text:
No mention of the rebound distance either...Tchh!
There seems to be a sending off in there also, I know its "hard playing against 10 men" but generally that is condisered to lessen your victory chances I would suggest.
No mention of the rebound distance either...Tchh!
There seems to be a sending off in there also, I know its "hard playing against 10 men" but generally that is condisered to lessen your victory chances I would suggest.
Last edited by tigerhgrrrrrr; 24-03-2011 at 12:57. Reason: I thought this was a silly post competition?
Aren't there far too many 1 on 1s being missed in the new patch? I'm also having big issues with injuries despite easy-going training regimes.
I also seem to have too many players on the receiving end of bad tackles which results in a significant drop in their condition in-game - the opposing team never has such occurrences... it's driving me potty!
Hey guys, got promoted to the championship last year, but throughout this season all I receive is updates about league 1- player and manager of the month, etc but nothing about the champtionship- not even goal of the month for either leagues
Apologies if it's been posted before but it's a little annoying. Any way to fix it at all?
How the hell do i re-install 11.2 on steam ?
11.3 is utter utter utter garbage.
keeps on crashing on 18th June 2016
cannot get around it; tried holidaying, continuing, etc.
driving me ****ing crazy
upload your save and post your details in that thread and SI will fix it
The average woodwork hits per match in 11.3 is around 0.9. That is 0.45 per team, which is 17 per team per season over 38 games.
So since you used up over 25% of your quota in one match I'd suggest its something specific to your team ;-) An idea - do you have any players who like to "place" their shots? I'm wondering if that PPM encourages aiming for the corner and so increases the likelyhood of hitting either post........beyond that I cant think of anything really.
English Premier Division
Games played 380
Goals per match 2.79
Shots per match 25.62
Shots on target per match 9.73 (38%)
Goals per match (home) 1.59
Shots per match (home) 14.30
Shots on target per match(h) 5.42 (38%)
Goals per match (away) 1.20
Shots per match (away) 11.31
Shots on target per match(a) 4.32 (38%)
Penalties per match 0.16
Penalty conversion 0.13 (81%)
Own Goals per match 0.10
Disallowed Goals per match 0.22
Clear cut chances per match 3.20
Blocked shots per match 5.76
Hit woodwork per match 0.96
Passes per match 636.66
Passes completed 488.90 (77%)
Passes key 9.80
Crosses per match 36.74
Crosses completed 6.44 (18%)
Tackles per match 85.87
Tackles completed 56.97 (66%)
Tackles key 3.06
Headers key 14.67
Assists per match 2.51
RPOs per match 15.22
Interceptions per match 63.45
Offsides per match 6.02
Fouls per match 26.85
Throw ins per match 31.87
Corners per match 10.23
Goals from corners 0.41
Goals from DFKs 0.05
Goals from IFKs 0.31
Yellow cards per match 2.86
Red cards per match 0.20
Major injuries per match 0.56
Minor injuries per match 0.33
Hat tricks per match 0.04
First half goals 50%
Goals by strikers 45%
Goals by midfielders 41%
Goals by defenders 11%
Headed shots 14%
Headed shots on target 51%
Headed goals 20%
Long range shots 45%
Long range goals 10%
Close range shots 17%
Close range goals 48%
Draws 18%
0-0 Draws 6%
Win margin 1.58
3 goal wins 11%
4 goal wins 6%
5+ goal wins 2%
npower Championship
Games played 557
Goals per match 2.65
Shots per match 22.90
Shots on target per match 8.51 (37%)
Goals per match (home) 1.41
Shots per match (home) 12.86
Shots on target per match(h) 4.65 (36%)
Goals per match (away) 1.23
Shots per match (away) 10.00
Shots on target per match(a) 3.85 (38%)
Penalties per match 0.13
Penalty conversion 0.10 (81%)
Own Goals per match 0.11
Disallowed Goals per match 0.17
Clear cut chances per match 2.99
Blocked shots per match 4.91
Hit woodwork per match 0.84
Passes per match 620.33
Passes completed 470.99 (76%)
Passes key 9.59
Crosses per match 38.40
Crosses completed 6.64 (17%)
Tackles per match 80.54
Tackles completed 54.24 (67%)
Tackles key 2.99
Headers key 13.69
Assists per match 2.41
RPOs per match 14.16
Interceptions per match 65.22
Offsides per match 6.76
Fouls per match 23.76
Throw ins per match 35.44
Corners per match 9.69
Goals from corners 0.44
Goals from DFKs 0.04
Goals from IFKs 0.29
Yellow cards per match 2.36
Red cards per match 0.16
Major injuries per match 0.55
Minor injuries per match 0.27
Hat tricks per match 0.04
First half goals 50%
Goals by strikers 47%
Goals by midfielders 38%
Goals by defenders 10%
Headed shots 15%
Headed shots on target 50%
Headed goals 22%
Long range shots 44%
Long range goals 10%
Close range shots 17%
Close range goals 48%
Draws 28%
0-0 Draws 8%
Win margin 1.30
3 goal wins 10%
4 goal wins 4%
5+ goal wins 1%
Serie A
Games played 380
Goals per match 2.57
Shots per match 24.83
Shots on target per match 9.33 (38%)
Goals per match (home) 1.44
Shots per match (home) 13.69
Shots on target per match(h) 5.18 (38%)
Goals per match (away) 1.12
Shots per match (away) 11.14
Shots on target per match(a) 4.15 (37%)
Penalties per match 0.18
Penalty conversion 0.17 (91%)
Own Goals per match 0.12
Disallowed Goals per match 0.19
Clear cut chances per match 2.81
Blocked shots per match 5.66
Hit woodwork per match 0.84
Passes per match 628.31
Passes completed 482.42 (77%)
Passes key 9.23
Crosses per match 40.86
Crosses completed 7.24 (18%)
Tackles per match 86.03
Tackles completed 57.07 (66%)
Tackles key 2.87
Headers key 15.49
Assists per match 2.33
RPOs per match 15.24
Interceptions per match 63.14
Offsides per match 5.31
Fouls per match 26.93
Throw ins per match 34.39
Corners per match 10.41
Goals from corners 0.41
Goals from DFKs 0.08
Goals from IFKs 0.32
Yellow cards per match 4.71
Red cards per match 0.27
Major injuries per match 0.43
Minor injuries per match 0.36
Hat tricks per match 0.04
First half goals 52%
Goals by strikers 54%
Goals by midfielders 31%
Goals by defenders 11%
Headed shots 15%
Headed shots on target 48%
Headed goals 20%
Long range shots 46%
Long range goals 11%
Close range shots 17%
Close range goals 46%
Draws 27%
0-0 Draws 8%
Win margin 1.36
3 goal wins 12%
4 goal wins 4%
5+ goal wins 2%
Italian Serie B
Games played 470
Goals per match 2.54
Shots per match 21.81
Shots on target per match 7.87 (36%)
Goals per match (home) 1.48
Shots per match (home) 12.38
Shots on target per match(h) 4.54 (37%)
Goals per match (away) 1.06
Shots per match (away) 9.43
Shots on target per match(a) 3.33 (35%)
Penalties per match 0.12
Penalty conversion 0.10 (79%)
Own Goals per match 0.13
Disallowed Goals per match 0.19
Clear cut chances per match 2.59
Blocked shots per match 4.76
Hit woodwork per match 0.90
Passes per match 634.50
Passes completed 491.56 (77%)
Passes key 8.35
Crosses per match 36.85
Crosses completed 6.82 (19%)
Tackles per match 77.24
Tackles completed 52.03 (67%)
Tackles key 2.50
Headers key 13.45
Assists per match 2.26
RPOs per match 13.69
Interceptions per match 61.67
Offsides per match 5.13
Fouls per match 24.48
Throw ins per match 35.57
Corners per match 9.14
Goals from corners 0.43
Goals from DFKs 0.06
Goals from IFKs 0.32
Yellow cards per match 3.64
Red cards per match 0.18
Major injuries per match 0.54
Minor injuries per match 0.27
Hat tricks per match 0.04
First half goals 50%
Goals by strikers 49%
Goals by midfielders 37%
Goals by defenders 9%
Headed shots 16%
Headed shots on target 48%
Headed goals 24%
Long range shots 45%
Long range goals 10%
Close range shots 19%
Close range goals 50%
Draws 26%
0-0 Draws 9%
Win margin 1.31
3 goal wins 10%
4 goal wins 5%
5+ goal wins 0%
Games played 380
Goals per match 2.87
Shots per match 25.54
Shots on target per match 10.06 (39%)
Goals per match (home) 1.67
Shots per match (home) 14.59
Shots on target per match(h) 5.66 (39%)
Goals per match (away) 1.20
Shots per match (away) 10.96
Shots on target per match(a) 4.40 (40%)
Penalties per match 0.20
Penalty conversion 0.17 (87%)
Own Goals per match 0.11
Disallowed Goals per match 0.22
Clear cut chances per match 3.41
Blocked shots per match 5.33
Hit woodwork per match 0.98
Passes per match 605.63
Passes completed 463.60 (77%)
Passes key 10.63
Crosses per match 38.34
Crosses completed 6.72 (18%)
Tackles per match 82.51
Tackles completed 54.89 (67%)
Tackles key 3.13
Headers key 14.98
Assists per match 2.62
RPOs per match 15.65
Interceptions per match 60.99
Offsides per match 5.98
Fouls per match 27.01
Throw ins per match 31.51
Corners per match 10.72
Goals from corners 0.40
Goals from DFKs 0.05
Goals from IFKs 0.35
Yellow cards per match 4.42
Red cards per match 0.27
Major injuries per match 0.64
Minor injuries per match 0.26
Hat tricks per match 0.06
First half goals 49%
Goals by strikers 46%
Goals by midfielders 40%
Goals by defenders 10%
Headed shots 14%
Headed shots on target 49%
Headed goals 19%
Long range shots 42%
Long range goals 8%
Close range shots 17%
Close range goals 48%
Draws 22%
0-0 Draws 6%
Win margin 1.53
3 goal wins 12%
4 goal wins 3%
5+ goal wins 4%
LIGA adelante
Games played 468
Goals per match 2.75
Shots per match 23.56
Shots on target per match 8.62 (37%)
Goals per match (home) 1.49
Shots per match (home) 13.10
Shots on target per match(h) 4.79 (37%)
Goals per match (away) 1.27
Shots per match (away) 10.46
Shots on target per match(a) 3.82 (37%)
Penalties per match 0.15
Penalty conversion 0.13 (84%)
Own Goals per match 0.10
Disallowed Goals per match 0.18
Clear cut chances per match 3.00
Blocked shots per match 5.19
Hit woodwork per match 0.84
Passes per match 615.19
Passes completed 467.18 (76%)
Passes key 10.28
Crosses per match 40.81
Crosses completed 7.20 (18%)
Tackles per match 78.26
Tackles completed 51.92 (66%)
Tackles key 3.03
Headers key 14.78
Assists per match 2.50
RPOs per match 15.08
Interceptions per match 63.78
Offsides per match 5.95
Fouls per match 24.02
Throw ins per match 35.80
Corners per match 10.25
Goals from corners 0.44
Goals from DFKs 0.05
Goals from IFKs 0.30
Yellow cards per match 3.34
Red cards per match 0.19
Major injuries per match 0.56
Minor injuries per match 0.32
Hat tricks per match 0.04
First half goals 50%
Goals by strikers 43%
Goals by midfielders 43%
Goals by defenders 10%
Headed shots 15%
Headed shots on target 49%
Headed goals 21%
Long range shots 45%
Long range goals 11%
Close range shots 18%
Close range goals 49%
Draws 24%
0-0 Draws 6%
Win margin 1.39
3 goal wins 9%
4 goal wins 5%
5+ goal wins 2%
European Champions Cup
Games played 145
Goals per match 2.85
Shots per match 26.73
Shots on target per match 10.46 (39%)
Goals per match (home) 1.60
Shots per match (home) 14.87
Shots on target per match(h) 5.71 (38%)
Goals per match (away) 1.21
Shots per match (away) 11.68
Shots on target per match(a) 4.68 (40%)
Penalties per match 0.18
Penalty conversion 0.17 (92%)
Own Goals per match 0.11
Disallowed Goals per match 0.21
Clear cut chances per match 3.21
Blocked shots per match 5.56
Hit woodwork per match 0.92
Passes per match 629.33
Passes completed 486.68 (77%)
Passes key 10.00
Crosses per match 38.08
Crosses completed 6.50 (17%)
Tackles per match 82.96
Tackles completed 54.82 (66%)
Tackles key 3.10
Headers key 14.14
Assists per match 2.59
RPOs per match 16.88
Interceptions per match 61.39
Offsides per match 5.48
Fouls per match 26.54
Throw ins per match 30.34
Corners per match 10.41
Goals from corners 0.43
Goals from DFKs 0.04
Goals from IFKs 0.30
Yellow cards per match 4.10
Red cards per match 0.24
Major injuries per match 0.52
Minor injuries per match 0.39
Hat tricks per match 0.08
First half goals 48%
Goals by strikers 52%
Goals by midfielders 35%
Goals by defenders 9%
Headed shots 13%
Headed shots on target 50%
Headed goals 22%
Long range shots 45%
Long range goals 9%
Close range shots 16%
Close range goals 48%
Draws 21%
0-0 Draws 5%
Win margin 1.65
3 goal wins 14%
4 goal wins 5%
5+ goal wins 4%
Btw I do think the woodwork count is a little high vs RL, but not enough so to lose sleep and delay releases over!
Finally decided to purchase FM11 and everything was rosy as. That was until I proceeded to patch it to 11.3. The game would not boot from that point. Oh well as I uninstalled the game along with much profanity directed towards my lappy, guess I will be doing the same tonight lol
Dynamic League Reputation is either broken or unrealistic and here's why:
I'm managing 3 teams from the same country, Benfica, Porto and Sporting. In real life they qualified to quarter finals in UEFA CUP while russian clubs didn't and this enables Portugal league reputation to go up and so in real life the 2nd place from portuguese league will allow a direct entrance to champions group while russian reputation goes down.
In FM2011 all russians club did worse then in real life while my 3 clubs did better then in real life and even managed to win Champions league and Uefa cup. Season ends and i go check how reputation was and portuguese and russian reputation didn't change, portuguese league is still behind russian league. 2nd season starts and the 2nd spot still won't allow direct entrance to champions group.
I just cant get into 11.3, mainly because defending crosses, especially low crosses, is awful.
My defenders just literally stand there and watch while the opposition player has a tap in. On one memorable occasion, a cross came in from wide, there were no other attackers in the box, my defender decided to turn his back on the ball which then hit his back and went into the net.
I've been playing FM since CM Italia, and I've never been so disappointed.
Last edited by DeathSpawn; 25-03-2011 at 22:01.
You don't seem to understand how the Co-efficients work.
Your first season I presume is 2010/11 and this is the season where you outperformed the Russians. The performance during this season and the previous four effect the seedings for the 2012/13 season NOT the 2011/12 season.
The seedings for the 2011/12 season are decided by years 2005/6, 2006/7, 2007/8, 2008/9 & 2009/10 ie before you start your FM11 save.
Perhaps this has already been posted as I didn't read this entire thread.... In the patched version I have teams asking to loan a player over and over again after the loan has either (i) been rejected by the team or (ii) been rejected by the player.
Example (i) - Team A offers to loan a player from team B for a 5K up front payment. Team B says they want 350K up front in rejecting the offer. A few days later Team A makes the exact same offer and it is rejected for the exact same reason. Team A will just keep making the offer until its ability to do so is terminated by the league loan rules.
Example (ii) - Team A offers to loan Player X from Team B. Team B accepts but Player X doesn't want to go and rejects the loan. A few days later Team A will make the exact same offer for Player X, who will reject the loan again if you give him the chance. And then Team A will make the offer again.
I wonder how those stats for injuries per match that PaulC posted somehow manage to translate to an average of two forced subs per match in FML due to knocks/injuries. I've just stopped playing FM11 right now because sheer frustration, after having three players stretchered off and two knocked in a match. And the injuries tend to happen in the final half hour of the match (I suppose they must be related to the players' condition), when sometimes I have already performed some subs. I've complained about this regarding the FML ME, and I see it in FM11 as well: the sheer amount of ingame injuries/knocks is horrific (not to mention the players that don't even get a green cross before their names, but somehow suddenly get their condition 30% below everyone else's) and is kind of ruining the game for me, because it just feels too unreallistic. For instance, no matter how injury prone a player is, I doubt that in real life one could get a player stretchered off in all of his first four matches for the club - this has happened to me in my current save, and in two of those occasions he went off injured within the first three minutes of the match.
(And by the way: no, I don't use hard tackling at all - in fact, the injury thing got so bad that I've altered my tactics to play with 'More Cautious' tackling, although this had no effect at all in the amount of ingame injuries I get).
Last edited by Goncalo; 27-03-2011 at 01:55.
The stats shown are for all teams. Individual teams can have more or less depending on many variables.
Presumably your team is high up the injury table for your league if you are losing 2 players per match?
A bug still not fixed in 11.3 when playing with another person online:
After both teams submit their line-ups and enter a game, both are changing their tactical settings.
One team's submit can cause another's changes all lost!
This bug never appears in FM10, but in FM11 throughout..
Last edited by Goncalo; 28-03-2011 at 01:36.
I'm running FM 11 through Steam on my Mac and haven't been able to boot the game since the 11.3 patch was downloaded. Is there a fix for this?
My issue with the 11.3 patch is the number of offside goals. I get at least one goal per game disallowed for offside! My players do have some forward runs, but we're talking Tevez/Pastore/Ronaldo/Hazard so they know what they're doing. Definitely seems more frequent than IRL.
By contrast, there are hardly any penalties and no handballs. In my game, after 29 matches, I think one team has had five penalties and the remainder 2-3. There are on average about 0.25 penalties per game in top division football so the average should be about four penalties per team, although obviously these should be quite widely distributed in favour of certain teams (principally those on the attack and who dribble into the box).
Finally, the timing of goals feels wrong. There should be more late goals. IRL, 25% of goals come in the last 15 minutes, and not very many in the first 15 minutes. I often get messages saying that 'Man Utd concede most goals in the first 15 minutes' and some such, and the relevant period is only about 1/20 times in the second half!
I want to emphasise, though, what a great game it is! Having a ball :-)
Hadn't noticed anything major in penalties, though now you mentioned it there were only a few in total for the whole of my last season, though didn't think much of it. Aside from that I hadn't noticed much difference with the new patch, which given it was running smoothly anyway is definitely a good thing.
I didn't play FM 11 much because I thought the game was kind of disappointing so I figured I would wait for the third patch when the game usually gets "fixed". Pretty good so far, but I'm seeing a lot of sliding tackle goals. I've only played 10 games, so maybe it's just a coincidence but I've just watched replays of all the goals so far and 25% of them are sliding knock ins where the defender just stands there and the attacker unnaturally slides in and scores. It looks really silly in 3D. Anyone else experiencing the same?
Actually, the penalties issue seems worse than I thought: the penalties to date in Premiership, La Liga and Serie A (after 31, 29 and 30 games respectively) are 42, 41 and 41. There are ten matches per round so there should be on average 2.5 penalties per round making a total of (for 30 matches played) c. 75 penalties awarded. Penalties are a much bigger part of real life football than disallowed goals! see http://www.skysports.com/story/0,195...162871,00.html for penalties per game IRL.
One other issue which is actually more significant as it's more than just cosmetic (I accept that the scorelines and general play are very convincing in the game): job security is FAR higher than it should be. In my current save there are only FIVE managers from the above leagues who aren't 'secure' or safer: two Italian, two Spanish and one English. There's been only one managerial change in the Premiership (Bolton lost Coyle). I want to find a new job having won the Premiership and Champions League at the club I began with, but I can't find a team in the top division that wants me, except clubs in the relegation zone. Why?
Do you never for a second consider that the tactics/players/choices that you select are the cause of some of what you experience?
Your idea that the 11.3 ME is worse than previous versions is simply ridiculous, have you even gone back and tried the other MEs? Its not perfect, it never will be be but it has improved significantly in recent years.
Personally I don't see my defenders "just stand there" as you put it, or least I don't recall it and I see my defenders clearing lots of crosses in every match.
What's really stuck out for me is the sheer avoidability of the goals I concede. I wouldnt mind so much if the opposition snatched a point with a moment of genius or even a well worked goal, but its not, at least in the games I played. Most opposition goals seemed to me to be cheap. I was conceding goals that were so easily avoidable if a defender had even tried to perform his duties.
I tried various settings and defensive tactics, but nothing I could do would get my international class defenders performing their duties properly. I'd love to know what people do to avoid this, seriously, if anyone knows how to get defenders defending crosses properly, please let me know.
Anyhow, I've stopped playing now because of this, which is an incredible wrench given I have played every version since CM Italia in the early 90s. But its either that or boil up in frustration.
Given that cross completion in 11.3's ME is around 18% ( see above ), I think its safe to say that the vast majority of crosses are being defended in some way, is it not?
Whatever the reason, it just seemed to me as if crosses that defenders should be favourites to clear were too often left for strikers to convert. The last 5 games I played had the opposition scoring 4 goals from 7 shots, and 3 of them came when a defender simply stood still and let the striker slide or run past him. The other one came when a cross came into the box and the opposition had no players in the box at all, and my centre back (Skrtel) decided to run away from the ball and it hit his back and it went in the net. That had me pounding a cushion in frustration and I havent loaded the game up since.
I know I'm no tactical yoda, but playing nearly 20 versions of the same game I'd like to think I know something. But I just cant work out this version.
Yes, it will never be perfect as much as I wish it was. We just try to make it as good as possible and hopefully the majority come back and buy it next time
From a personal point of view I'm as happy with the ME in 11.3 as I have been with any release.
A few days ago, i started a new save with Benfica just to try out different tactics, after 3 friendlies i saved right before a game against Porto for the portuguese super cup.
Everytime .. and i mean .. EVERY SINGLE TIME i was completely crushed, not necessarily with goals, but with statistics because nothing would work, over 10 different tactics (including the same Porto uses just to see what would happen) against only 1 and my team looked like amateurs.
In real life when these two play against each other we never know what's going to happen, anyone can win, doesn't matter the circumstances .. it's all about pride due to the existente rivalry. Last season Porto had already lost the championship and they still won 3 - 1 at home, Benfica won 1 - 0 at home playing with a bunch of 3rd choice players, this season Porto wrecked Benfica 5 - 0 at home and lost 0 - 2 also at home for the cup.
The quality of the teams is similar, and nobody was playing at home .. so why do they always end up with 20 something shots and higher possession (way higher..) and all around playing better than my team? Incredibly fluid football even before the season starts..? Does the Tactic Familiarity Levels feature apply to AI teams? Oh and by the way, everytime there was a penalty was against me, i'm not exaggerating, honestly, usually some really awkward ones ..
Now .. I AM NOT looking for a flawless tactic, no .. i was, though, looking for a tactic that at least neutralizes some of their players, hell, even a 1 - 1 would make me a little happy.
The point is, it's hard to believe that not even one of those +10 tactics can be successful against the one they use.
Edit: Forgot to say, there was a game where they only had 7 shots at target .. how it ended? i lost 5 - 1 .. yeah
Last edited by 2Pacalypse; 30-03-2011 at 21:10.
With the 11.3 patch, I'm having an extremely difficult time getting work permits for players who have been playing in the UK for years. Transfers for Zhirkov (from Chelsea) and Sandro (from Tottenham) were both cancelled due to work permits, and I'm now unable to get Robbie Findley (25 caps) on a new contract due to his work permit application being declined (with no option to appeal). I'm currently in my 3rd Premier League season and I'm in 4th place, so it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense that an American player I've had for 4 years and signed when I was a Championship side now can't get a work permit.
My main complaint is still the sheer amount of injuries during matches. It's not just my imagination. I just tried starting a save on a top club (Inter) in order to perform a small test, because I usually always play LLM-style. So I thought that perhaps it was the kind of football played in the English lower leagues, plus bad pitches and inefficient physical preparation of the players that could be causing these injuries. Nope. Inter has top training facilities, great coaches, the pitches in Serie A are good, yet I've played six official matches so far, and had five players stretchered off, plus three knocks (green crosses; I'm not counting the other knocks that just lower the players' condition). Like I said: this seems excessive and unreallistic.
Sorry, should have explained.
Its the results of running 2010-11 in 11.3 with full ME detail on all the leagues, and with me as an unemployed manager on holiday.
I was convinced that those were actually real life statistics... I thought that it was a bit steep to have one major injury every two matches, but if that is FM data, then it's explained.
Regarding my current save, it's now mid November and I'm counting fourteen players stretchered off during a match. That's fourteen major injuries in 21 matches played. I've been watching football for nearly 30 years, and in all this time I don't think I can remember many matches where there were multiple players from the same team getting a serious injury. It only took one third of a season in FM11 to have it happening three times already.
I don't mean to be annoying, but I guess I'd just like to read that SI is at least looking into this. Like I said, I also play FML, which seems to be a bit of a test tube for future FM releases, and I also see this excessive injury thing there, so I'd like to think that there was a slight chance of this being toned down for FM12. Honestly, it's ruining the game for me.
Goncalo, what is the average number of players out with injury in your game, in the league you play in? My rule of thumb is the average per team over a season should be 3.5-4 at any one time.
How about centre midfielders' average ratings and goal ratios? I feel both are too low at the moment. Playing a 442 and my CMs, despite having offensive duties, barely assist and score exclusively from long shots.
The last time I checked was way higher than that. I had 6 players injured, and I was near the bottom of the injury table. The top team was Juventus, with 11 players injured (I'm playing in Serie A in this save).
Edit: I've just checked, I still have 6 players injured, and there are six teams above me. The team with the most injured players is currently Fiorentina, with nine. The current average for all 20 teams in Serie A is close to 5 players.
As I've been saying, it's not so much the number of injuries that I find annoying. It's the fact that they seem to happen way too often during matches. The injuries and the knocks end up forcing too many subs, which obviously ends up interfering with the tactical aspects: many times I end up not performing tactical subs because of the injuries, or simply because I'm too afraid of using all subs and then getting a player injured when there are no subs left. If the injuries happened in training, I could believe that the problem was due to my training schedules, or the training facilities. But since they happen during matches, and I don't even use hard tackling, I really don't know what can I do to prevent them. And like I also said before, the injury table isn't a very accurate way of assessing this, because many times I get players stretchered off during a match, and afterwards they don't get to stay injured.
Last edited by Goncalo; 01-04-2011 at 17:13.
11.3 basically making Italian Serie A unplayable.
Staring in July 2011, AI treats 2010's signing as 2011's, 2011's signing as 2012's and do on, making signing non-EU players (as from Brazil like Italians club often did) is becoming very hard and unrealistic.
But ironically by reporting this issue, not only i got ignored, but eventually i sensed mild hostile from other senior members; It's like loving a gitl that don't love you back and treat you like an enemy...
I would like to point out that there is a serious goalkeeper bug in the latest 2 versions of the patches that I haven't noticed since playing the game back in 07.
There is a goal kick bug where usually once or twice a game if a team's goalkeeper instructions is set to kick long then they oppositons strikers get clean through attempts on goal from perfect knockdown headers from the midfielders from the halfway line. It looks quite an obvious bug and it consisently happens in games so I would like to know if this has been noticed or is there a way I can report it. It is a very annoying bug especially as its a very easy way for my team to score goals especially with very quick forwards like Javier Hernandez and also I have to keep my goal kick instructions to 'defender collect' which avoids the bug but not for the computer AI.
Does anyone still have problems with game crashing during match day?, reason i am asking is because there is a 50% risk that my game crash when about to start the game (when it switch to 3d) and to be honest i would like to think that after 3 patches problems like this would had been solved. I also still get crashes now and then if i during the game check a players positions. I am sick and tired of that SI can't fix even the simplest errors, when fm12 comes out i was gonna wait for the last patch to come out before purchasing the game, now i wonder if i should buy the game at all since SI don't bother fix the game before moving onto next years game.
edit: sadly SI isn't the only game company these days that doesn't care about releasing games and patches that work, it is geting more and more common unfortunatly.
Last edited by NVS_Gooner4life; 12-04-2011 at 19:46.
Thank you for reply but no point in that now when not gonna release any more patches for FM2011 right?
Nope .
If it were a bug in the game this forum would be inundated with people suffering the same problem.....
So well worth trying for help in the bugs forum IMHO.
Last edited by PaulC; 12-04-2011 at 21:16.
Don't think this is a patch issue but would really appreciate it if someone replied to me with this. Just won the Conference (Blue Square Premier) and when I won it I didn't get anything on my news feed about Crawley winning or a feed about Board being delighted etc. Why is this?
That seems to be the trend in general with the ME - everything is on a giant swing that goes one way and then instantly to the other. You'll tend to get a string of red cards together (and then none), a string of 'big' injuries together (and then none), which is why people notice and think its unbalanced. On average, over the season, it won't be (which SI back up with the figures they work towards), but when it gets down to breaking it down, they do appear too 'clumped' together. There's no real random factor in effect.
BTW, I'm averaging nearly a shot against the woodwork per game and I don't have a single striker who "places their shots." I'd wager that the quota (as you put it) for human players is significantly higher than that for AI teams and likely has something to do with the game's ridiculous use of "complacency" as a mechanism for regulating team performance.
Last edited by Ego Scriptor; 26-04-2011 at 20:25.
First 10 games of new season hit woodwork 10 times. I usually have at least 1 goal a game disallowed for offside as well, yet all games still won.
I can't find mention of this issue elsewhere, so maybe it's just me....
I'm playing in the Norwegian 2nd Division and at the end of the season (end of October) I'm seeing a ton of managerial sackings worldwide. In the space of two months maybe 200 or so.
Now, I understand that on a worldwide scale managerial sackings happen a lot, but presumably mainly in the close seasons? In this case almost half of each division in England has turned over their manager, which I might expect in May / June, but certanly not in November / December.
Is this a bug?
Sorry to resurrect a REALLY old thread (which I haven't read all the way through because it's massive) but I just thought I'd make my own points about 11.3 which I recently downloaded.
My biggest objection is the loan system when you're at a really small club. It stands to reason that a club like Lincoln don't really have any funds to spend on transfers, yet trying to loan players from PL clubs under 18s still costs a very substantial fee, as well as the player's wages on occasion. In reality, the big clubs would be happy to see the youngsters get some first team football, so they'd cover the wages. I'm not suggesting that players worth millions and paid several thousand in the reserves should be available without loan fees, but 17 year olds on a a few hundred quid should be available for nothing.
Other than that, my next biggest complaint is players who've been out of contract for a couple of years retiring rather than signing for a smaller club they didn't initially want to sign for.
For what it's worth, the loan deals frustrated me that much that I decided to uninstall and go back to the disc version. Loan fees are fine for other PL and Championship clubs IMO, but not below that. After all, if the club don't want the player to go to a club in LG2 they can just reject the offer.
Problems for me - Although none are game killers because I realise that the AI has to break your tactics at some point.
1. Conceding from set pieces. It seems no matter what setup you have or what players you have the set pieces or are always the achilles heel. I'd say the vast majority of my goals against come from set pieces regardless of which setup I use. I always have a tall back line with good jumping, heading and determination stats for the division I'm in but they don't really seem to count for much, especially when you have dominated the match. What's most frustrating is that you can do nothing about it at all and the more you play the game the more obvious it gets that it's going to happen. Lost count of the amount of times I've let a goal in during injury time when a 5ft nothing striker has got between my 6ft plus defenders to head home a winner.
2. Opposition teams scoring way too many long range efforts when the players scoring the goals have low stats for shooting from range. Just had a guy score two 25/30 yard screamers with a long shots stat of 7. My CM with long range stat of 15 has not scored from outside the box in 2 seasons, seems a bit of a pointless stat to have if it counts for very little in the match engine. I very rarely play the game with top division clubs or with real players as it gets too boring so I'd like to know if this only happens in the lower leagues or whether it's universal throughout the game.
3. Cup games and team weighting (If that's the right terminology) - Lower rep AI teams always performing better against higher rep user teams....OK cup shocks happen IRL but not every single game. The AI v AI team results seem plausible but the AI v User are a bit far fetched, it's not always a struggle IRL. Could do with a tweak in my opinion. I got a replay after play Arsenal at home in the FA cup when I was in the Blue Square South and drawing 2-2. Fantastic that I got a the cash for a return game at the Emirates but hardly likely to happen IRL is it. Likewise my Mid table league 1 team just lost to a Mid/Low table Blue Square South team 3-1.....all their goals from corners. I'd not conceeded a corner for 3 matches prior to this one. I just can't work that out :-) Is it just me this happens too ?!?!?!?
4. Horrendous drops in morale and form of players is a big issue for me too. Had a player score about 10 goals in 8 games and them suddenly his confidence is shot away (perhaps because some irrelevant AI manager made a comment about him, I can't really remember, it's happened so often I've stopped paying attention) then and as quickly as that he can't hit a barn door with a banjo and have to drop him to the reserves so he can get scoring again.
As I said at the start of the post it's all part of the game (and that's what it is...just a game) but I would like to think that the game developers might be a bit more subtle in the ways that they get the AI to break your tactics. Seems just a bit lazy to me if I'm honest.
Would like to know what others think on these points.
If you have a good tactical defensive setup and good defenders then set pieces will prob account for the bulk of your goals against because your open play defending is so good. Are you letting in more than other teams? Try different set piece orders or maybe try not giving up as many set pieces.
Again linked to your defending, because the opposition can't find the space to open the defence they take more long shots. You stop them by not giving them the space to take the shots, close them down, put pressure on the shooters. Its also worth saying - Goals from outside the area happen in real life every week in every league around the world.2. Opposition teams scoring way too many long range efforts when the players scoring the goals have low stats for shooting from range. Just had a guy score two 25/30 yard screamers with a long shots stat of 7. My CM with long range stat of 15 has not scored from outside the box in 2 seasons, seems a bit of a pointless stat to have if it counts for very little in the match engine. I very rarely play the game with top division clubs or with real players as it gets too boring so I'd like to know if this only happens in the lower leagues or whether it's universal throughout the game.
I do seem to have more problems in cup games against underdogs but I also have matches where I cruise through with few problems, swings & roundabouts.3. Cup games and team weighting (If that's the right terminology) - Lower rep AI teams always performing better against higher rep user teams....OK cup shocks happen IRL but not every single game. The AI v AI team results seem plausible but the AI v User are a bit far fetched, it's not always a struggle IRL. Could do with a tweak in my opinion. I got a replay after play Arsenal at home in the FA cup when I was in the Blue Square South and drawing 2-2. Fantastic that I got a the cash for a return game at the Emirates but hardly likely to happen IRL is it. Likewise my Mid table league 1 team just lost to a Mid/Low table Blue Square South team 3-1.....all their goals from corners. I'd not conceeded a corner for 3 matches prior to this one. I just can't work that out :-) Is it just me this happens too ?!?!?!?
Form goes up & form goes down, if a player is in good form its only going to go in one direction its just a question of when.4. Horrendous drops in morale and form of players is a big issue for me too. Had a player score about 10 goals in 8 games and them suddenly his confidence is shot away (perhaps because some irrelevant AI manager made a comment about him, I can't really remember, it's happened so often I've stopped paying attention) then and as quickly as that he can't hit a barn door with a banjo and have to drop him to the reserves so he can get scoring again.
However my team having a bad run of form shouldn't really make a player akin to Emile Heskey suddenly becoming Ronald Koeman from range or make a Bilbo Baggins'esque striker leap 5 ft off the ground..........Only Zola could do that :-)
Like I say the game does have to break your tactics and it doesn't stop me playing the game I just wish they could be a little more inventive in future updates.
I've tweaked my attacking corner setup to try and NOT score so many and as if by magic I'm conceding far less of them too, maybe that's just coincidence but it was quite instant so perhaps they are linked. I also have a theory that the more chances you create the less you actually score, especially at lower league level, bit anti-football but seems to work. This is probably for another thread though........
1. Height/Jumping isn't everything, short players can (and frequently do) score headers if they have enough space/time, so maybe look over your settings? It's been confirmed that corners are a little too effective in FM11 though, so if you have an otherwise solid team, you can make use of the defending set pieces match prep to protect against this.
2. Probably fluke, or a combination of that and these players getting in better positions than your CM to take good long shots. Are you defending the space between defense and midfield properly? Weather conditions also have an influence here, and again, Long Shots is not the only attribute in play.
3. The ME does not differentiate between AI v AI and AI v User matchups at the highest detail level, so probably just coincidence (or related to defending corners, judging by that BSS team result?). I do see (and am involved in) upsets, but not unusually frequently.
4. There used to be an issue where your best attacker was targeted before every single league game, keeping his morale rock bottom, but this was fixed in a patch. Occasional comments shouldn't really make it plummet, just drop a notch or two, which you can easily counter-act with some player interaction. Keep playing him and keep his morale up and media attention shouldn't make a big dent in his form.
ive just bought the fm2011 game and followed instructions to download the latest update which is version 11.3 , unfortunately when i click update i get so far then i have a message stating there is a sharing violation while accessing C:\\Program Files (x86)\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2011\data\skins.fmf.
i have no idea what that means and help would be greatly appreciated , as i am eager to get started
Do you maybe have the game running while trying to patch it? Make sure it's closed when you run the patch.


text:
As both Abrahamic religions, Islam and Judaism have the same God and share a common law then how do Rabbis see the marriage of a Jewish woman marrying a Muslim man and vice versa? Also how is it like to falling in love and then marrying that person beloging to either religions? What about their children? Would they be Jewish as they have a Jewish mother? Please comment and explain
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
For many purposes of Jewish law, Muslims are treated exactly on a par with members of other faiths.
Judaism doesn't recognize intermarriage - in either direction - as valid (Code of Jewish Law, Even Haezer 44:8); indeed, a Jewish man would have to be prepared to give up his life rather than have sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman (Shach, Yoreh De'ah 157:12). The same rules, then, apply regardless of the non-Jewish partner's nationality or religion.
As for any children from such a union, the usual rule applies: if the mother is Jewish then they are too, and if not, they are not.
This requires making a distinction between Jewish peoplehood & religion and the Jewish faith:
The Jewish faith is a universal one: strict monotheism combined with a basic set of moral & societal rules (the sheva mitzvos b'nei Noach, the seven Noachide Laws). Any human being that follows these guidelines is on the correct path. Islam has no special status here, except to the extent that it (and Unitarian Christianity) also teaches strict monotheism.
The Jewish people have a special role in this scheme; we are bound by a special Covenant with God and have many additional laws to follow. Anyone can choose to join us and take on these obligations, but once accepted these obligations may not be put down. (This is one reason Judaism discourages converts: it's much easier to be a righteous non-Jew than an observant Jew.)
That said, marriage between a Jew of either sex and a non-Jew is not allowed. Husband & wife must be bound to the same covenant with God: either the general one for all humanity or the particular one for Jews.
In many circumstances, a non-Jew can convert to Judaism, joining the Jewish people, and marry a born Jew. Such conversions are often suspect, though, with the convert's true commitment (and hence the validity of the conversion) sometimes in question. Many Rabbis will therefore be reluctant to convert someone who is in a pre-existing relationship with a Jew.
In case of a violation of these rules, when a Jew & a non-Jew have children together, Jewish Law considers the children to inherit their mother's status: if she is a Jew, so are her children, and vice versa.
Yosef's wife was not Jewish. (Genesis 41:45) Hadassah's husband was not Jewish. (Esther 1:1, 2:17) Abigail's husband was living a lifestyle that ignored many Mitzvot. (1 Shmuel 25) Abraham was a Chaldean. (Genesis 11)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
something that is a mix of whacky and wonky.
girl but my stomach is too wanky today to eat
guy: WANKY ?
other girl: yeah
girl: lol
another girl: wank?
guy: UMMMM
other girl: a mix of whacky and wonky
guy: WANKY ?
other girl: yeah
girl: lol
another girl: wank?
guy: UMMMM
other girl: a mix of whacky and wonky
by Jiggs13 October 22, 2010
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
Top Definition
Wanky (wah-aye-enn-key): adj. Word used to describe moments of great sexual attraction and sexual tension.
Used by the one and only Santana lopez.
Used by the one and only Santana lopez.
That Brittany, she is so wanky
by Brittanaislovebitches February 25, 2011
Indulgent, pretentious, simultaneously showy and useless.
"That 8-minute guitar solo was incomparably wanky"
by R.B. September 07, 2004
Masturbatory, typically describes boring music, like 3 minute guitar solos. See also wankish.
"I can't listen to a lot of metal, it has too many wanky solos. I don't give a shit how many hours a day you practice."
by Danny Delinquent December 22, 2003
means something useless, boring, stupid or pointless
this topic is so wanky
by lovechild56 April 07, 2010
Anything used to collect semen after masterbatory ejaculation. Such as towels, kleenex, old socks etc.
"I cleaned my room the other day, man there were a lot of Wankies under my bed."
by Christoper M Norton May 12, 2006
winking seductively while having sex
taffy liked wankies
by that smart asshole June 01, 2016
the proprietory brand of paper handerchiefs found under the bed of a wanker ready for any nocturnal emissions to avoid the need to zoffle. individually wrapped in packets of 3 (Weekend Wankies) 7 (Weekly Wankies) and 25 (Cant Get a Girlfriend Wankies). Wankies are normally bought by men with extremely well developed biceps, poor eyesight and an unhealthy interest in librarys. NB Please note the health warning on the Wankies packet emphasising the need to dispose of used Wankies before the splooge genetically mutates and engulfs an area the size of New Mexico
" I can't wait for the weekend, I've got my bongomags, a tub of vaseline and enough Wankies to clog up the Potomac River"
by Bobman UK October 25, 2006


text:
San Diego Padres vs Arizona DiamondbacksSat, June 15, 2013 - 7:10 PMPetco Park in San Diego, CA
We are sorry, the date for this event has already passed. This event took place on 6/15/2013. Click here to view upcoming events for San Diego Padres.
Still unsure? Check out our user reviews for:
Have a question? Need help? Call us at 800.477.5285


text: Here is one of my favorite tutorials I have drawn today. It is a lesson that will show you "how to draw Altair easy", step by step. If you have ever played Assassins Creed, you should know exactly who Altair is. I have done some previous works in the past on the video game mercenary, and because I love him so much, I thought that other people would appreciate a lesson on Altair in a much easier to follow fashion. Assassins Creed is one of my favorite video games of all time, and so is Altair's character. I choose to draw him in his most popular pose which is from the back with him looking over his shoulder. His face is almost always covered in the game with his hooded cloak that he wears. I love how this drawing came out, and I think you guys will love drawing Altair easy. Let me get the other lessons submitted because I really want you guys to start having fun. I will be back in two shakes of a lambs tail so stick around people!


text:
August 28, 2009
Slacklining on Table Mountain – A Cape Town Tourism photo essay
On a fine winter's afternoon in July 2009, two intrepid young adventurers, Warren Gans (24) from Newlands and Sean Wakelin (22) from Pinelands, chose to claim their stake as the first people to slackline on Table Mountain.
Because the cable cars were closed for maintenance, this became quite an adventure for me too.
With my 40kg (88lb) backpack strapped on, including two cameras, four lenses, flashes, reflectors and tripod, I started the ascent of Platteklip Gorge.
I was amazed by the number of (rather unfit) tourists who were already on their way back down. Great to see such keen interest in climbing our much-loved mountain!
I managed to get up in an hour and followed my way along the cliff edge towards the cable car. At this stage my vertigo reminded me to keep well away from the edge. Coming around a corner I came across the sight of Warren and Sean setting up the slackline.
Photos tell the rest of the story, with the three of us returning in the dark with head torches on and marvelling at the peaceful evening after an adrenaline-filled afternoon. Sean had to strap his toes to stop the bleeding and carried his full pack back down, bravely carrying the war wounds of his first attempts at slacklining.
This groundbreaking event launched the lead up to the BANFF Mountain Film World Tour 2009, sponsored by Cape Union Mart in partnership with K-Way, Black Diamond, Hi-Tec and Deuter.
Do you have images of Cape Town you'd like to share with us? We'd love you to join the Cape Town. Live it. Love it. Flickr group!
Images © Greg Beadle 2009


text:
Actor Daniel Radcliffe Changes Beat
LONDON—Actor Daniel Radcliffe will spend the better part of this year in his native London, but ask him when he'll return to New York, and his blue eyes grow wistful.
"I do have a real love of New York now, because I've done two shows in New York and because New York is such a theater-based place," he said, referring to his turns on Broadway in "Equus" and "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying."
Sitting at a café in Fulham, the London neighborhood where he grew up, the 23-year-old actor said he has very different experiences in the two cities. "I almost never get called 'Harry Potter' in New York, whereas over here, it is a lot more," he said. "That's something you get very used to, very quickly, but it's also nice to be somewhere where people know you've done other stuff."
In his coming film, "Kill Your Darlings," Mr. Radcliffe embodies one of the most quintessential New Yorkers of all time: Beat poet Allen Ginsberg. He plays Ginsberg at an early period in the poet's life, when he moves away from his New Jersey home to attend Columbia University. There, he meets Lucien Carr (played by Dane DeHaan), who introduces him to William S. Burroughs and Jack Kerouac, and together, their dreams of creating a "New Vision" of literature form the nascent beginnings of the Beat Generation.
Mr. Radcliffe recently filmed "Horns," based on Joe Hill's dark fantasy novel, and a romantic comedy, "The F-Word." But "Kill Your Darlings"—in which Mr. Radcliffe's Ginsberg discovers drugs, his feelings for Mr. Carr and the kind of poetry he really wants to write—may prove to be the biggest game changer in the actor's career. The film is scheduled to be released in the fall—when Mr. Radcliffe is likely to pass through New York again.
"It was liberating," Mr. Radcliffe said. "I think that film, in combination with the year I had just had with 'How to Succeed,' really freed something up in me and I just started thinking: 'Don't be inhibited, and just go for it and see what happens.'"
Mr. Radcliffe, who keeps a home in the West Village, is now in London preparing to play the lead role in a new West End production of Martin McDonagh's "The Cripple of Inishmaan." The Wall Street Journal recently met Mr. Radcliffe there.
In playing Allen Ginsberg, you've taken on one of the most iconic and quintessential New Yorkers. As someone who grew up in London, what did you do to learn and become him?
The most immediate resource for me was his diaries, because they give an amazing insight into the kind of boy he was, which was somebody who had a great deal of faith in himself, somebody who was unique and individual and was in some way going to distinguish himself from his peers. That comes through so quickly. He's very resolute that it's going to be something artistic. He writes about composing a concerto when he was 14 and things like that. The diaries give a very clear and really helpful picture of him as being somebody who was fairly pretentious and incredibly smart and very, very ambitious. The other thing that does come through particularly in the later diaries, he's incredibly compassionate as well. But at that young age, in the years before the film starts as it were, 13 to 17, he's quite wrought a lot of the time with emotion, and it was all very pent-up and he was desperate to get out of the shadow of his parents and stop living under that.
Did you research Allen's life only until the period captured in the film, and not after?
We'd been specifically asked not to by the director. John [Krokidas] just said: "Focus on the time—everything before that you can find out about their lives, and up to the point when we show them." Learning anything beyond that could have been counterproductive. When I was first cast, some other people would ask me questions like, "Are you going to grow a beard?" And I think other people had questions about the voice as well. The voice I'm doing in the film is the voice of somebody who hasn't yet smoked hundreds of thousands of cigarettes and done loads of drugs and had a lot of late nights and drunk tons of alcohol, which is obviously what he went on to do. I'm playing him on the cusp of all that self-discovery. That's what the film's about—it's about really showing where he was coming from and just leaving the audience with a hint of the person that he was going to become.
Like Harry Potter, the character of Ginsberg comes with the weight of expectation from the outside world. Were you nervous about disappointing his fans?
I was nervous about not doing a good job, and therefore had I not done a good job, then it would have been a disappointment to not just the fans of Allen but to myself and the film. I think the point of the film was that we didn't want to be reverent of the Beats. So in that sense, I don't think we could afford to be worried about upsetting people because we're telling a very distinct story and it's coming from a director who has a very distinct vision for the film. But I think what we did and what we set out to do and what we thought would please fans of the Beats most, by doing this, is by capturing their irreverence at that age. How it was about departing from the establishment. We thought if we made the film in that spirit while obviously trying to be faithful to the characters, that would be the most accurate depiction of the Beats. When I chose the part, it wasn't a situation of going, "Oh my god, I'll get to play Allen Ginsberg." My reaction was: "Oh my god, I'll have a chance to play this part in this film." It was a reaction to the part and the way it was written. In a way, you just have to think of it as being a part like any other that you happen to have a huge amount of background research material already done for you on.
What differences do you see when you do theater on Broadway versus the West End?
New York is a more theater-centric town than London. London is pretty theater-centric but New York is—the way I can most easily illustrate that is how long have the Tonys been televised for? And the Olivier Awards for the first time last year. There are people in New York who go and see 40 shows a year, and I don't know people in the industry, frankly, who see that many shows a year. The slightly embarrassing thing about New York is the entrance round, where when you walk on stage people clap. It doesn't happen here. And the other thing: Standing ovations in New York, you'd have to suck to not get one, but I also think it comes out of a generosity. I think when New Yorkers pay as much as they have to, to go and see a Broadway show, they're like, "I'm going to go, I'm going to be entertained, and I'm going to have a great time." And that's a fantastic attitude to bring into the theater with you. I'm still very protective and sort of patriotic, having spent a lot of time in New York, I personally think we still have the upper hand on straight plays. Musicals, New York is the spiritual home of the musical and no one's ever going to take that away from New York. There's just a slickness to American musicals that I find amazing.
Write to Barbara Chai at email@example.com


text:
Explaining Health Care Reform: Risk Adjustment, Reinsurance, and Risk Corridors
As of January 1, 2014, insurers are no longer able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions (under rules referred to as guaranteed issue and modified community rating, respectively). These aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – along with tax credits for low and middle income people buying insurance on their own in new health insurance marketplaces – make it easier for people with pre-existing conditions to gain insurance coverage. However, if not accompanied by other regulatory measures, these provisions could have unintended consequences for the insurance market: insurers may try to compete by avoiding sicker enrollees rather than by providing the best value to consumers; in addition, insurers may face uncertainty as to how to price coverage in the early years of market reform as new people (including those previously considered "uninsurable") gain coverage, leading to the possibility of premium volatility. This brief explains three provisions of the ACA – risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors – that are intended to promote insurer competition on the basis of quality and value and promote insurance market stability, particularly in the early years of reform.
Background: Adverse Selection & Risk Selection
One concern with the guaranteed availability of insurance is that consumers who are most in need of health care may be more likely to purchase insurance. This phenomenon, known as adverse selection, can lead to higher average premiums, thereby disrupting the insurance market and undermining the goals of reform. Uncertainty about the health status of enrollees could also make insurers cautious about offering plans in a reformed individual market or cause them to be overly conservative in setting premiums. To discourage behavior that could lead to adverse selection, the ACA makes it difficult for people to wait until they are sick to purchase insurance (i.e. by limiting open enrollment periods, requiring most people to have insurance coverage or pay a penalty, and providing subsidies to help with the cost of insurance).
Risk selection is a related concern, which occurs when insurers have an incentive to avoid enrolling people who are in worse health and likely to require costly medical care. Under the ACA, insurers are no longer permitted to deny coverage or charge higher premiums on the basis of health status. However, insurers may still try to attract healthier clients by making their products unattractive to people with expensive health conditions (e.g., in what benefits they cover or through their drug formularies). Or, certain products (e.g., ones with higher deductibles and lower premiums) may be inherently more attractive to healthier individuals. This type of risk selection has the potential to make the market less efficient because insurers may compete on the basis of attracting healthier people to enroll, as opposed to competing by providing the most value to consumers.
The ACA's risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors programs are intended to protect against the negative effects of adverse selection and risk selection, and also work to stabilize premiums, particularly during the initial years of ACA implementation.
Each program varies by the types of plans that participate, the level of government responsible for oversight, the criteria for charges and payments, the sources of funds, and the duration of the program. The table below outlines the basic characteristics of each program.
Table 1: Summary of Risk and Market Stabilization Programs in the Affordable Care Act
Risk Adjustment
Risk Corridors
the program
Redistributes funds from plans with lower-risk enrollees to plans with higher-risk enrollees
Provides payment to plans that enroll higher-cost individuals
Limits losses and gains beyond an allowable range
it was
Protects against adverse selection and risk selection in the individual and small group markets, inside and outside the exchanges by spreading financial risk across the markets
Protects against premium increases in the individual market by offsetting the expenses of high-cost individuals
Stabilizes premiums and protects against inaccurate premium setting during initial years of the reform
Non-grandfathered individual and small group market plans, both inside and outside of the exchanges
All health insurance issuers and self-insured plans contribute funds; individual market plans subject to new market rules (both inside and outside the exchange) are eligible for payment
Qualified Health Plans (QHPs), which are plans qualified to be offered on a health insurance marketplace (also called exchange)
it works
Plans' average actuarial risk will be determined based on enrollees' individual risk scores. Plans with lower actuarial risk will make payments to higher risk plans.
Payments net to zero.
If an enrollee's costs exceed a certain threshold (called an attachment point), the plan is eligible for payment (up to the reinsurance cap).
Payments net to zero
HHS collects funds from plans with lower than expected claims and makes payments to plans with higher than expected claims. Plans with actual claims less than 97% of target amounts pay into the program and plans with claims greater than 103% of target amounts receive funds.
Payments do not have to net to zero.
it goes
into effect
2014, onward
2014 – 2016
(Temporary – 3 years)
2014 – 2016
(Temporary – 3 years)
Risk Adjustment
The ACA's risk adjustment program is intended to reinforce market rules that prohibit risk selection by insurers. Risk adjustment accomplishes this by transferring funds from plans with lower-risk enrollees to plans with higher-risk enrollees. The goal of the risk adjustment program is to encourage insurers to compete based on the value and efficiency of their plans rather than by attracting healthier enrollees. To the extent that risk selecting behavior by insurers – or decisions made by enrollees – drive up costs in the health insurance marketplaces (for example, if insurers selling outside the Exchange try to keep premiums low by steering sick applicants to Exchange coverage), risk adjustment also works to stabilize premiums and the cost of tax credit subsidies to the federal government.
Program Participation
The risk adjustment program applies to non-grandfathered1 plans in the individual and small group2 insurance markets, both inside and outside of the exchanges, with some exceptions.3 Plans that were renewed prior to January 1, 2014, and are therefore not subject to most ACA requirements, are not part of the risk adjustment system. Multi-state plans and Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (COOP) are subject to risk adjustment. Unless a state chooses to combine its individual and small group markets, separate risk adjustment systems will operate in each market.
Government Oversight
States operating an exchange have the option to either establish their own state-run risk adjustment program or allow the federal government to run the program. States choosing not to operate an exchange or marketplace (and thus utilizing the federally-run exchange, called the Health Insurance Marketplace) do not have the option to run their own risk adjustment programs and must use the federal model. In states for which HHS operates risk adjustment, issuers will be charged a fee to cover the costs of administering the program.4
HHS developed a federally-certified risk adjustment methodology to be used by states or by HHS on behalf of states. States electing to use an alternative model must first seek federal approval and must submit yearly reports to HHS. States electing to run their own risk adjustment program must publish a notice of benefit and payment parameters by March 1 of the year prior to the benefit year; otherwise they will forgo the option to deviate from the federal methodology. Once a state's alternative methodology is approved, it becomes federally-certified and can be used by other states.
Calculation of Payments & Charges
Under risk adjustment, eligible insurers are compared based on the average financial risk of their enrollees. The HHS methodology estimates financial risk using enrollee demographics and medical diagnoses. It then compares plans in each geographic area and market segment based on the average risk of their enrollees, in order to assess which plans will be charged and which will be issued payments.
Under HHS's methodology, individual risk scores – based on each individual's age, sex, and diagnoses – are assigned to each enrollee. Diagnoses are grouped into a Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) and assigned a numeric value that represents the relative expenditures a plan is likely to incur for an enrollee with a given category of medical diagnosis.5 If an enrollee has multiple, unrelated diagnoses (such as prostate cancer and arthritis), both HCC values are used in calculating the individual risk score. Additionally, if an adult enrollee has certain combinations of illnesses (such as a severe illness and an opportunistic infection), an interaction factor is added to the person's individual risk score. Finally, if the enrollee is receiving subsidies to reduce their cost-sharing, an induced utilization factor would be applied to account for induced demand.6
Once individual risk scores are calculated for all enrollees in the plan, these values are averaged across the plan to arrive at the plan's average risk score. The average risk score, which is a weighted average of all enrollees' individual risk scores, represents the plan's predicted expenses (based on the demographics of enrollees). Under the HHS methodology, adjustments are made for a variety of factors, including actuarial value (i.e., the extent of patient cost-sharing in the plan), allowable rating variation, and geographic cost variation. Under risk adjustment, plans with a relatively low average risk score will make payments into the system, while plans with relatively high average risk scores will receive payments.
Transfers (both payments and charges) are calculated by comparing each plan's average risk score to a baseline premium (the average premium in the state). Transfers are calculated at the geographic rating area, such that insurers offering coverage in multiple rating areas in a given state will have multiple transfer amounts that will be grouped into a single invoice. Transfers within a given state will net to zero. HHS proposes to use the same methodology in 2014 and 2015.
Data Collection & Privacy
Under the federal risk adjustment program, to protect consumer privacy and confidentiality, insurers are responsible for providing HHS with de-identified data, including enrollees' individual risk scores. States are not required to use this model of data collection, but are required to only collect information reasonably necessary to operate the risk adjustment program and are prohibited from collecting personally identifiable information. Insurers may require providers and suppliers to submit the appropriate data needed for risk adjustment calculations.
To ensure accurate reporting, HHS proposes that insurers first validate their data through an independent audit and then submit the data to HHS for a second audit. For the first two benefit years (2014 and 2015) no adjustments to payments or charges will be made as HHS optimizes the data validation process. In 2016 and onward, if any errors are found through these audits, the insurer's average actuarial risk will be adjusted, along with any payments or charges. Because the audit process is expected to take more than one year to complete, the first adjustments to payments (for the 2016 benefit year) will be issued in 2018.
The goal of the ACA's temporary reinsurance program is to stabilize individual market premiums during the early years of new market reforms (e.g. guaranteed issue). The temporary program will be in place from 2014 through 2016. The program transfers funds to individual market insurance plans with higher-cost enrollees in order to reduce the incentive for insurers to charge higher premiums due to new market reforms that guarantee the availability of coverage regardless of health status.
Reinsurance differs from risk adjustment in that reinsurance is meant to stabilize premiums by reducing the incentive for insurers to charge higher premiums due to uncertainty about the health status of enrollees, whereas risk adjustment is meant to stabilize premiums by mitigating the effects of risk selection across plans. Thus, reinsurance payments are only made to individual market plans that are subject to new market rules (e.g., guaranteed issue), whereas risk adjustment payments are made to both individual and small group plans. Additionally, reinsurance payments are based on actual costs, whereas risk adjustment payments are based on expected costs.7
While risk adjustment payments net to zero within the individual and small group markets, reinsurance payments represent a net flow of dollars into the individual market, in effect subsidizing premiums in that market for a period of time. To cover the costs of reinsurance payments and administering the program, funds are collected from all health insurance issuers and third party administrators (including those in the individual and group markets). HHS will issue reinsurance payments to plans based on need, rather than issuing payments proportional to the amount of contributions from each state.
Program Participation
All individual, small group, and large group market issuers of fully-insured major medical products,8 as well as self-funded plans,9 will contribute funds to the reinsurance program. Reinsurance payments will be made to individual market issuers that cover high-cost individuals (and are subject to the ACA's market rules).10 State high risk pools are excluded from the program.11
Government Oversight
States have the option to operate their own reinsurance program or allow HHS to run one for the state. For states that choose to operate their own reinsurance program, there is no formal HHS approval process. However, states' ability to deviate from the HHS guidelines is limited: HHS collects all reinsurance contributions – even if the program is state-run – and all states must follow a national payment schedule. Additionally, states that wish to modify data requirements must publish a notice of benefit and payment parameters. States may collect additional funds if they believe the cost of reinsurance payments and program administration will exceed the amount specified at the national level. States wishing to continue reinsurance programs after 2016 may do so, but they may not continue to use funds collected as part of the ACA's reinsurance program after the year 2018.
Calculation of Payments & Charges
The ACA sets national levels for reinsurance funds at $10 billion in 2014, $6 billion in 2015, and $4 billion in 2016. Based on estimates of the number of enrollees, HHS set a uniform reinsurance contribution rate of $63 per person in 2014 and has proposed a rate of $44 per person in 2015.
Eligible insurance plans will receive reinsurance payments when the plan's cost for an enrollee crosses a certain threshold, called an attachment point. HHS proposes to set the attachment point (a dollar amount of insurer costs, above which the insurer will be eligible for reinsurance payments) at $45,000 in 2014 and $70,000 in 2015. HHS also proposes to set a reinsurance cap (a dollar-amount threshold, above which the insurer is no longer eligible for reinsurance) at $250,000 in both 2014 and 2015.12 Finally, HHS proposes to set the coinsurance rate (the percentage of the costs above an attachment point and below the reinsurance cap that will be reimbursed through the reinsurance program) at 80 percent in 2014 and 50 percent in 2015.
The attachment point, reinsurance cap, and coinsurance rates above are expected to yield payments of $10 billion in 2014 and $6 billion in 2015, based on modeling by HHS. For the 2014 benefit year, and possibly future years, HHS proposes that if reinsurance contributions exceed the amount of payments requested, then that year's reinsurance payments to insurers will be increased proportionately. Similarly, if reinsurance contributions fall short of the amount requested for payments, then that year's reinsurance payments will be decreased proportionately. This means total payments cannot exceed the amount collected through contributions by insurers and third-party administrators. States opting to raise additional reinsurance funds may do so by decreasing the attachment point, increasing the reinsurance cap, and/or increasing the coinsurance rate. States may not make changes to the national attachment point, reinsurance cap, or coinsurance rate that would result in lower reinsurance payments.
Data Collection & Privacy
Payment amounts made to eligible individual market insurers will be based on medical cost data (to identify high-cost enrollees, for which plans will receive reinsurance payment). Therefore, in order to calculate reinsurance payments, HHS or state reinsurance entities must either collect or be allowed access to claims data as well as data on cost-sharing reductions (because reinsurance payments will not be made for costs that have already been reimbursed through cost sharing subsidies). In states for which HHS runs the reinsurance program, HHS will utilize the same distributed data collection approach used for the risk adjustment program and will similarly ensure that the collection of personally identifiable information is limited to that necessary to calculate payments. State reinsurance entities may either use this approach or may directly collect privacy-protected data from issuers. HHS proposes to conduct audits of participating insurers as well as states conducting their own reinsurance programs.
Risk Corridors
The ACA's temporary risk corridor program is intended to promote accurate premiums in the early years of the exchanges (2014 through 2016) by discouraging insurers from them from setting them high in response to uncertainty about who will enroll and what they will cost. The program will work by cushioning insurers participating in exchanges and marketplaces from extreme gains and losses.
The Risk Corridors program sets a target for exchange participating insurers to spend 80% of premium dollars on health care and quality improvement. Insurers with costs less than 3% of the target amount must pay into the risk corridors program; the funds collected will be used to reimburse plans with costs that exceed 3% of the target amount.
This program is intended to work in conjunction with the ACA's medical loss ratio (MLR) provision, which requires most individual and small group insurers to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on enrollee's medical care and quality improvement expenses, or else issue a refund to enrollees.
Program Participation
All Qualified Health Plans (or QHPs, plans qualified to participate in the exchanges)13 are subject to the risk corridor program. Only those plans with expenses falling outside of allowable ranges make payments to the program (or qualify to receive payments).
Government Oversight
The risk corridor program is federally administered. HHS charges plans with larger than expected gains and make payments to plans with larger than expected losses.
Calculation of Payments & Charges
Each year, each Qualified Health Plan will be assigned a target amount for what are called allowable costs (expenditures on medical care for enrollees and quality improvement activities) based on its premium.14 If an insurer's actual claims fall within plus or minus three percent of the target amount, it makes no payments into the risk corridor program and receives no payments from it. In other words, the plan is fully at risk for any loss or gain. QHPs with lower than expected claims pay into the risk corridor program:
- A QHP with claims falling below its target amount by 3% – 8% pays HHS in the amount of 50% of the difference between its actual claims and 97% of its target amount.
- A QHP with claims falling below its target amount by more than 8% pays 2.5 percent of the target amount plus 80% of the difference between their actual claims and 92% of its target.15
Conversely, HHS reimburses plans with higher than expected costs:
- A QHP with actual claims that exceed its target amount by 3% to 8% receives a payment in the amount of 50% of the amount in excess of 103% of the target.
- A QHP with claims that exceed its target amount by more than 8% receives payment in the amount of 2.5% of the target amount plus 80% of the amount in excess of 108% of the target.
In other words, plans take full responsibility (or receive the full benefit) for small gains or losses, while the federal government shares in larger gains and losses. Unlike reinsurance or risk adjustment payments, risk corridor payments are not required to net to zero, meaning that the federal government could experience an increase in revenues or an increase in costs under the program.
In response to reports of individual market plan cancelations in November 2013, HHS announced a transitional policy allowing certain plans to be reinstated if state regulators agree to adopt a similar transitional policy.16 As this policy change could affect the composition of the exchange risk pool, HHS is considering modifying the risk corridors program. One possible change would be an increase to the way allowable costs are calculated (i.e., increasing the profit margin floor and the administrative costs ceiling). HHS is also considering state-specific adjustments to allowable costs because the transitional policy's effects will vary by state. Because the risk corridors program is closely tied to the MLR provision, HHS may also consider similar modifications to the MLR formula in future rulemaking.
Data Collection & Privacy
In order to calculate payments and charges for the risk corridors program, QHPs are required to submit financial data to HHS, including the actual amount of premiums earned as well as any cost-sharing reductions received. To reduce the administrative burden on insurers, HHS proposes to tie the data collection and validation requirements for the risk corridors to that of the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provision of the ACA. HHS also proposes to conduct audits for the risk corridors program in conjunction with audits for the reinsurance and risk corridors program to minimize the burden on insurers.
The Affordable Care Act's risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors programs are designed to work together to mitigate the potential effects of adverse selection and risk selection. All three programs will provide stability in the early years of a reformed health insurance market, with risk adjustment continuing over the long-term. Many health insurance plans are subject to more than one premium stabilization program, and while the programs have similar goals, they are designed to be complementary. Specifically, risk adjustment is designed to mitigate any incentives for plans to attract healthier individuals and compensate those that enroll a disproportionately sick population. Reinsurance compensates plans for their high-cost enrollees, and by the nature of its financing provides a subsidy for individual market premiums generally over a three-year period. And, risk corridors reduce the general uncertainty insurers face in the early years of implementation when the market is opened up to people with pre-existing conditions who were previously excluded.
Plans in existence at the time the ACA was enacted in March 2010 were grandfathered under the law and are subject to fewer requirements. Plans lose their grandfathered status if they make significant changes (such as significantly increasing cost-sharing or imposing new annual benefit limits)
For the purposes of the Risk Adjustment program, small group is defined according to the definition set forth by the state in which the insurer is operating (i.e. up to 50 or 100 employees).
Plans that are not subject to the ACA's market reforms (such as guaranteed issue, single risk pools, and essential health benefits), as well as student health plans are not subject to risk adjustment. Risk adjustment does not apply to private plans that contract with Medicare or Medicaid (such as Medicare Advantage plans), nor does it apply to self-insured plans.
The risk adjustment user fee will be charged on a per-enrollee basis and is expected to be less than $1 per enrollee per year in 2014 and 2015.
As the cost of a given medical condition will differ by the enrollee's demographics and type of insurance plan, HHS proposes using 15 separate risk adjustment models, one for each combination of broad age category (infants, children, and adults) and type of plan (platinum, gold, silver, bronze, catastrophic). Additionally, there are 26 categories for combinations of sex (male/female) and age groups (9 for adults and 4 for children).
Plans with enrollees that receive cost-sharing reductions under the ACA receive an adjustment because cost-sharing reductions may induce demand for health care and are not otherwise accounted for in the other premium stabilization programs. No adjustment will be made for reinsurance payments.
As reinsurance is based on actual rather than predicted costs, reinsurance payments will also account for low-risk individuals who may have unexpectedly high costs (such as costs incurred due to an accident or sudden onset of an illness). Under reinsurance, some plans may receive payments for high-cost/high-risk enrollees, and still be eligible for payment for those enrollees under risk adjustment.
Expatriate plans are not included. Plans with limited coverage (e.g. hospital indemnity, dread disease coverage, or plans that only cover prescription drug benefits) are not considered major medical plans for the purposes of the reinsurance program.
Self-funded plans are those plans in which the plan sponsor pays the cost of health benefits from its own assets. Some self-funded plans contract with third party administrators (TPAs) to process the plan's claims and enrollment. Those self-funded plans that do not contract with a TPA are called self-administered self-funded plans. In 2014, all self-funded plans are subject to reinsurance contributions. However, in 2015 and 2016, HHS proposes to exempt self-administered self-funded plans from reinsurance contributions.
Non-grandfathered individual market plans are only eligible for reinsurance payments for costs incurred after the adoption of 2014 market reform rules (guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewal, single risk pool, and essential health benefits).
In the final rule, HHS notes that "if a high-risk pool were to be structured as individual market coverage subject to the market reform rules, it would be eligible for reinsurance payments and would also, therefore, be a contributing entity." As state high risk pools and the transitional reinsurance programs both target high-cost enrollees, states may decide whether to keep, eliminate, or phase out their high-risk pools to the extent necessary to carry out the reinsurance program. States may not use funds from reinsurance for their high risk pools.
The ACA's reinsurance program is not intended to replace existing commercial reinsurance programs, which typically set their attachment points at around $250,000.
Qualified Health Plan (QHP) issuers may also offer QHPs outside of the exchange, in which case the QHP outside of the exchange is also subject to the risk corridors program. For more information on QHPs and health insurance exchanges, see: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7908-02.pdf
Allowable costs include medical claims and costs associated with quality improvement efforts, as defined in the ACA's medical loss ratio (MLR) calculations. Insurers must also account for any cost-sharing reductions received from HHS by reducing their allowable costs by this amount.
HHS provides an example of an insurer with a $10 million target amount and actual claims of $8.8 million (or 88% of the target amount). The insurer would have to pay $570,000 to the risk corridors program because (2.5%*$10 million) + (80%*((92%*10 million)-8.8 million) = 570,000.
For more details on the transitional policy, see November 14, 2013 letter from Gary Cohen, Director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) to Insurance Commissioners, available here: http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Letters/Downloads/commissioner-letter-11-14-2013.PDF


text:
I understood the Principle of Mathematical Induction.
I know how to make a recursive definition.
But I am stuck with how the "Principle of Strong Mathematical Induction (- the Alternative Form)" works?
I could not understand it!
I found many websites explaining it but still could not got the idea.
I will highly appreciate an explanation using. English is my second language and my book is too difficult for me.


text:
Special Values for AAA/CAA and 55+
Sonesta is pleased to provide discounted travel for members of AAA/CAA and for guests who are 55+. Savings range from 5-15% off of the Best Available Rate depending on the property and subject to availability. Discounts are available on Sonesta.com, by calling 1.800.Sonesta, or through your preferred travel agent.
AAA/CAA Discount
Exclusive Offer for Card Carrying Members
Sonesta welcomes AAA/CAA members and offers the Best Available Rate to AAA/CAA card holders everyday. Our discount provides AAA/CAA members with the opportunity to save even more when they stay with us, whether it's for a quick weekend getaway or a week long vacation.
- Discount on two night stays
Welcome amenities
Room and rates are subject to availability. Restrictions may apply. AAA/CAA Membership ID required at check-in. Open to US and Canada residents only.


text: Book banning always struck me as a special kind of terrible. Not necessarily because of direct harm done — a student forbidden from reading, say Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, is not a different end result than just not having that book on the syllabus — but because of the principle. There's no greater insult to the very idea of education and to the discerning capabilities of young minds than to say, "You students can't handle this book. You need to be protected from it." Continue reading "North Carolina County Celebrates Banned Book Week By Banning Invisible Man"


text:
Please visit: http://pcap.stanford.edu for current information on our the program or view the Information Sessions link: http://pcap.stanford.edu/admissions/information_sessions.html
The Primary Care Associate Program, cooperatively administered by the Stanford University School of
Medicine and Foothill College, prepares physician assistants to
work mainly with primary care physicians who care for under served populations. The curriculum
also includes limited training in hospitals and sub specialties.
Physician assistants (PAs) work with physicians as part of a health-care team. They help improve the quality of and access to primary care for areas and populations designated as being under served. The Program's curriculum emphasizes the skills necessary to recognize and treat common primary care problems which include acute, chronic, emergent or surgical conditions in patients of all ages. Our students are trained to:
The Primary Care Associate Program offers students a 21-month curriculum that combines the traditional
concepts of physician assistant training.
Founded in 1971, the seven-quarter Primary Care Associate Program features full-time classroom training during its first and second quarter and emphasizes clinical training during the remaining four quarters. History-taking, physical examination skills, basic laboratory techniques, common diagnostic and therapeutic procedures as well as patient counseling and education skills are important parts of the curriculum.
After an intensive course in physical diagnosis, students participate in lectures and clinical experiences in general medicine, pharmacology, emergency medicine, pediatrics, women's health, geriatrics, and behavioral science. Students are required to make special arrangements to participate in a surgery rotation. In addition, the Program includes a multicultural lecture series in social, economic, and health issues within the Latino, African-American, Asian, and American Indian ethnic groups. A Medical Spanish course is offered for students who already possess some proficiency in the Spanish language.
Students receive classroom instruction and can access the medical library, learning resource center and labs at Stanford University's School of Medicine. Most clinical experiences take place in community preceptorships away from the School of Medicine. Students also participate in a hospital-based inpatient rotation. View Scheudule at the following url: http://pcap.stanford.edu/program/
Consistent with the demands of its accelerated, integrative training curriculum and its goals
to train health care providers in the delivery of primary health care services to medically underserved
populations, the Primary Care Associate Program seeks applicants with:
Extensive clinical experience:
Strong academic preparation:
Evidence of dedication to medically underserved areas and populations:
The Primary Care Associate Program has established community-based recruitment, admissions and preceptorships
in Kern, Monterey, San Benito, Imperial, Ventura, Humbolt, and San Diego Counties with the ultimate goal of deploying graduates
in these and surrounding communities.
Applicants who have a history of living in these areas and working with medically-underserved populations are welcomed to inquire about the community-based admissions process. Successful applicants admitted through community-based admissions will be required to complete preceptorships in the counties corresponding to their admission site.
The PCA program offers an articulation with St. Francis University's Physician Assistant Program for a Masters of Medical Science (MMS) degree.
top of page
Primary Care Associate Program
1215 Welch Rd, Modular G
Palo Alto, CA 94305-5408
Office: 650-725-6959
Fax: 650-723-9692
Web: http://pcap.stanford.edu


text:
Lavish salaries amid fiscal crisis
The Robert A. Kennedy saga gets more unbelievable all the time. Mr. Kennedy resigned last month as president of Connecticut's Board of Regents for Higher Education — which oversees the state universities, community colleges and Charter Oak State College — when controversy erupted over his unilateral approval of lavish raises for 21 board employees. Soon after Mr. Kennedy departed, it emerged that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration granted him (to be polite about it) an overly generous contract.
This revelation raises more questions about the competence of the governor and those around him.
Read more of this story and more!
7-Day Subscribers have FREE access to everything on rep-am.com and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE to register and activate your access,.
Not a subscriber?
You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.
Follow Us
Post a reader commentWe encourage your feedback and dialog.
Please be civil and respectful.
If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican.
Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.
Log In
|Register / Forgotten Password?


text:
I want to know when a browser includes the header -
Remote_Addr in the HTTP request. I observed the request sent by the browser on loading
stackoverflow.com, in the web console window of Firefox. There were no headers pertaining to IP address sent. So, does this mean the browser never sends this header along with a HTTP request?
I want to know when a browser includes the header -
In client-server applications, the IP address of the client (i.e., the browser) is sent via the socket connection (the request) to the server (e.g., Apache). If the client is using a proxy server however, that may be the proxy's IP address instead of the client's IP.
In PHP, you can use something like


text:
Print this page
Artbeads Ratings and Reviews
See All Reviews
Shop Now At Artbeads
Shop Jewelry Kits
Choose a Category
Shop Alphabet Beads
Shop Artbeads.com Store
Shop Bags & Boxes
Shop Bali Beads
Shop Base Metal Components
Shop Beading Books
Shop Bracelets & Neckwear
Shop Charms
Shop Clearance Items
Shop Copper Clasps
Shop Copper Components
Shop Copper Pendants
Shop Crafts & Accessories
Shop Cubic Zirconia Beads
Shop Earrings
Shop Freshwater Pearls
Shop Gemstone Beads
Shop Gift Certificates/Cards
Shop Glass Beads
Shop Gold Beads
Shop Gold Components
Shop Hill Tribe Silver Beads
Shop Horn Beads
Shop Jewelry Kits
Shop Limited Edition
Shop Limited Edition Gemstones
Shop Limited Edition Glass Beads
Shop Natural Beads
Shop Natural Components
Shop Pendants
Shop Pewter Beads
Shop Pewter Components
Shop Porcelain Beads
Shop Resin Beads
Shop Seed Beads
Shop Shell Beads
Shop Shell Pendants
Shop Silk Beads
Shop Silver Components
Shop Sterling Silver Beads
Shop Stringing Materials
Shop Swarovski Components
Shop Swarovski Crystal Beads
Shop Swarovski Pendants
Shop Swarovski Rhinestones
Shop Tools & Supplies
Shop Vintage Beads
Shop Watch Faces
Shop Weekly Specials
Shop Wire & Chain
Shop Wood Beads
Shop Wooden Components
Top-Rated Products
Celtic Heart Earring Kit
Tanzanite Temptation Bracelet Kit
Lady Bug Bracelet Kit
Jet Crystal Zipper Bracelet Kit
Rhapsody in Blue Woven Bracelet Kit
Reviews Home
Jewelry Kits
Product Reviews
Swarovski Pink Puffy Heart Charm Kit
This Swarovski Austrian crystal puffy heart kit is a do-it-yourself dream! Simply follow the printed directions included in this kit to bead your way to a fun puffy bicone heart! This kit includes enough stringing material and bicone beads for two hearts. This Swarovski crystal beading kit comes with everything you need to create the image shown. These fun kits are great projects for the crafty people in your life and yourself.
You will be required to have basic weaving skills to use these techniques
. Be sure to browse our selection of
Bead Stringing Books
to learn new tips and techniques about this popular beading method.
Swarovski Crystals
are high quality crystals from Austria and always dazzle with brilliant perfection. Create one of these fun Swarovski charms today!
This kit cannot be returned once it has been opened.
Customer Reviews for
Swarovski Pink Puffy Heart Charm Kit
This product has not yet been reviewed.
Click here
to continue to the product details page.


text:
This is a list of all courses open to pre-majors across the campus, listing courses by days and time block. This tool is especially useful for students who have time constraints.
The 2012-2013 projected annual schedule for pre-majors includes 100 and 200-level classes that apply towards fulfilling general education and prerequisite requirements toward various majors at UW Bothell.
The 2012-2013 projected annual schedule for freshmen and Academic Transition Program (ATP) participants specifically lists the Discovery Core options for the year as well as specific courses for students participating in ATP.
Please go to the Time Schedule for the most updated 2011-2012 class information:
The 2013-2014 Projected Annual Time Schedules for both freshmen and Pre-majors will be available in late July.
© University of Washington Bothell Privacy | Terms


text:
Lifelong Learning Law and Business Modules
Below is a list of Lifelong Learning Law and Business modules available for selection by first year undergraduate students who are pursuing a programme that allows for the selection of Free Standing Modules. (Please note that when you click on the module link, the full module description will open in a new window).
CE1099 - Tort Law
CE1101 - European Law
CE1361 - Managing Finance I
CE1782 - The English Legal System
CE1784 - Criminal Law
CE2861 - Managing Finance II
CE3184 - Mediation Skills
CE3389 - Project Management
CE3593 - Property Law
CE4509 - Contract Law
CE4561 - Issues in Law
CE4613 - Professional Leadership and Management Development
CE4777 - Employment Law and Practice
CE4923 - Employability Skills
CE4924 - Essential Management Skills
CE4953 - Governance, Legislation and participation in post-devolution
CE4993 - How Wales Works: An Introduction to Welsh Public Life and Government