. At the time of check-out, if the Unit is not left in a reasonable and clean condition, or in the event of missing items, or if any unpaid balance is still due, then the reserving party agrees and acknowledges that their credit card listed on file for the reservation will be charged to clean, replace, and/or repair said items at the fair market price or make any unpaid payments pursuant to the terms of the reservation agreement.
TAX: All rentals are subject to 13% sales tax
Resort Amenity Fee: $39.00 per day Resort Amenity Fee includes the following:
Use of pool(s) located near village
Free parking near village
Beach Wagon
Free beach towel usage ($25.00 will be charged to credit card on file for lost and/or missing beach towel)
Free beach chair usage ($50.00 will be charged to credit card on file for lost and/or missing beach chair)
Free Wi-Fi
Free Bike rental up to 3 hours * all occupants are required to sign Liability Waiver prior to use of any Bike and/or amenity. All occupants are required to use a helmet prior to using Bike or life vest prior to using water-sports, it is also occupant's responsibility to request ALL safety equipment. $100 fee may be charged for lost or damaged bicycles. Riding on the beach is expressly prohibited.
Construction on SK: SK is ever evolving. This includes old properties are being redeveloped across all of SK. 3rd party Construction noise is a legal activity and out of our control. All guests should NOT assume the property rented will NOT be affected during a stay.
ACTS OF GOD: Occupant(s) acknowledges that, due to the nature of Florida weather, their vacation stay may be scheduled during a time of inclement or undesirable weather, including, without limitation, rain storms, tropical storms, hurricanes and the like ("Act of God") In the event of an Act of God, or any inclement weather, including, without limitation, adverse weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, storms, fire., etc., we will not be responsible for any refunds for monies already paid, for preparing the Unit for any upcoming anticipated or unanticipated Act of God, or for providing lodging elsewhere. Occupant(s) acknowledges that, depending on the nature of the inclement weather or Act of God, evacuation may be required. In the event that any State, County or local government orders a voluntary or mandatory evacuation of the Unit due to inclement weather or Act of God, Occupant(s) agrees to immediately evacuate the Unit. This is for the safety and protection of our Occupants and Guests. After check-in, any unused portion of the reservation due to termination or early departure for any reason is non—refundable. In the event of an Act of God, including, without limitation, adverse weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, storms, fire., etc., we will not be responsible for any refunds for monies already paid, for preparing the Unit for any upcoming anticipated or unanticipated storm, hurricane or other Act of God, or for providing lodging elsewhere.
RATE CHANGES: Rates are subject to change without notice. Confirmed booking rates will be honored for the reservation booked. Any additional nights will be subject to market rates which may be higher and are subject to availability.
CONFIRMATION OF RESERVATION: If you elect to have us make the reservation for you the system will automatically send you a confirmation email containing a link to these terms and conditions. Payment of the booking will be the acceptance of the terms and conditions..
ALL Units are non-smoking. Any smoke smell inside the Unit will result in a $250.00 fee being charged to the credit card on file. Please refrain from applying sunscreen in the Unit. Any damage to the Unit as a result of sunscreen being applied in the Unit will result in a $200 fee being charged to credit card on file. Beachside Management Properties: Upon departure: A $100.00 additional cleaning fee charge will be charged to the credit card on file if all trash is not disposed of. TRASH: All of our homes have curbside service. Waste Management will dispose of your trash for you as long as the trash cans are in their designated space on the side of the property. County Trash Pick-up is on Thursdays, subject to Holidays.
NOISE ORDINANCES: Siesta Key and surrounding areas do have noise ordinances with which all occupants and guests must comply. Noise ordinances go into effect at 10:00 pm and pertain to loud music, loud voices, or other loud sounds coming from a property after 10:00 pm. If we or the police are called due to the occupants or any guests disturbing of the peace or violation of any noise ordinance we reserve the right to terminate occupancy and require immediate vacation of the Unit, in which case no money will be refunded to the reserving party.
POOL AND HOT TUB: Hours OF USE: DAWN to DUSK. The pool and hot tub are to be used entirely at the own risk of the Unit occupants and their registered guests. Pool and hot tub use is restricted to registered occupants and approved registered guests only. Children must be supervised by an adult at all times while in the pool/hot tub area. NO DIVING, BEACH OR SAND TOYS IN THE POOL. NO THROWING OF BALLS, TOYS or RUNNING shall be permitted in the POOL/HOT TUB AREA. NO GLASS SHALL BE PERMITTED IN POOL/HOT TUB AREA. Pool / Hot tub is located off property.
GUEST POLICY: Reserving party is responsible for the behavior of occupants and registered guests at all times. Any additional occupants or guests of the reserving party must be approved by management and the guest checking in at the management office. No visiting guest may sleep overnight in the Unit. In no event shall any reserving party have more than the maximum number occupants permitted, nor shall any occupant or visiting guest be permitted to occupy the Unit beyond its maximum capacity. Any violation of this policy shall result in our right to immediately terminate the occupancy without refund.
ACCIDENTS, INJURY OR LOSS: The owners, staff and management of Beachside Management and the owner of any real property upon which any Unit or any of the amenities provided with the Unit rental are located are not responsible for accidents, injury, death, or claims or damages of any kind or loss of personal belongings of any kind to guest or any other person, or damage to any property occurring on the premises, any amenity property, or the common areas thereof. The reserving party, individually and on behalf of its occupants and guests, shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Beachside Management and the owner of any real property upon which the Unit is located, from any and against all liabilities, injuries, claims, expenses, fees, loss of use, damages, or actions or claims of any kind arising out of Renter's or any of its occupants or guests' use and occupancy of the Unit and amenities provided therewith, no matter how caused. Neither Beachside Management nor any property owner shall be responsible for acts of theft, vandalism or other damage to a guest(s) personal property or vehicle.
AIR CONDITIONING: The fan should be set to AUTO and system on COOL. Do not set air conditioner thermostat below 74°F. Do not operate air conditioner with windows open.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL: Please do not put any item besides TOILET PAPER in the TOILET. Paper towels, baby wipes, feminine products etc. – anything besides toilet paper provided – may cause a plumbing issue. If this occurs, the guest will be responsible for the service call and repair. Likewise, please do not put peelings or any fibrous materials through the disposal. Run plenty of water and feed material SLOWLY into the unit when using the disposal.
PARKING: Each unit has one designated parking space. Please park only in that space. Failure to register your vehicle with Siesta Key Beachside Villas could result in your vehicle being towed at the owner's expense.
FURNITURE AND ACCESSORIES: Furniture and accessory furnishings are not to be removed from the Unit. The 2 Folding beach chairs provided, and any other equipment, or items, provided by Beachside Management, are to be used by the occupants for their intended use only. If any furniture or accessory located with the Unit is lost, damaged or stolen the reserving party will be charged for the replacement value of the missing item. Blankets and bath towels must remain in the Unit. Beach towels are provided, and they may be used for that purpose. An inventory will be taken before and after each arrival and departure. Each rental Unit is privately owned and may offer certain furniture and accessory furnishings/appliances, while others do not. Beachside Management is not responsible for providing any additional furniture, furnishings or appliances whatsoever. Accommodations range from luxury homes to basic cottage units. All privately owned Units are individually furnished and equipped with basic items such as linens, pillows, blankets, cookware, flatware, dishes, glasses, other small appliances and cable television. Other items may or may not be provided. The quality of said items provided at each Unit may vary. We strive to maintain each Unit in a neat and clean condition and maintain all equipment and appliances in good working order. In the event you experience any equipment failure, please notify us immediately so we can order repairs, as necessary. The Renter and its occupants and guests waive and relinquish any rights or claims against the individual property owners or Beachside Management for any damage that may result to the Renter or any occupant or guest from lack of maintenance, cleanliness, repairs or property defects. There will be no refunds of all or any portion of the reservation amount for any equipment failure of any kind. In the event maintenance or repairs to a Unit are necessary during the stay, it is understood and agreed that service technicians may require access to the Unit, with or without formal notice.
LEGAL NOTICES: Failure to abide by these Terms and Conditions, or Florida Law, will, in our sole discretion result in the termination of the occupancy without refund. The laws of the State of Florida govern this agreement. We reserve the right of entry to the Unit at any time. While the information provided on our website is accurate to the best of our knowledge, it is understood that the information supplied is for guidance purposes only and does not form part of this Terms and Conditions Agreement. The prevailing party in any lawsuit to enforce or interpret any provisions of this agreement, or relating to arising out of the this Agreement, the guest reservation, guest stay and use of the Unit or any amenities provided with said Unit, shall be entitled to an award of its attorney's fees and costs incurred including, without limitation, attorney's fees and costs incurred in pre-suit proceedings, pre-trial, trial, and appellate proceedings. This agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties. It may only be changed in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, extension or discharge is sought. Renters cannot assign or transfer this agreement. By reserving this unit and therefore agreeing to this agreement you give Beachside Management the permission to send you ongoing marketing, promotional, and special discount type communications. These are offered various times of the year and can be unsubscribed from if so desired.By accepting this Rental Agreement as the guest, you agree to be responsible for any damage(s) to the unit, dwelling, furnishings, grounds or common area which occur through acts of negligence of or by you, your family, friends or social guests. Guest agrees to surrender the Unit and personal property, furniture, and furnishings contained therein, at the time and date specified in as good condition as it was at the beginning of your stay, except for reasonable wear, act of God, and/or causes over which you have no control. If the unit is not left in satisfactory condition, you will be charged for repair and restoration to satisfactory condition, plus lost rent time. Guest agrees to pay a reasonable attorney fee and all court costs and expenses to enforce this agreement including appellate proceeds with or without legal proceedings. Guest may not sublet the Unit at any time. Guest CERTIFIES that he/she has read carefully and understands the limitations on a rental unit as set forth in this Lease Agreement. Guest ALSO CERTIFIES that he/she understands the limitations of the number of persons permitted to occupy a unit and the applicable fees. Guest fully agrees to abide by all such limitations and the foregoing Terms and Conditions.
Signature: __________________________ Date:____________________________________