text:
Zola Budd Takes on Comrades
Running legend and Newton devotee Zola Budd is taking on Comrades Ultramarathon next month in her native South Africa. She was kind enough to take a moment and write a bit about her preparation thus far for the famous event.
Training for Comrades has been a whole new experience for me. It is a whole new world that opened up regarding training and my mental approach to races as well.
The biggest change was the long runs of up to 4 hrs and the speed work that was equivalent to my long runs before I started training for Comrades! Most exciting was running the two Ultra marathons in South Africa during April. First up was the Two Oceans in Cape Town. This is a 56km race where you run along both the Indian and Atlantic Ocean. It is a gruelling race which includes two climbs up Chapmans Peak and Constantia Nek. What made the race even more difficult this year was the weather. It rained almost the whole way with strong winds as well. I finished 5th in my age group in 4:29 plus change.
The next ultra was two weeks later in Mpumalanga. It is called the Loskop Forever Resorts Ultra Marathon. The run starts in Middelburg and finishes at the Forever Resorts and is run over 50km. The weather was incredible and I had a better run than at Two Oceans and finished 5th overall in the open Ladies and won my age group in 3:40:02.
Since returning to the US I started my taper and has run shorter and faster distances in preparation for the Comrades. I will be running the Divas Half Marathon in North Myrtle Beach on the 20th of May and will be flying over to South Africa after that.
Keep an eye out for more from Zola before and after Comrades!


text:
Let $M$ be an even dimensional smooth manifold.
I want to find an example $M$ satisfying the following conditions,
- $M$ admits a Kahler structure.
- $\omega$ is a symplectic form on $M$.
- There is no Kahler structure $(M,\omega',J)$ such that $[\omega']=[\omega] \in H^2(M;\mathbb{R})$
(I mean, want to find an example $M$ such that "Kahler cone $\neq$ symplectic cone" with non-empty Kahler cone.)
Thank you in advance.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
DOVER - Indian Valley's Emily Baker took an inbound pass and netted a 20-foot bucket at the final buzzer to disappoint Harrison Central 46-44 in the Division III sectional finals at Dover High School Thursday night.
"The bottom line is they made one more play than we did," said Harrison Central head coach Nick Yourkovitch. "We had two girls on her and in her face, she makes that shot one out of 10 times and tonight just happened to be that time."
After trailing most of the contest Shannon Compher netted a three-point bucket to tie it up with 23.8 seconds left in the contest. The Braves took it to the other end and Jesse Ledger pulled down the rebound.
Article Photos
FOR TWO — Harrison Central's Jess Custer goes up for two in front of the Indian Valley defense during the Huskies 46-44 loss to the Braves Thursday at Dover High School.
-- Mike Palmer
Harrison Central called for a time out to diagram its final play with just 11 seconds remaining. The air deflated from the lady Huskies bench when Harrison was whistled for a five-second violation despite Yourkovich jumping and screaming for his final time out across court in front of his bench.
The request went unnoticed and Indian Valley received the ball. The Braves inbounded and took the shot with five seconds showing but it bounced off the rim and once again Ledger gathered in the carom. This time in the fray she was toppled and called for a time out as she hit the hardwood.
Once again the Huskies were not going to get the break as the official signaled a travel setting up the buzzer beater.
"Admittedly the calls were not going our way," Yourkovich lamented. "But we did not help ourselves out, either.
"It was just an awful feeling that I could not help them get over the hump."
The Braves led 14-8 at the end of the first period, Katie Ellzy had all eight points in the opening frame.
Indian Valley spoiled a 10-4 second quarter by the Huskies when, at the end of the second quarter and the score knotted at 18, they capitalized on a foul at the buzzer as netted both untimed foul shots to lead 20-18 at intermission.
Indian Valley outscored the Huskies 13-10 in the third and led 33-28 going into the fourth.
Ellzy once again paced the lady Huskies. "Katie has been a sound player for us all season," Yourkovich said.
Ellzy just missed a triple-double, leading the Huskies with 20 points, 14 rebounds and nine blocks. Compher contributed seven points and seven rebounds. The Huskies shot 17 of 49 action shots and wet 8 of 10 from the charity stripe. Harrison Central led on the boards, 37-25.
Harrison Central closes the season ledger at 12-12.
"The three seniors we have, I am probably more proud of them than any other group we have had," Yourkovich said. "They have been team leaders and kept the team together these last couple weeks when things have not gone our way."
Indian Valley 46, Harrison Central 44
Indian Valley 14 6 13 13 - 46
Harrison Central 8 10 10 16 - 44
INDIAN VALLEY Emeloez 5, 2-2 12; Soho 2, 0-0 4; Baker 3,7-8 13; Konoray 3, 1-1 7; Shamel 4,2-8 10. TOTALS: 17 12-19 46. 3-pointers: none.
HARRISON CENTRAL (12-11) Ledger 1 0-0 3, Compher 1, 4-4 7; Richards 1, 0-0 2, Dunfee 3 0-1 6, Ellzy 8, 4-5 20; Custer 1,0-0 . TOTALS: 17 8-10 44. 3-pointers: Compher, Ledger.


text:
2010-11 Course Descriptions
APST - Applied Studies
College of Arts and Sciences (BAS)
APST 101 Adult Learning Theory (3-0-3), fall, spring. Explores current theories and practices of adult education. A required project develops a personal philosophy of learning, an inventory of learning experiences and a plan for the student's educational development. Enrollment limited to BAS students.
APST 324 Portfolio Preparation (3-0-3), spring. Guides the student through the process required to produce an academic portfolio of the student's college-level life-learning experiences; promotes an understanding of the balance between theory and experience necessary for college credit; acquaints the student with the standards for prior learning credit; and prepares the student for the faculty assessment and transcription process. Enrollment limited to BAS students. Prerequisite: APST 101. Special fee required. A writing-intensive course.
Vision in Action
Watch the video above to witness the future of Abilene Christian University taking shape.
Explore Majors
Find majors or programs that interest you.
Visit Campus
Satisfy your curiosity about what it means to live and learn at ACU!
Apply to ACU
Learn more about our application and admissions process.


text:
I am using MacOSX Snow Leopard.
How do I achieve page-up and page-down?
I am using MacOSX Snow Leopard.
How do I achieve page-up and page-down?
If you have a full keyboard you can use the pgup and pgdown keys on your keyboard, near the numpad.
If you are not using a full keyboard, function, labeled fn on your keyboard, plus the up and down arrow keys will give you a page up and down.
On my (Danish) keyboard layout (under 10.7.5) it is fn + shift + ↑/↓.
It's true that the hardware keyboard on Macintosh machines has:
Fn + ← = Home
So these "keys" fully exist already. This is apparent if you run Linux/Windows natively on your Mac.
However, OS X applications are responsible for handling these functions as they see fit, which is not something most of us expect. And the OSX Terminal application needs some tweaking to use them as we all expect.
I guess OS X follows an old school Unix tradition where
ctrl + a = Home
I now use this routinely, but my terminal-reflexes still demand a proper home,end,pg-up,pg-down...
Edit OS X's Terminal Keyboard Binding Settings to match
I tend to get this entered by copying a similar entry that already exists and then using that delete a character button to remove the different bits before typing in the rest.
Overall, this will look along these lines:
This meets all my expectations for how this should work. It works in vim and through ssh.
I'm somewhat fascinated how this remains an OSX issue, though I also understand that there's a purist Unix thing going on here. Just, most of us kids aren't coming from old-school Unix-land, but rather Linux.. But I digress.
It's ⌥ + Up/Down arrow keys.
If you use KeyRemap4Macbook app, check under "Change Arrrow Up/Down/Left/Right" keys.
When you have this set up, Page Up and Page Down will work with irrsi – I log-on remotely to another linux host for that – you only need to press Shift + Page Up or Page Down will work for that window (as opposed to scrolling pages of OS X terminal window).
PageUp: Fn+UP
PageDown: Fn+DOWN
Successfully tested on my brand new MBPro retina !
user Fn
PageUp: Fn+UP PageDown: Fn+DOWN
Alt + up/down arrows: pgup/pgdown
Spacebar and shift + spacebar: : pgup/pgdown
Command + up/down arrows: home/end


text:
I sometimes get to fly the jet on BF3 near the end of the round, and I almost always fly it out of range of the battlefield and die.
How do I turn the bird? It seems to have a mind of its own.
I have been trying the maneuver with the keys A , D and the arrow keys ← , → in combination with ↑ and ↓ .


text:
It's Not Just About The 3 R's
When it comes to education, people tend to think of the basics: reading, writing and arithmetic. Due to the obesity issue with kids, there has been a great deal of emphasis on the importance of sports and fitness. People think that sports can also offer children opportunities to inevitably play in major league clubs, the Olympics, etc. and therefore athletic programs should not be cut. Unfortunately, when it comes to music, not much thought is given as it is often the first to go when it comes down to budget cuts for extra-curricular programs. However, music is something that is such a critical component of our lives. It has been used as a form of communication and is also found throughout nature.
Why Exactly Do Birds Sing?
Birds put a lot of effort into singing, drumming, winnowing, and otherwise displaying. They are trying to impress mates and proclaim territories.*
Rock Me Amadeus
During the time of Mozart as well as other Masters, one's ability to sing or play a musical instrument also determined not only how one would be received into society but for women, how well they could marry.
Indeed, it is a critical component to well being and can literally change the course of one's life. Such is the case with newly discovered artists such as Susan Boyle, Kelly Clarkson, etc.
Rock Legends React
There is a non-profit organization that is on a mission to change this called Little Kids Rock. It was founded by some of the greatest names in the music world. LKR currently reaches over 74,000 kids across America! When it comes to making sure every kid gets a first-rate education, music matters! LKR believes that learning to play a musical instrument can be a transformative experience in students' lives, with the power to inspire the creativity and confidence that are critical to success in school and beyond. They are devoted to restoring and revitalizing music education in U.S. public schools. They bring free musical instruments and music instruction to underserved schools across the country. If you would like to find out about how you can get involved, visit LittleKidsRock.org and donate today!
The Interview
In this segment of The Organic View Radio Show, host, June Stoyer will be joined by the legendary rock drummer, Liberty Devitto (known for his tenure with Billy Joel) to discuss his work with Little Kids Rock! Click here to listen to the LIVE interview.
A Little More For Liberty Devitto Fans:
Liberty Devitto is legendary American Rock Drummer from Brooklyn, New York and loved by all New Yorkers, especially the folks from Long Island, where he grew up. Although he is best known for his work as the drummer for Billy Joel's band, he has played with the biggest names in the music industry such as Stevie Nicks, Phoebe Snow, Richie Supa, Felix Caveliere's Rascals, Mitch Ryder, Billy Joel/Elton John, Paul McCartney, Billy J. Kramer, Ronnie Spector, Joan Jett, Jeff Carlisi, Rob Auther, Peter Frampton, Will Lee, Mitch Ryder, Tone Loc, Denise Williams, Wild Cherry, Sam the Sham, Patty Smyth , Louis Prima Jr, Doctor Hook, Shelia E and so many other talented performers.
He continues to play with the NYC Hit Squad and has been a session drummer on recordings of other artists. He is a Drummer, Clinician, Lecturer, Songwriter, Producer and clearly a man of many talents. His latest project is called Camp Jam, which is America's most comprehensive rock camp. Guitar players, bass players, keyboard players, drummers and vocalists can unleash their inner rock star at Camp Jam. This isn't just limited to kids either! They have programs available for all ages and ability levels! Here is a video of Liberty Devitto's song, Money In A Card©. Now doesn't this song put you in the Christmas spirit?
Money In A Card


text:
I'm spending the summer in London and recently took a trip to Kew to visit the botanical gardens. While there I found a beautiful peacock feather that a friend of mine back in the US would love. However, I'm concerned that it would cause an issue at Gatwick when I return home. Are bird feathers prohibited?
It's like any animal product - you'd have to declare it - better safe than sorry.
However, if they're anything like New Zealand - who are VERY strict, they can fumigate / sterilise / wash any suspect item. For example, a friend brought an Ostrich egg back from South Africa. They took it for a couple of weeks, processed it, and mailed it back to him, all customs-approved.
Similarly, bugs that are dead and pinned can be fumigated to kill any eggs, and wood carvings can be dipped/sprayed as well.
Gatwick won't care - you're exiting with it, but you'll need to declare it at the US point. Odds are they'll wave you through, or possibly just inspect it.
As long as you declare it, you won't get fined. It's if you're caught trying to sneak something through without telling them that you'll get into trouble.
EDIT - Update for US
I've come across the US Customs regulations on Prohibited and Restricted Items - Fish and Wildlife - and indeed, you need to declare feathers.
As it turns out, no one said anything to me. I packed my clothes and then put 2 notebooks on top of them, placed the feather on the notebooks, and then closed the whole thing down with the compression straps. I'm not sure if it didn't show up in the Xray or what, but it went through checked baggage with no issues. Not sure if that's the norm for US flights.
I just walked right by two customs agents in Newark International with a hand fan made from Peacock feathers in my hand that I purchased at a floating market in Bangkok. It's a big fan (approximately 12" by 24") and it was right in front of them, I didn't need to declare it, just as I thought. It was too delicate to pack so I had to carry it by hand, well worth the money.
protected by Ankur Banerjee♦ Jan 30 '13 at 21:23
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
The University District Review Committee voted Tuesday to re-certify all 21 campus organizations under its jurisdiction. Since 1990, the committee has been charged with ensuring that fraternities, sororities and campus religious organizations with their own houses/facilities abide by city building and fire codes, and are good neighbors to the surrounding community.
Each group is required to be re-certified once a year through a documentation plan that includes neighbor surveys, a list of police call responses to the property, and reports by code inspectors.
17 of the 21 groups must correct minor code violation problems within 30 days to ensure their recertification.


text:
Hi all. I graduated from the University of Oregon in June 2012 with a degree in math and a minor in physics. While I have no plans to continue my formal mathematics education, I would like to go to grad school for physics, which I assume entails learning and using new mathematics. I do love math, but I simply prefer the grounded nature of physics.
I was lucky enough to get to study various topics in college, though as a result I didn't study them as in-depth as I would have liked. In particular, in senior year I took classes for real analysis (intro level), differential equations (applied emphasis) and differential geometry. As far as physics, I've taken classes that cover classical mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, a small amount of special relativity, and I am currently working through Griffith's quantum mechanics book. I also did a short project investigating the chaotic nature of a double pendulum.
Lastly, I'm currently preparing for the physics GRE, and the amount you are expected to know is straight up insane. If anyone has any tips or resources beyond the four practice tests, they are much appreciated.
- Member for 3 years, 10 months
- 3 profile views
- Last seen May 24 at 1:33
Top Posts (2) All Questions Answers | Votes Newest
Badges (5)
Gold —
Silver —
Bronze 5


text:
These three quick-and-easy projects will add a cheerful touch of Spring to any setting...using simple iron-on techniques, you'll watch our colorful pansies "bloom" before your eyes. Choose small framed picture, mini wallhanging surrounded by double borders or a small wallhanging that features a perfect basket of pansies with satin ribbon trim. These pretty pansies make a thougtful gift too! Wallhanging 17 x 22"; Mini Wallhanging 12 x 15"; Framet 8 x 11". Designed by Karen Roosien
Item : FC9401


text:
Folks, I am a scotch noob, and could use some help identifying a single malt.
I was at this restaurant recently, where I asked for Macallan 12, and the was told they were out of the Macallan 12, and offered Glenfiddich (didn't mention the year).
When I nosed it, I got a very distinct leather and a good hint of tobacco (and something I would describe as cigar smoke). I don't remember much else of it, as the leather and the tobacco just blew me away.
Since then, I have had Glenfiddich 12 as well as 18, but didn't find the leather/tobacco I was looking for. So I think what I had at the restaurant wasn't Glenfiddich.
My questions:
Which of the single-malts would come close to my limited description above?
Or could it be that it was indeed Glenfiddich, and what I had to eat with it created this distinct memory?
Appreciate any responses!


text:
I've searched around Ask Ubuntu and the App Developer site, but I can't seem to find the answers to my questions.
I'm wanting to get back into programming, and I'd eventually like get into app development for Ubuntu, but I'm not sure where to get started.
Which version of Ubuntu is currently recommended for app development, especially for those wanting to publish their apps to the Software Centre?
Should app developers use the current LTS release, or, can any of the new releases be used?
Should developers use the 32-bit or 64-bit edition of Ubuntu, or does this not matter?
What effect would the above choices have on the eventual publication of an app?


text:
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a term used to describe the accumulation of fat in the liver of people who drink little or no alcohol.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is common and, for most people, causes no signs and symptoms and no complications.
But in some people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the fat that accumulates can cause inflammation and scarring in the liver. This more serious form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is sometimes called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
At its most severe, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease can progress to liver failure.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease usually causes no signs and symptoms. When it does, they may include:
Make an appointment with your doctor if you have persistent signs and symptoms that cause you concern.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease occurs when your liver has trouble breaking down fats, causing fat to build up in your liver tissue.
Doctors aren't sure what causes nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The wide range of diseases and conditions linked to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is so diverse that it's difficult to pinpoint any one cause.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease can take several forms — from harmless to life-threatening. Forms include:
A wide range of diseases and conditions can increase your risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including:
Start by making an appointment with your family doctor or a general practitioner if you have signs and symptoms that worry you. If your doctor suspects you may have a liver problem, such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, you may be referred to a doctor who specializes in the liver (hepatologist).
Because appointments can be brief, and because there's often a lot of ground to cover, it's a good idea to be well-prepared. Here's some information to help you get ready, and what to expect from your doctor.
Your time with your doctor is limited, so preparing a list of questions will help you make the most of your time together. List your questions from most important to least important, in case time runs out. For nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, some basic questions to ask include:
In addition to the questions that you've prepared to ask your doctor, don't hesitate to ask questions during your appointment.
Your doctor is likely to ask you a number of questions. Being ready to answer them may allow more time later to cover other points you want to address. Your doctor may ask:
Tests and procedures used to diagnose nonalcoholic fatty liver disease include:
Liver tissue testing. If it's suspected that you have a more serious form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, your doctor may recommend a procedure to remove a sample of tissue from your liver (liver biopsy). The tissue sample is examined in a laboratory to look for signs of inflammation and scarring.
Liver biopsy is typically done using a long needle inserted through your skin and into your liver to remove liver cells (needle biopsy).
No standard treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease exists.
Instead, doctors typically work to treat the risk factors that contribute to your liver disease. For instance, if you're obese, your doctor can help you to lose weight through diet, exercise and, in some cases, medications and surgery.
Your doctor may recommend that you receive vaccinations against hepatitis A and hepatitis B to help protect you from viruses that may cause further liver damage.
Along with your doctor's help, you can take steps to control your nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. You can:
No alternative medicine treatments are proven to cure nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. But researchers are studying whether some natural compounds could be helpful, such as:
Vitamin E. In theory, vitamin E and other vitamins called antioxidants could help protect the liver by reducing or neutralizing the damage caused by inflammation. But more research is needed.
Some evidence suggests vitamin E supplements may be helpful for people with liver damage caused by nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. But vitamin E has side effects, such as an increased risk of death and, in men, an increased risk of prostate cancer.
Discuss the benefits and risks of vitamin E with your doctor.
Coffee. In one study, people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who reported drinking coffee had less liver damage than those who drank little or no coffee. It's not clear how coffee may influence liver damage or how much coffee you'd need to drink in order to benefit.
If you already drink coffee, these results may make you feel better about your morning cup of coffee. But if you don't already drink coffee, this probably isn't a good reason to start. Discuss the potential benefits of coffee with your doctor.
To reduce your risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease:
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., ranks No. 1 for digestive disorders in the U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals rankings. Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., are ranked among the Best Hospitals for digestive disorders by U.S. News & World Report. Mayo Clinic also ranks among the Best Children's Hospitals for digestive disorders.
Mayo Clinic works with hundreds of insurance companies and is an in-network provider for millions of people. In most cases, Mayo Clinic doesn't require a physician referral. Some insurers require referrals or may have additional requirements for certain medical care. All appointments are prioritized on the basis of medical need.
Specialists in gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Arizona care for adults who have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. They often work closely with other specialists, such as radiologists and pathologists. Other experts are included, as needed.
For appointments or more information, call the Central Appointment Office at 800-446-2279 (toll-free) 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, Monday through Friday or complete an online appointment request form.
Specialists in gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Florida care for adults who have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. They often work closely with other specialists, such as radiologists and pathologists. Other experts are included, as needed.
For appointments or more information, call the Central Appointment Office at 904-953-0853 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday or complete an online appointment request form.
Specialists in gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota care for children and adults who have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. They often work with other specialists, such as radiologists and pathologists. Other experts are included, as needed.
Doctors in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology care for children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
For appointments or more information, call the Central Appointment Office at 507-538-3270 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Central time, Monday through Friday or complete an online appointment request form.
See information on patient services at the three Mayo Clinic locations, including transportation options and lodging.
Mayo Clinic doctors and scientists are studying new ways of diagnosing and treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Research areas include studying the causes of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and improving diagnosis of the disease through the use of noninvasive testing with magnetic resonance elastography, among others.
See a list of publications by Mayo Clinic authors on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease on PubMed, a service of the National Library of Medicine.
Original article: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/nonalcoholic-fatty-liver-disease/care-at-mayo-clinic/appointments/CON-20027761
Any use of this site constitutes your agreement to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy linked below.
Mayo Clinic is a not-for-profit organization and proceeds from Web advertising help support our mission. Mayo Clinic does not endorse any of the third party products and services advertised.
A single copy of these materials may be reprinted for noncommercial personal use only. "Mayo," "Mayo Clinic," "MayoClinic.org," "Mayo Clinic Healthy Living," and the triple-shield Mayo Clinic logo are trademarks of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.


text:
El Paso fire and police pension officials' travel tab tops $100K, son of former Manchester mayor resigns
Of Stanton's 14 trips, four were to Manchester, N.H., where he was accused of mismanaging the city employee pension fund. Stanton also has family there -- his father was a longtime mayor.
Post a comment
You must sign in before you can post comments. If you are experiencing issues with your account please e-mail email@example.com.


text:
May 29, 2013
Cape Town hotels make 'world's best service' list
Three hotels in Cape Town have received recognition as offering the "World's Best Service", in a recent survey by Travel + Leisure.
The Twelve Apostles Hotel & Spa, the Cape Grace and the One & Only all appear on T+L's list of City Hotels in Africa and The Middle East that made the grade.
The survey aims to recognise the best service found in hotels, resorts and airlines around the world, and is decided by T+L's readers.
"Excellent service is a definitive factor in repeat visits by overseas travellers," Western Cape Finance, Economic Development and Tourism Minister Alan Winde said in a statement last week.
These are the top-scoring establishments in the City Hotels category of the 'World's Best Service' survey for Africa and The Middle East (followed by their overall score):
1. Twelve Apostles Hotel & Spa, Cape Town 97.14
2. Cape Grace, Cape Town 96.94
3. La Mamounia, Marrakesh, Morocco 96.30
4. One&Only, Cape Town 95.56
4. Saxon Boutique Hotel, Villas & Spa, Johannesburg, South Africa 95.56
Congratulations to these proudly Capetonian hotels!


text:
Eagle Tribune: I-93 toll is bad idea that won't die
All of it is designed to tighten the state's choke hold on those who must work for a living and shake a few more coins out of their pockets.
Post a comment
You must sign in before you can post comments. If you are experiencing issues with your account please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com.


text: If there's a dog that resembles a pug, it's got to be the French Bulldog. These guys are like chihuahua versions of American Bulldogs, just without all those cute rolls. In this cool tutorial, I will give you steps on "how to draw a French Bulldog", step by step. These guys are so pudgy and adorable. Though I've never owned one or seen one in person, I can tell you that they're probably hard to stop adoring! Do you own one of these dogs? If so, how do you like the breed? Smaller dogs are easier to carry around and clean up after. I'm not exactly sure how big these guys get either. Anyways, I hope you'll enjoy this fun lesson! I tried to make the style a little different and semi-realistic so y'all don't have to sketch down a cartoony one! Thanks for viewing and stay tuned for more tuts.


text:
What does Notre Dame want?
Last month, the University of Notre Dame announced that it would comply with Obamacare's contraception mandate, after the school's legal challenges failed. "Pursuant to the Affordable Care Act," a university statement explained, "our third-party administrator is required to notify plan participants of coverage provided under its contraceptives payment program." In other words, university employees would receive contraceptive coverage at no cost to them. But the statement warned that "the program may be terminated once the university's lawsuit on religious-liberty grounds...has worked its way through the courts."
That dismayed some of the university's more conservative critics. Notre Dame law professor Gerard V. Bradley, for example, argued that the university's compliance with the mandate amounted to "facilitating abortions." And Notre Dame historian Wilson Miscamble, CSC, worried that the university's heart wasn't really in the fight. But after listening to Notre Dame counsel's oral arguments last week at the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals, they may have something else to worry about.
The trouble began early in the proceedings, when Judge Richard Posner asked Notre Dame's attorney Matthew Kairis what his client wants. Kairis struggled to provide a clear answer. "We would like to return to the district court," Kairis began, when Posner stopped him. "No, no," the judge said. "What do you want in the way of relief? You've complied fully with the statute. So what's left?"
Posner was referring to the fact that Notre Dame has already notified the administrator of its employee health plan that it will not pay for contraceptive services. In turn, the administrator has told employees that they will receive such coverage for free. (Notre Dame is a self-insured organization, so it does not pay premiums to an insurer. Rather, the university pays a third-party adminstrator [TPA] much lower fees to handle employee health claims, which it then pays out of its own funds, according to a fee schedule it negotiates with the TPA.)
Kairis began to reply to Posner's question—"The fact that Notre Dame was forced to buckle by this mandate..."—but the judge stopped him again: "Whatever it was. You've complied fully.... What do you want the District Court to do? You never explain." Kairis tried again: "If we went back to the district court we would seek an injunction to prevent the enforcement of this mandate." And again, Posner wanted more: "Given that you have fully complied with the law, and you have no further obligations under the law...what can you enjoin?" Kairis kept repeating that Notre Dame wants to be able to revoke the self-certification form it already sent to its TPA (a company called Meritain, now part of Aetna).
After several minutes of wrangling, Judge David Hamilton stepped in: "You want an injunction against the third-party administrator?" No, Kairis replied, they want an injunction against enforcement of the mandate. "You want an injunction against the federal government," Hamilton asked, "so that it would be prohibited from requiring a third-party administrator to provide the coverage, right?" Nope. What Notre Dame wants, Kairis tried to explain, is an injunction against the mandate "that requires Notre Dame to maintain a contractual relationship with a third-party administrator who provides" contraception coverage because it "requires" Notre Dame act as a "vehicle for the provision of these services."
That led the conversation in another direction. Posner reminded Kairis that Notre Dame has already indicated it would not object to the government's providing contraception services directly. "Why wouldn't that have the identical effect?" Posner asked. Kairis replied that it would, but that what Notre Dame wants is to be left out of the process. So Posner offered a hypothetical: If Notre Dame just had to send a one-sentence letter to the government stating that it is a Catholic organization and would not make any financial contribution to contraception coverage, could Notre Dame accept that?
"It depends on the consequences and the context," Kairis answered. That didn't satisfy the judges. Eventually Judge Hamilton had to intervene again:
Hamilton: Is it your position that if you sent such a letter to the federal government, the federal government then informed Maritain that its obligation had kicked in, and so the services would be provided, would that be a problem for you?
Kairis: My sense is yes, your honor.
But Judge Joel Flaum wanted to get straight on Kairis's claim:
Flaum: Mr. Kairis, isn't it your position that you can't participate in the process in even the most minimal way? Why don't we just confront that as a framework? Isn't that the position of the university—that, whether it's the sending of the letter or applying for the exemption, it involves itself in a process that violates its religious tenets?
Kairis: It is.
Posner: And you can't even send a letter to the government?
Kairis: If the consequences were such that the services were provided, no.
But of course, as Posner points out, there is no way for an employer to obtain an accommodation without notifying someone of its objection. So how is the government supposed to know which organizations qualify for the accommodation? Read minds?
So if Notre Dame rejects the very idea of seeking an accommodation that would result in its employees receiving contraception coverage, why is Kairis so hung up on the language of the self-cerification form? According to Kairis, "The federal law is that Notre Dame sign a piece of paper that on its face states: This is a document under which the plan is operated. You hereby amend your plan to appoint the third-party administrator to do this." He's quoting (not very accurately) the second page of the self-certification form, which is for the TPAs. It clarifies that the objecting employer will not be considered the admininistrator for the contraceptive coverage. That language is intended to morally insulate the objecting employer.
Kairis goes on: "In the Federal Register it states that the Deptartment of Labor has determined that it is that form that amends Notre Dame's plan that Notre Dame signs to relinquish its sole discretion as plan administrator." In other words, Notre Dame objects to being told that it does not have discretion to bar its TPA from providing contraception to its employees. Even if the government tells the TPA it must?
At the end of oral arguments, Kairis offered an impassioned plea to leave Notre Dame alone.
Notre Dame has made the religious determination that those acts—the contract, the form, and the continued relationship—are complicit in such a way to violate its faith. And everything I heard from the government was: They don't really have to do much. They're just getting out of the way. The accommodation provides them an exit. Notre Dame has determined under Catholic moral doctrine that that's not true. The government says that it has washed Notre Dame's hands and fixed its problem. It didn't. And it's not the first time a government hasn't understood matters of faith…. Notre Dame must be taken for its word in its religious determination, the same determination by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Pope Francis's edict to Notre Dame last month that Notre Dame bear consistent and unambiguous witness to Catholic moral doctrine and defend its religious freedom. The government can't trump all of that.
Having disingenuously described a brief talk the pope gave to representatives of Notre Dame as an "edict," Kairis finally told the court what Notre Dame would settle for: a situation in which employees and students were the ones responsible for registering their objection—"it would not involve Notre Dame." It's nice to see the plaintiff in one of these cases acknowledging the moral agency of its employees, but it's hard to see how Kairis's proposed solution changes the moral equation for Notre Dame. Either way, its students and employees will be getting contraceptive coverage from the TPA Notre Dame pays to administer its health insurance.
Consider again what Notre Dame is seeking relief from. As a self-insured institution, it has collected lots of cash that is uses to pay for its employees' medical claims. It doesn't pay insurance premiums that are pooled with other monies that may or may not come from premiums for plans that cover, say, abortion. It pays a relatively small fee to a third-party administrator to deal with the claims paperwork. All the payments to health-care providers come out of Notre Dame's coffers. The Obama administration's contraception-mandate accommodation requires third-party-administartors of such plans to pay for contraception coverage out of its own pockets—not out of fees it collects from the self-insured employer. So what kind of cooperation is this? Financially, it's minimial.
But what about the issue of the plan? Is Notre Dame culpably proximate to the decision of its employees to use contraception coverage? As the government's lawyer explained, the letter Meritain sends to Notre Dame's employees explicitly says that the university is not providing contraceptive coverage. It even says that employees must get a separate I.D. in order to obtain these services. That puts even more distance between Notre Dame and the coverage it objects to.
None (or almost none) of Notre Dame's money will fund contraception coverage. Its TPA offers employees that coverage only as a separate plan. And the whole world knows that Notre Dame has chosen to exempt itself from covering contraceptives because of Catholic teaching against contraception. So what, exactly, is the problem? The Catholic tradition includes a moral theology that accounts for the fact that in a fallen world morally pure acts are quite rare. That's why it developed categories of cooperation with evil. The university and its lawyers could engage that tradition to decide that complying with the contraception mandate is licit remote material cooperation with evil.
They might even consider it a religious determination.
About the Author
57 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
It is very clear "what Notre Dame wants." It wants to have no part whatsoever in a law which prohibits
the free expression of religion. If Mr. Gallichco has trouble understanding that, he might consider
attempting to understand the law itself, and the motivation behind it.
I read the closing of this article to be intentionally sarcastic. Sarcasm, even when skillfully accomplished,
has no place in this debate, which should be carried out on the highest planes of morality and sincerity.
the highest planes of morality and sincerity.
I'm just gonna let this little nugget sit here and admire it from afar.
Isn't the complaint that the law prohibits, not the free expression of religion, but the free non-expression of religion ?
This is why the demands for further accomodation frustrate me. I don't think any accomodation is required on religious freedom grounds because the mandate is essentially a tax and being able to object to any tax that could fund something that we object to would lead to chaos. However, since it was relatively simple to find an accomodation that distances religious institutions from the provision of contraception, I think it is good that the administration is offering an accomodation.
At this point, it is clear that those who continue to object are just resisting the policy for the sake of resisting it. While this isn't bad in principle, it does change the standards by which I evaluate it.
They want to prohibit anyone from responding to their religious expression.
Notre Dame: "We don't want to provide contraception."
Government: "Okay. We'll handle it."
Notre Dame: "You're making us participate in your actions!"
So what, exactly, is the problem?
The problem is that the contraception mandate, the religious exemption to the contraception mandate, and the accommodation to the religious exemption to the contraception mandate, all burden some religious employers with violating their religious beliefs.
As things stand under Obamacare, the government imposes the burden on someone else, and then the government decides whether the burden it imposed on the other guy is burdensome for the other guy.
We may analyze the burden and offer opinions as to how heavy the burden really is, but the guy actually carrying the load should have some say in the matter.
If the federal government in its sublime wisdom believes that everyone, even one-percenters, must have contraception for free, let the federal government pay for it directly as an entitlement. Get employers completely out of the loop. Then this whole topic goes away.
It seems to me that any possible accomodation for religious freedom requires some kind of notification to the government that says "I am invoking my religion to be exempt from this rule" - otherwise you have anarchy.
Would the government have to engage in mind-reading to figure out who was objecting to the contraceptive coverage? No, if Notre Dame wins, the de facto result was that any employer could opt out of the contraceptive coverage without notification or scrutiny- the contraceptive coverage would be a dead letter.
I'm worried about Notre Dame's counsel's suggestion that employees/students could be the ones initiating the notification. That opens the door to all kinds of pressure on students or employees to (for example) sign a promise never to trigger that notification, on pain of firing/expulsion. Does that seem paranoid? Cardinal Dolan has demanded that there be an "opt-out" form from the contraceptive mandate for employees of Catholic institutions- sign it, and you no longer have contraceptive coverage. Of course, if that form existed, supervisors in (for example) Catholic hospitals could demand that employees sign, and the employee would not have a lot of choice.
My perception- and I really, really hope that I'm wrong- is that the bishops think it's a good idea to use their economic power to deprive less powerful women of the ability to contracept, regardless of whether the woman is Catholic and regardless of whether those women believe in the Theology of the Body. If that is what they are doing, I think it's a serious mistake. The experience of Romania under communism, and of El Salvador today, shows that if you take away the option to contracept you get a lot of abortion (El Salvador) or other grave evils (child abandonment in communist Romania). Plus, the employee, as well as the employer, should have religious freedom.
Jim Pauwels,
The guy actually carrying the burden had his say in 2008, 2010, and 2012. If it is merely a matter of poor policy or poor design, it isn't a matter for the courts to decide. Furthermore, from financial perspective, the contraception mandate is fairly small compared to other federal regulations for employers.
" If the federal government in its sublime wisdom believes that everyone, even one-percenters, must have contraception for free, let the federal government pay for it directly as an entitlement. Get employers completely out of the loop. Then this whole topic goes away. "
I don't think employers should make the decisions of conscience for their employees.
If they do get to decide what happens when an employer has strong moral feelings about 'useless' and expensive extension of life that they believe has no quality, or when the employer decides they cannot in good conscience subsidize a large family and make the family (or the government directly) pay a larger share of costs for the birth of additional children. What about moral opposition to transplants?
Provide consistent health care, available for all, without employers deciding based on their morality - let's not have the first question in an employment interview be, "What parts of the health insurance do you morally object to?"
An alternative would be to have govenment-funding single-payer insurance, but that couldn't be passed in Congress. Then employers wouldn't have to make these decisions.
Jim Pauwels writes: "If the federal government in its sublime wisdom believes that everyone, even one-percenters, must have contraception for free, let the federal government pay for it directly as an entitlement. Get employers completely out of the loop. Then this whole topic goes away."
Does it? Couldn't someone argue, using the same moral rationale, that they should be exempt from paying taxes that cover the cost of contraceptives? As it happens, I agree with Jim that it would have been simpler and wiser to provide free contraceptives through some kind of direct government subsidy, though that would not have fit so neatly within the general framework of the Affordable Care Act. (There are other medical expenses, arguably more basic than contraception, that the HHS rules don't require insurers to cover.) But if it's true that Catholic institutions have a good theological argument against the kind of remote material cooperation with artificial contraception that the accommodation may still require, why wouldn't the same theological arguments apply to the remote material cooperation of Catholic taxpayers whose money is used to pay for contraception. Legally, the two arrangements may be very different, but morally I'm not sure they're as different as Jim's comment suggests they are.
But, Jim, if you do think that direct government funding for contraception is such an elegant solution to the problem, you have yet another reason to favor a single-payer health-care system.
I very much doubt that the people now complaining about Obamacare's effects on religious liberty would be complaining any less if, miraculously, our lawmakers had chosen a single-payer system that relieved Catholic employers of this burden. I suspect that most of them would still be decrying the tyranny of the HHS for making Catholic taxpayers foot the bill for contraception. But for now they're content to say they'd have no problem with something that they know to be all but impossible.
Contraception is a topic that makes Catholics behave insanely, notably in the Philippines. Can anyong diagnose the roots of the madness?
Notre Dame is, quite properly and very clearly, dealing with a genuinely religious issue. Neither Barack Obama nor the ACA recognize religion as anything other than a term for human institutions engaging in social works. There is no acknowledgement that the spiritual dimension even exists. It is no wonder that the judges and the spokesman for ND are talking past each other, nor is it surprising that the writer of this blog doesn't get it. Obama is simply, and perversely, attempting to subvert genuine spiritual activity for his own political purposes. He sees a weak point, a division in attitudes among voters, and works on it, as he has in other areas. If this is not stopped in its tracks, this country will be forever changed; there will be no going back. Would that the writer of this rather silly piece had taken the issue with the seriousness required.
Begin with the noton of the shibboleth, the idolatrous badge of exclusive identity.
Yes, it's a genuinely religious issue, like human sacrifice, truly genuine spiritual activity. It's our fat Catholic Golden Calf!
Next time that the evil genius Obama rules that parents cannot stop their kids being treated for life-threatening diseases on religious grounds, let's be ready to tell him he fails to recognize the spiritual dimension, and that killing children is a genuinely religious activity about which genuinely religious people feel deeply.
These are thy gods, O Israel!
the de facto result was that any employer could opt out of the contraceptive coverage without notification or scrutiny- the contraceptive coverage would be a dead letter.
of course, health care has been delivered for over 200 years without notifying the federal government of this particular issue nor receiving its scrutiny. It's completely unclear why it needs to be involved now.
I'd like to mix a few oranges in with all these fine apples...
This wonderful and excruciatingly detailed conversation reminds me of how little of such conversation has permeated our discussion of our defense spending - especially nuclear weapons and drones.
More often Catholic institutions have bee party to ROTC and other programs that at least implicitly support those whose decsiion making could include ordering the development readineess and -God forbid - use of such weapons...
Meanwhile, we have te witness of an 84 yedar old nun, Sr. Megan Rice, who "trepassed" into the nuclear heartland and now faces 35 months in prison.
Her witness, whetrher agreed with or not, is much more compelling gthat well heeled lawyers and those supporters of "Touchdown Jesus." (Admittedly, snarky!)
So, oranges (maybe bicycles!) mixed in, but I'm just so tired of these arguments while we rather blithely adjust to the US role in armaments and sanctioned , extrra-judicial killing.
Has Notre Dame made any formal protests about that?
Joseph O'Leary:
"evil genius Obama" - a cheap shot - unnecessay - contributes nothing to a civi discussion of the topic at hand.
Matthew, replying to me, wrote,
Couldn't someone argue, using the same moral rationale, that they should be exempt from paying taxes that cover the cost of contraceptives?
Yes. The difference is that under a direct federal contraception entitlement those would be individual citizens rather than employers with religious convictions making those arguments. The dynamic of religious employers with employees who, for whatever motives, want free contraction, goes away. Let citizens work it out directly with the government by applying the levers of democracy including, as appropriate, the courts. David Pasinski, a few comments above this one, listed some other morally objectionable things that the government does with our tax dollars. We could make the list longer.
But if it's true that Catholic institutions have a good theological argument against the kind of remote material cooperation with artificial contraception that the accommodation may still require, why wouldn't the same theological arguments apply to the remote material cooperation of Catholic taxpayers whose money is used to pay for contraception. Legally, the two arrangements may be very different, but morally I'm not sure they're as different as Jim's comment suggests they are.
I agree the arguments would be similar but Notre Dame wouldn't be making them on its own behalf anymore. I assume Notre Dame is tax-exempt and presumably doesn't fund any government activities, good, bad or indifferent. It becomes a bystander to whatever fight would ensue (which, as things would transpire under a direct federal entitlement, wouldn't be much of a fight).
But, Jim, if you do think that direct government funding for contraception is such an elegant solution to the problem, you have yet another reason to favor a single-payer health-care system.
If I thought that, you'd be right :-). In fact, regardless of what my views are on free contraception, I do think that the Obamacare experience has brought into sharper relief the advantages of single payer. I believe that we'll have Medicare For All during our lifetimes. I give us 20 years.
Helen - I think he was being tongue-in-cheek.
The guy actually carrying the burden had his say in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
Ryan - did she, though? In what precinct does the University of Notre Dame vote?
I like my idea of a direct federal subsidy better. Your argument which I've quoted here would then be applicable, too.
The real issue here is that the church's teaching on birth control is ignored and will continue to be ignored. Notre Dame and the other opponents of the birth control "mandate" maybe ought to look at that and teach in an effective way why families ought not use the pill regardless of its availablility. Clearly, since the vast majority of Catholics use some form of birth control, and I'd imagine that applies t the vast majority of Notre Dame faculty, staff and such students who are sexually active, the University and the Church in general has failed dismally in making its case in this matter. Its a pretty thin arguement to say something violates our religious tenants without making much effort to convince our own believers that is the case.
As to the original question, most Notre Dame Alumni I know want to be #1 in football. The rest is just window dressing!
An attorney arguing from the moral high ground. That's a good one.
The issue of contraceptives has largely been settled by common sense. I hardly think bringing in yet another gun for higher will do more than increase the value of the that person's material worth.
It sure seems like U.S. v. Lee (1982) dealt with almost all of this already. The main difference is that Social Security is a comprehensive program that would collapse if Lee-type objections were allowed, whereas the HHS mandate is one part of a comprehensive program. Still I think Cathy's presentation (among others) helped me to understand the legal precedents and what might happen next month in the Supreme Court.
Just ot restate my earlier post slightly differently, if the Church made a reasonable and effective case against use of birth control at least to its members, doesn't the whole issue go away? If the Church made such an argument and did so effectively, it would not matter whether Notre Dame handed out the pill after all Masses. They wouldn't be used. But that isn't the case. The Church hasn't made an effective case against birth control.It didn't in 1968. John Paul II didn't in his Theology of the Body, It doesn't make such a case today. Indeed, one could argue that it has largely ceased trying. So regardless of who pays for it, it is unlikely to prevent anyone from using it.
Neither Barack Obama nor the ACA recognize religion as anything other than a term for human institutions engaging in social works.
Really, McDonald? I think that takes the cake for this week's symptom for right-wing Obama derangement syndrome.
NDU has its panties in a twist [especially its lawyer Kairis who obviously failed to impress the justices of the 7th Circuit] because NDU wants to be able to continue to placate for political reasons both its internal and external "conservative critics" by not complying with the ACA - AND at the same time continue to suck $millions from American taxpayers to support its financial bottom line for which it must be compliant with the law and the US Constitution.
I believe that my sainted sixth grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, would call that: "You [NDU] want to have your cake and eat it too!"
The problem here for the McDonald's of the world is that the operative Amendment of the US Constitution is not the 1st, but the 14th. Just for the record, Section 1 reads:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Obama Administration is only being true to all of the constitutional requirements. All the Obama Administration is doing is trying to find an constitutional accommodation under the ACA for Catholic institutions, like NDU, for their feckless adherence to discriminatory anti-feminine ideologies which their church espouses.
I am usually very hard on Grant Gallicho. But on this issue, I have to say that he is right-on.
David Pasinski at 8:01 a.m. -- Yes!
I am becoming somewhat annoyed that the only Catholic doctrine that seems to count in this country is doctrine related to what really gets the goat of important bishops. The bulk of Catholic doctrine, meanwhile, is, um, prudential.
Jim, you write: The difference is that under a direct federal contraception entitlement those would be individual citizens rather than employers with religious convictions making those arguments. The dynamic of religious employers with employees who, for whatever motives, want free contraction, goes away. Let citizens work it out directly with the government by applying the levers of democracy including, as appropriate, the courts.
I acknowledge that you've put your finger on a difference; I'm just not sure whether it's a morally important one—at least not as Catholic moral theology has traditionally reckoned these things. I could be wrong. Remote material cooperation with evil on the part of an employer is not obviously worse than such cooperation on the part of a fellow citizen. Moreover, in this country, everyone in the category of employer is also a voter who can apply the levers of democracy to change the generally applicable laws about what insurers must cover.
I wrote, "employees who, for whatever motives, want free contraction"
... when what I meant to write, was "employees who, for whatever motives, want free contraception." My typing was even more inept than usual that time, and I really wasn't making some bizarre point about giving birth.
Moreover, in this country, everyone in the category of employer is also a voter who can apply the levers of democracy to change the generally applicable laws about what insurers must cover.
Not really. Fr. Jenkins is eligible to vote but Notre Dame is not. On the other hand, as a legal person of substantial resources, Notre Dame could operate some of the wonderful democratic levers we've developed more recently, such as spinning off and funding a super PAC.
I wrote: "Fr. Jenkins is eligible to vote but Notre Dame is not."
Let me just briefly elaborate on the point to make it clear how it relates to my previous comments. Fr. Jenkins does not bear the moral burden that I referred to in my previous comments, or at least not to the same degree. Notre Dame does. They are not the same. Whoever's money it is that either is or is not materially contributing to the TPA's contraception subsidy, we're pretty certain it's not Fr. Jenkins' money. It might be Fr. Jenkins' name that gets signed on the piece of paper that is the bone of contention in this case, but if it is his name, he is doing so, not as an individual citizen, but in his office as an executive of the university. Conceivably, Notre Dame may be taking its stance on the contraception mandate against Fr. Jenkins' personal advice or wishes; it depends on the university's governing model.
Does whatever moral agency or culpability is borne by this entity called Notre Dame somehow transfer to its executives, trustees, governors, deans, bursars, provosts and whatever other strangely- titled leaders a university has? Sounds like a complicated question with a complicated answer. But it's clean and valid to just think of Notre Dame as its own autonomous entity - one that, in this case, believes it is bearing a moral burden.
I endorse Grant Gallicho's views and I have my own view about Notre Dame's lawsuit —
Notre Dame's lawsuit espouses a claim for religious freedom that bestows on every employer a religious right to deny its employees all benefits under the contraception mandate of Obamacare. It is a view shared by many Catholic entities, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
See the USCCB's Fortnight of Freedom postings on its web page:
Or if one is patient enough to read the Bishops' legal brief filed with the Supreme Court, read it here:
In my view, there will be utter confusion in every aspect of employment law if the Supreme Court endorses Notre Dame's legal views and the shared views of non-religious business entities.
Thanks Grant for your incisive work exposing the stupidity of all this.
I agree with the "licit remote material cooperation with evil", but we don't even need to go that far.
Catholic doctrine is only opposed to contracepting conjugal acts in marriage. That's what the papal documents teach against. Not acts outside marriage, coerced acts inside marriage, to prevent disease transfer, to control hormonal imbalances or heavy periods etc. Our NZ Catholic Bishops in Aotearoa New Zealand have been very clear on this.
Many of the uses of contraception fall into those categories, and therefore we ought to have no objection to providing contraception.
Not to mention the right of conscience of those who choose to use contraceptives and our obligation not to judge people who use contraception.
We ought to be putting our efforts into real issues central to the gospel like poverty and low wages.
God Bless
Maybe it's legally valid to think of Notre Dame as "its own autonomous entity," but that doesn't necessarily mean it can bear a "moral burden" apart the burden borne by the individual human beings who constitute it. Institutions don't have souls. There are no institutions in heaven or hell (though some would argue that our experience of bureaucratic institutions comes as close to purgatory as anything we'll know in this life). There is personal guilty and there is collective guilty, but that guilt, too, involves real persons, not legal fictions. So if we are going to talk about the contraception mandate in terms of remote cooperation with evil, we cannot say more about the institution than we are willing to say about the people who make it up. Only a person can sin.
Chris Sullivan
Thanks for your input! It seems odd to me that your bishops would accept contraception for non-marital sex or to prevent HIV transmission. Can you lead us to that documnet?
Maybe it's legally valid to think of Notre Dame as "its own autonomous entity," but that doesn't necessarily mean it can bear a "moral burden" apart the burden borne by the individual human beings who constitute it.
In this case, the legal validity of "Notre Dame" (whatever "Notre Dame" really is) seems to confer a moral burden on Notre Dame. It seems that legal incorporation isn't simply a legal fiction; it creates something real: some combination of persons, property, money, history, guiding principles, and whatever else animates a university.
If Fr. Jenkins resigns tomorrow, he will no longer bear whatever moral burden comes with complying with the contraception mandate. But his successor will. If Fr. Jenkins is culpable in cooperating with evil somehow by virtue of his high office, that culpability is contingent upon his holding that office. The culpability is passed to him through the office - and that because the office belongs to the university.
Maybe its that these social structures, like corporations, are catalysts or conduits for culpability. You say there is collective guilty. Maybe that's how it is that collective guilt comes about: mediated by these social institutions.
I find it difficult to sort these issues out. I've argued strenuously in the past exactly what you are arguing here: that the moral culpability of a social institution is reducible to the individual members of the institution, especially those who make decisions on its behalf. I've argued that individual priests and bishops, not the Catholic Church, are culpable for abusing children, and objected to large settlements and awards on that basis.
A excellant argument for a single payer system.
See http://www.catholic.org.nz/nzcbc/fx-view-article.cfm?ctype=BSART&loadref...
"(It is a different matter when it is intercourse between people who do not owe each other the complete gift of themselves because they are not married. It is also a different matter when the purpose of using a protective device is to prevent the transmission of disease, not to prevent conception, which is then a side-effect.)"
And Bp Cullinane's incisive document
God Bless
Institutions, like Notre Dame, will have souls when the institution that gave corporations their personhood gives them souls. That institution is the Most(ly) Catholic High Court of the United States.
The reasoning behind this future decision is foreshadowed by Jim Pauwels at 12:31 p.m. and again at 3:27, where he argues that the people who make decisions for corporations can walk away from their decisions -- whether it is to sign off on third party contraception or let the London Whale splash happily -- and leave culpability with the articles of incorporation. We shouldn't really want to spin this line of reasoning out too far, but the Supreme Court seems prepared to do just that. Then we will see the utter confusion Harold T. Hartinger forecast at 1:34.
of course, health care has been delivered for over 200 years without notifying the federal government of this particular issue nor receiving its scrutiny. It's completely unclear why it needs to be involved now.
Bruce, I'm not sure why it is unclear. The federal government has established a minimum standard for health care that is to be provided. There were no such standards 5 years ago, never mind 200 years ago. There is a provision which says certain entites can claim an exemption to some of those standards. But in order to claim that exemption you need to notify the Government that you are doing so. Mainly because even though the exemption is available to all religious employers, not all will or even want to take advantage of the exemption. Wittenberg University might have a very different view than Notre Dame. These sorts of things happen all the time at every level of government. There are lots of exceptions to the general rules out there, To take advantage of them, you often need to notify the the appropriate agency. A different example of the principal happened recently near us where one city owned land that extended into an ajoining city. City B got a tax bill from City A for property tax, which it ignored on the grounds that Cities are tax exempt. City A then brought legal action to force payment. City B was required to pay the taxes because under state law, they needed to notify City A that they were claiming the exemption each year. It isn't a big deal. Someone just needs to do it. I'm not sure how this is different. Notre Dame wants to claim an exception to the law. It is entitled to do so. But to do so it must file a form saying in effect "Notre Dame is exempt from this requirement."
Catholic doctrine is only opposed to contracepting conjugal acts in marriage
Chris Sullivan. my recollection is is that I have read that this issue (does the use of the terms "marital act," "marriage act"*, etc in Humanae Vitae mean that it applies only to sex acts within marriage and not to sex acts between unmarried persons) has been brought up with the Vatican over the years and it has always avoided giving an answer.
Therefore, I don't think it can be presented as an official teaching of the Church (yet, at least). In other words, Catholic schools don't teach "don't have sex outside of marriage, but if you do, be sure you use contraceptives or a condom." - as you may find taught in a public school.
Chris S and John H: Humanae Vitae addresses the use of contraception within marital sex. Contraception (according to that document) distorts and reduces the full meaning of marital sex by suppressing its procreative meaning.
The church doesn't claim that it is God's will that extramarital sex has an intrinsic procreative meaning that contraception inhibits. The church's claim about extramarital sex is that the act itself - the sex - is sinful. That's true whether or not contraception is utilized.
It's reasonable for a Catholic entity to oppose subsidizing contraception, both for married couples (because its use distorts and reduces the meaning of marital sex) and for unmarried couples (because consensual sex between unmarried couples is sinful; to the extent that contraception enables extramarital sex, it is enabling sinful behavior).
(because consensual sex between unmarried couples is sinful; to the extent that contraception enables extramarital sex, it is enabling sinful behavior).
I've never been convinced by the attitude of parents who won't allow their daughters to get the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer because they imagine that the absence of consequences will allow their daughters to be promiscuous.
Could an employer who felt that HPV vaccine enabled sinful behavior exclude it from a health plan?
Jim P - don't want to refight Humanae Vitae but you say: "Contraception (according to that document) distorts and reduces the full meaning of marital sex by suppressing its procreative meaning."
As I am sure you know, both the Papal Commission on Birth Control and many experts since have argued that this is one slanted viewpoint. Many theologians have argued that the *full meaning* of marital sex is about what is best for the couple and the common good which involves wisdom about discerning how many children; size of families; how best to support each other and the family, etc. and that birth control (in that framework) could have been a tool to aid responsible marital relationships, decisions, etc. The fathers of VII actually developed and approved documents that defined marriage as both loving support and procreation. It is always a balancing act........and to artifically distinguish between methods such as birth control and the Billings Method (especially in terms of human decisions, morality, etc.) becomes hypocritical.
Let's face it - the people in the pews have already decided this issue - so, what is Notre Dame really trying to accomplish?
don't want to refight Humanae Vitae
Me either. Like Obamacare, it is what it is.
I've never been convinced by the attitude of parents who won't allow their daughters to get the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer because they imagine that the absence of consequences will allow their daughters to be promiscuous.
I guess I don't find that very convincing, either. (Fwiw, we have our kids vaccinated, boys and girls.) For one thing, unless HPV is a *really* clever virus that also happens to agree with church teaching, it can infect married as well as unmarried persons.
In the polyglot of groups, mostly religious, that sorta, more-or-less agree with the Catholic church on the complex of issues that includes contraception and abortion, and with which Catholic groups make common cause from time to time, I find the anti-vaccination arguments I've run across, like the one you recapped here, to be not particularly Catholic arguments. For people who are interested, here is a statement from the Texas Catholic Conference; the Texas bishops don't find the Gardasil objections morally problematic, but they do object to the state mandating vaccinations.
Andrew Sullivan publishes a letter from a reader. Interesting how low a threshold this woman (not necessarily a Catholic) drew on collaboration in evil:
A little story from my own life. Many years ago, I met a young man at a showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I managed, despite my fear of rejection, to ask him out on a date and, miracle of miracles, he said yes. Just before our date, I stopped in a little neighborhood florist shop and bought him a single yellow rose. He loved it. From then on, we bought each other roses from this shop for every occasion, however little – we're having hot dogs together! – or important – will you move in with me?
Finally the day came when I asked him to marry me and I went to buy him a single red rose from "our" florist.
In those days, we couldn't legally marry, but my church, the Religious Society of Friends, would marry us anyway. When I told the florist how special and important this rose was, that I was asking my great love, a man, to marry me, she pulled back the rose and told me she was a good Christian and wouldn't sell me the rose or roses ever again, not for something sick like that. We had been buying from this florist for five years and never happened to mention what they were for.
The place was always busy, we were in a hurry, so it never came up, but I was so bursting with pride and joy that I was asking the man I loved more than life itself to marry me, to be with me until death, I said something that day. I left empty-handed and broken-hearted. The joy in what I was about to do had a cold pail of hate thrown on it. I asked him to marry me without a rose from "our" shop. He said yes anyway and he was with me until he died from a fire in 1981.
I still bring a rose to his grave every year, but not from our florist.
(Fwiw, we have our kids vaccinated, boys and girls.)
Good for you! It's important for boys, too.
DId you get that I was parodying the rightists?
How can so much energy thought be expended on a non-issue, while 84 year old nuns face jail for tackling a real issue, one that threatens not the transmission of life but all life on the planet?
A conscience sufficiently sensitive to remote cooperation with evil will go beyond the HPV vaccine and withhold treatment for appendicitis and other life-threatening conditions. For a recovered patient may well commit downstream sins that an early death would have prevented. Modern medicine and science have a sulphurous stench about them, being arrogant, Babelish contrivances to usurp God's prerogatives and thwart His Holy Will.
And then there is the whole pernicious practice of feeding the hungry...
Let's face it - the people in the pews have already decided this issue - so, what is Notre Dame really trying to accomplish?
Bill, that's the $64,000 question. My guess is they want to placate powerful board members and members of the hierarchy like Bishop Jenky and his ilk. They are still miffed because Notre Dame invited the President of the United States to speak. This is their pound of flesh.
Some of the following comments fit nicely with what some of you have said, often better than I would have said them. Nonetheless, perhaps what I have to say is not idle.
1. The issue of the "mandate" is a comples matter of public policy. Unavoidably, it has legal, political, and moral dimensions. No one of these dimensions is irrelevant to the question of the soundness of such a policy.
a. The legal question before the courts is: What is the law? Is it constitutional? I have nothing to say about this. Others of you are better qualified to do so.
b. The political question is: What ought to be the law? That is, does this law promote concord and societal well being AT THIS TIME IN THIS STATE or not? If yes, is there a better law for accomplishing these political objectives? If so, what is that law and can it reasonably be expected to be adopted?
c. The moral question is: Is this a law that one can in good conscience obey? If not, one ought to follow his or her conscience, wherever it leads.
2. Note that both the legal and the political dimensions are not amenable to definitive timelessly sound answers. They can only have prudentially well grounded answers. Reasonable disagreements cannot be precluded.
3. U. S Catholics, including bishops, as well as others, are not only people committed to a specific religious doctrine and moral code but are also citizens wha have civil responsibilities to their fellow citizens regardless of whether those others sharre our faith or moral code. We all have good reason to strive to live in concord with one another. And bishops in the U. S. at least have come to have a role in civic leadership.
4. As I've said before, I consider the present mandate to be politically acceptable provided that it passes constitutional muster. I have no moral qualm about supporting it. Thatis my prudential judgment.
5. As I've said before, I cannot make much sense of all the talk about what "material cooperation in evil, remote or otherwise amounts to.
a. All of us morally competent adults, except perhaps cloistered nuns and monks, are implicated in a web of what Pope John Paul called "structures of evil." Few of us are not beneficiaries of advantages that come to us by way of these structures. Consider such things as financial investments, educational advantages, access to health care, etc. Who could sensibly claim that he or she is doing all that he or she could do to redress the injustics that are providing us with these advantages. Is this not "material cooperation in evil?"
b. When and how does remote material cooperation become proximate cooperation? I conclude that talk about what is licit "material cooperation" and what is not is nothing more than a temptation to engage in bad casuistry.
6. And this is nontrivial. I hope, however the legal issues concerning the mandate are resolved, that all this controversy about public policy about contraception fades into the background. There are such urgent, hard, matters like devising responsible public policies to deal with climate change, hard core poverty, etc that we all ought to turn to. The American Catholic community, led by the bishops, has done pretty well on the issue of immigration. It has done less well, in my view, cconcerning poverty or universal access to basic health care. It has been largely silent on climate change. In my view, we, as a Catholic community, can no longer claim with a straight face, that we have our priorities straight in addressing the most serious and complex public policies. We will not get them straight so long as we're occupying our selves with things like the "mandate" or the lgeality of same-sex marriage.
Joseph S. O'Leary:
Nope, I did not catch on to your humor. I apologize for rashly judging you.
Read my lips (pace Ron Goodman):
We Catholics in/of the Philippines joyfully admit our madness!!!


text:
J.Lo Struggles To Make Perfumes Perfect; Twilight Star Shills Makeup
- Jennifer Lopez's 15 perfumes have sold more than $1 billion at retail. She's launching a 16th, Love and Glamour, this fall. "I drive [fragrance company Coty] a little bit crazy," she says. "Because it's always not signature enough." [WWD]


text:
I'm certain I have read that
xspace can cause more problems than it solves. But I cannot find anything to that effect either on this site or the web. Are there any drawbacks or risks associated with it?
I originally implemented
The original version used a very simple nested test for following punctuation, but it could get the test wrong in some (well rather a lot really) of cases. Morten made the tests a lot better so the current version makes the correct choice in more cases and is more easily customised) however making the tests more complicated highlights the problem with this kind of package.
The rule in TeX is really quite simple, after a command name that uses letters (as opposed to single character command names using non-letters such as
So, if you find it useful, fine, it's there. But personally I wouldn't recommend it.
It has been mentioned on the site before, however, it seems to me that it can have its place here. You can define your commands in such a way that you can't forget the space at all. This is done by defining:
(you can't use
You can test yourself that the space in
which means exactly what it says: You defined
However, the best thing to do is not to define shorthands like


text:
Narrow your search
Which Galaxy S4 is right for you? Find out in our Samsung-scented smart phone smash-up!
Larger, with more doors and a more powerful engine, the 2015 Mini Cooper S, in 4-Door trim, broadens its appeal while retaining its unique looks -- but tread carefully on the option sheet as the price can get very high.
We've seen slightly better performance from less expensive models, but this luxury fridge feels appropriately luxurious, and its features can't be beat. Covet accordingly.
Its reliable specs and availability on four carriers make the Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini an easy-to-find midtier buy, but you should also compare the S4 Mini with its substantial competition.
If anyone knows how to get the US to start buying wagons en masse, please, do your best to make it happen.
Buy the Zoom if you'd like a flexible two-in-one camera/smartphone, no matter the size. But enthusiasts should stick to standalone shooters, and slimmer smartphones -- like the arguably better Nokia Lumia 1020 -- will satisfy most photo needs.
Please visit Samsung for additional models
Choose the Samsung Galaxy S4 Active for its sporty style, fast internals, and underwater camera fun, but pass if you're an image snob or seek a truly rugged phone.
Unless you're an Android enthusiast or demand total freedom from carriers, the Samsung Galaxy S4 Google Play Edition isn't worth the hefty price.
Its laundry list of features require time and effort to truly master, but the Galaxy S4 is the top choice for anyone looking for a big-screen, do-everything smartphone.
The Klipsch Image S4 II in-ear headphones add a new, more durable tangle-resistant flat cord while retaining their very respectable sound quality and superior comfort.


text:
What is wrong with the Linux/*nix family for games? What makes the development of games for this platform too slow compared to Windows or even OS X?
closed as off-topic by Josh Petrie♦ Aug 21 '13 at 21:23
For game clients, it mostly has to do with culture, leading to difficult monetization strategies.
Servers for multiplayer games, on the other hand, have gotten a lot of traction for linux/nix, it is a very attractive platform for developing server technology.
There is hope that eventual release of Steam for Linux will help change that culture when it comes to clients, and provide developers and publishers a more monetarily viable platform for distributing games.
'Wrong' is a strong word, but I'll list a few things that hold games developers back from working on Linux.
Culture - Linux people tend more to believe software should be free - this isn't conducive to making a profit off selling your software. This may change in the future with online games being 'software as a service' in a sense.
Market share - The market share of Linux on the desktop has always been quite small. Now that the market share has finally crept up from 'negligible' to 'pitifully low' you could make a small argument for targetting that platform - if the previous point wasn't at all true, that is. This has also come a bit too late - the non-console game market is really quite small these days when you exclude MMOs.
Developer support - Microsoft have poured a lot of time and money into DirectX, and more recently into XNA. With one download, you had all the APIs and documentation you needed to make games. Linux has no central body to do this, nor even one single product that could be used instead. SDL doesn't do 3D graphics, OpenGL doesn't do anything but graphics, neither have had a very credible upgrade strategy in recent years, and there are a billion other libraries (many of which can be found on a list I maintain here) you can throw into the mix without any clear leaders. It's just a lot more hassle. On top of that a lot of leading middleware doesn't work on Linux, so instead of tried and tested code with paid support you have to consider using abandoned open source that's never been used in a shipped game.
OS support - Linux can do everything Windows does, but it certainly makes it hard sometimes. Sound support in particular is awful. Video support is awkward due to the legalities around codecs. Distribution of your binaries can be fiddly when you consider the different packaging types you need to support. All these things can be overcome if you know what you're doing, but most Windows developers won't know what they're doing with Linux so they aren't able to smoothly port their product to Linux.
Linux accounts for roughly 1% of total end users accessing the internet (OS Marketshare). It's usage increases significantly when talking about servers, but it's just not a big consumer OS.
There's nothing wrong with the Linux/*nix family of OSes for game development except for perceived audience. Most devs feel that the effort to create games for Linux won't translate into copies sold of their games, especially in the AAA communities.
Even several companies that just ported even AAA games to linux (didn't even pay the upfront cost of developing the game) have not been able to generate enough sales on that platform to stay afloat.
That said, Linux can be a boon to many indie devs, because there are some Linux zealots will buy a game simply because it comes out on Linux.
Linux gaming is a largely untapped market, in my opinion, especially for indies. If you look at the numbers as reported by Hemisphere Games for Osmos and the numbers reported by Wolfire Games for the Humble Indie Bundle (especially the total revenue for each platform), you can see that Linux users can be pretty eager to support those who support Linux.
One thing i noticed that hasn't been touched on here yet, is the overall hodgepodge of drivers, kernels, and libraries you have to work with on linux. It's gotten better lately (with a few distros making up what i can only guess is the majority of the linux boxes out there), but it still is a mess. For a great example of what i mean, see this post-mortem of the linux Osmos port, specifically the "Didn't Love" section. In short, that article complains about:
What do you mean with too slow? I don't think that gamedev for linux is any slower than for other operating systems. If you meant to ask why there are no commercial games developed for linux I'd guess it's mostly because the market is too small. There was a company that started to port commercial windows games to linux but they closed down because they hadn't any success selling those games iirc. Futhermore if you want to develop a game for linux you still need to provide it for windows as well if you want to make enough money, however developing it in such a cross-platform manner is even more costly and the linux market is probably not worth it. So I'd say it's just not cost-effective.
One reason that I think Linux doesn't get as much attention is simply that most people who run Linux can also choose to run Windows via a dual-boot setup to run games. This also effects Mac users as well to some extent, but due to the less technical make up of the userbase (not saying this as a slight to Mac users -- it's more that Linux users tend to be the kind of people who don't mind doing all sorts of arcane technical tasks to get something working), there are less people willing to install Windows on their machine.
Closely related is that anyone who is interested in PC games is probably going to buy a PC with Windows on it. Since they have a Windows machine already, they aren't going to be demanding native Linux or Mac versions.
I also think there's simply power in numbers. There's many more windows users than linux users and thus more output on windows. Also, entry level is a lot lower with visual tools versus command line tools (although that has changed over time). Also a lot of kids got their parent's old PC to tinker with, which statictically was more likely to be a windows PC than a Linux box.
The common game user is not a linux user. So the market is not there and not wise to spend money trying to focus on that market.
I know that id Software try to release a linux client of their games, just because they are awesome and love the platform.
Let's not forget that most commercial game engines is tied to and/or have a toolset squarely rooted on win32/consoles. This is also the reason why so many games still uses BSP for instance. Because they've made a huge investment, they are not going to take a huge risk for a smaller market. Might change in the future, but right now you have to invest a lot of effort to become cross platform.
Since Steam just appeared on the Mac, which is really excellent news, I suspect it will only be a matter of time before it appears on Linux. A Mac is running a unix-like OS, so there shouldn't be too much trouble porting the games over.
At least we can hope. :)
Another major issue you must take into account when developing for linux is how to install your game. There is no standard install mechanism that works without issues across distributions. There are package management systems which make your life easier though not all distros use the same formats. The two most common packaging formats would probably be .deb (used by debian based distros) and .rpm (used by redhat based distros). You can waste a lot of time getting the packaging of your application right for multiple distributions, though if you choose not to supply your game in a distros chosen packaging format you run the risk of alienating their user base.
I wonder if the market is as small as people say. I mean I know several people who use Linux as their day to day OS that keep a partition free for a windows install to play their games. (I do the same) The one and only reason we have windows installed is because of the software developers. If they shift their positions and support Linux then I'm certain the adoption rate would go up. But nothing will change unless somebody takes the leap first (come on valve).
Personally, I solved a lot of Linux's issues by using Wine, but I still had problems finding a standardized installation solution that'd work for everyone.


text:
What is nadir and neutropenic?
Last Modified: January 24, 2012
What is meant by nadir and neutropenic?
Carolyn Vachani, RN, MSN, AOCN, OncoLink Nurse Educator, responds:
These are 2 terms used to describe levels of blood cells in the body. The nadir is the time point after cancer treatment when your blood counts (white blood cell, hemoglobin and platelets) are at their lowest. This is the time when we are most concerned about complications of low counts; including infection risk (due to low white blood cell count), bleeding risk (due to low platelet count), poor oxygen delivery to tissues which can cause fatigue, chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness (due to low hemoglobin, also called anemia). The nadir most commonly occurs 10-14 days after chemotherapy treatment, but this time can vary depending on the chemotherapy and schedule you are on, so ask your oncology team when your nadir is expected.
Neutropenic is a low level of a specific type of white blood cell called a neutrophil. These are the most important of all the white blood cells when it comes to fighting infection, so we specifically monitor them when low white blood cell count is an issue.
Learn more about low platelet count.
And more about anemia or low hemoglobin.
This question and answer was part of the OncoLink Brown Bag Chat Series. View the entire Interpreting Test Results transcript.
February 29th is Rare Disease Dayby Christina Bach, MSW, LCSW, OSW-C
February 26, 2016
3 Great Reasons To Have Gratitude On Your Cancer Teamby Marlys Johnson
July 25, 2016


text:
Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.
| HP News Services
A judge in New Orleans agreed to a stipulation that could reduce BP's maximum penalty in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident by as much as $3.5 billion.
By ALISON SIDER
A federal judge in New Orleans agreed late Tuesday to a
stipulation that could reduce BP's maximum penalty under the
Clean Water Act in connection with the Deepwater Horizon
accident by as much as $3.5 billion.
Under the stipulation agreed to by the Justice Department
and BP, and signed by US District Judge Carl Barbier, 810,000
bbl of oil that were captured from the leaking well in the Gulf
of Mexico before reaching the ocean won't count toward any
potential fines under the act.
The amount of oil that spilled into the Gulf will, along
with other factors, determine how much BP pays in fines under
the Clean Water Act. If the judge determines BP was "grossly
negligent" instead of simply negligent, the company could be
subject to fines as high as $4,300/bbl of oil spilled, although
other factors will also be considered.
Those determinations will be made during two upcoming trials,
one of which is set to begin next week.
The two sides agreed that 810,000 bbl of collected oil
"never came into contact with any ambient sea water and was not
released into the environment in any way" other than
via approved flaring, according to Judge Barbier's order.
Thomas Claps, an analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group,
wrote in a note that the order is a "significant pre-trial
battle" that reduces BP's "worst case scenario" fines under the
act by about $3.5 billion.
"Therefore, according to US Government flow rate estimates
of approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, the
"worst-case scenario" of [more than $21 billion] in fines for
BP has now been reduced to approximately $17.6 billion, a
significant decrease," Mr. Claps wrote.
BP argues the size of the spill is significantly less,
and is at most 3.1 million bbl.
Dow Jones Newswires
All comments are subject to editorial review.
All fields are compulsory.
Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!
A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry
Engineers and designers are highly skilled individuals. Forcing them to enter design changes using tables, forms and spreadsheets is unproductive and uneconomical, and it increases the likelihood of human error—this is the way that most instrumentation software systems currently work. For too long, software vendors have denied engineers and designers the simple practicality of a graphical visual engineering interface with "drag and drop" capability and inbuilt intelligence, ensuring changes are automatically replicated into all the associated data and databases.
Is 2016 the peak for US gasoline demand?
Too soon to tell
July 2016


text:
Do many mathematicians write a lot (including expository articles)? Or are there a fair majority of mathematicians that just write papers and don't bother with expository material? Which is better? Do mathematicians lose out if they do not write expository material?
closed as off topic by Loop Space, José Figueroa-O'Farrill, Harry Gindi, Martin Brandenburg, Charles Siegel Aug 5 '10 at 12:23
Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
G. H. Hardy recommended that young mathematicians spend time on research, and when they are older and less adroit at research they should write books (to pass on the knowledge they have amassed).
Probably in mathematics departments at top research universities, those who write primarily expository material will be at a disadvantage in salaries and promotions. On the other hand, mathematicians who write primarily exposition can find perfectly good positions at other types of institutions. For example: William Dunham, author of four well-received expository books, is Truman Koehler Professor of Mathematics at Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania.


text:
I use a glossy Macbook Pro at work and often am working on a terminal screen with a black background. It tends to reflect direct or incident light off the screen into my eyes and I notice this as glare. Today I didn't take off my sunglasses immediately when I came in and noticed that the glare was reduced significantly, and my eyes felt a lot more comfortable. Haven't tried this for more than a few minutes, and think I would get weird looks at the office.
Has anyone else tried this and came to any conclusion about whether sunglasses could viably reduce glare from monitor screens without hindering visibility and even causing more eyestrain? By the way. I have anti-reflective coatings on my prescription glasses and I don't notice much of any glare reduction from monitors. The sunglasses seem to work much better.