text:
August 18, 2009
Sync Google Chrome Bookmarks
How to try the new feature? Make sure you use Google Chrome's dev channel, which includes a buggier and less polished version of Google Chrome. Then create a desktop shortcut for the browser, right-click on the shortcut, select "Properties" and edit the "Target" field by appending:
(make sure to add a space before pasting the flag). You should see something like this if you're using Windows Vista:
C:\Users\Ionut\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe --enable-sync
Restart the browser and you should find a new option in the Tools menu: "Sync my bookmarks". Enter your credentials and the sync process should start immediately. You'll be able to access your bookmarks in a weird location: a read-only folder in Google Docs (things will look less weird when Google Docs is transformed into Google Drive, a general-purpose online storage service). Install Google Chrome's dev build on a different computer and you'll be able to access your bookmarks, edit them and all the changes will be saved online.
Google will release a sync API so that developers can add similar features for other services. "To make this sync infrastructure scale to millions of users, we decided to leverage existing XMPP-based Google Talk servers to give us "push" semantics, rather than only depending on periodically polling for updates. This means when a change occurs on one Google Chrome client, a part of the infrastructure effectively sends a tiny XMPP message, like a chat message, to other actively connected clients telling them to sync," explains a Chromium document.
Tip: import the bookmarks from Google Bookmarks by clicking on the Tools menu, selecting "Import bookmarks and settings" and choosing "Google Toolbar" from the list.
Update: The file that implements the syncing algorithms (syncapi.dll) includes many references to GDrive, so it's likely that Google will use the same technology to synchronize all the files stored in Google Drive.
{ Thanks, Pascal. }
80 comments:
- AnonymousAugust 18, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Now if the extensions could also benefit from this...ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Google should implement Google Toolbar wich has a native bookmarks syncing in chrome rather than developping a new app. Sometimes I dont understand Google....ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM
I hope Google sync API allows integration with other browsers, and synchronization between Google Bookmarks and Google Docs.ReplyDelete
I think developping a built-in Bookmarks (and more later) Syncing using XMPP is better than using the "old" Google Toolbar.ReplyDelete
But it's so disappointed Chrome uses folders instead of labels.
Seems to be a strategy for putting all data on the cloud.ReplyDelete
Initial Chrome OS file system?
Much like Google Bookmarks, this one supports Bookmarklets :DReplyDelete
However, we can't still edit those bookmarks in Google Docs such as renaming them.
And let's take note that Xmarks, formerly Foxmarks, will be supporting Google Chrome too. :D
I used it and i built fifteen bookmarks on it.ReplyDelete
I think Chrome should have better support for Google Bookmarks. The bookmarklet is nothing compared to the Google toolbar bookmark button. Besides, I couldn't use it as my employer blocks Google Docs (and Google Pics) as 'file sharing' sites.ReplyDelete
Lack of good Google Bookmarks support is one reason I don't use chrome. Lack of a LastPass plugin is another (on a very short list.)
- LoooooooooooAugust 18, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Fantastic feature. Now maybe they can get people working on a RSS icon, you know, like everyother browser out there :)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Google Chrome? Are they still wasting their time mucking around with that thing?ReplyDelete
I thought it's market share never took off and people dropped it as featureless vapourware?
My bookmarks aren't showing up under Google Docs. I'm wondering if it's because I am a Google Apps user instead of a normal gmail account user. Anyone else had this issue?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 18, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I had the same issue, logged into Google Docs (as opposed to Google Apps Docs) with my Apps username and password and found them there. Very annoying.
It's working great at my office on XP but, I'm running Windows 7 RC1 and cannot get it to work. For some reason the Target path in Windows 7 does not have " " around the path. If I add the quotes and append --enable-sync after the last quote, the quotes will vanish after it's saved. I'll start Chrome and will not get the option for bookmark sync. It appears to be a problem specific to Windows 7 so I'm sure it will be resolved by the time the OS is released.ReplyDelete
then that function will tner google bookmarks, the bookmarks button in google toolbar, etc..ReplyDelete
I do not see sense to have 2 pages of a google bookmarks bookmars and another google docs
I like to see my bookmarks and add bookmarks from my google toolbar, and it now expected to google chrome, there is a bookmarklet that allows you to save links to google bookmarks, so now to save your bookmarks in google docs as it is do I still lack a lot to do with IE, Firefox and Safari already have.
- AnonymousAugust 20, 2009 at 6:31 AM
Being able to sync bookmarks between Chrome and a Google account is a critical feature for true portability.ReplyDelete
I like the new feature as well as the integration with Google Docs; however it would great if we could also add/remove/edit bookmarks online as a way of saving a link for later on-the-go.ReplyDelete
Google removed gdrive with version 4.0.202.ReplyDelete
anyone have the problem that enabling this feature on two computers doesn't share the bookmarks?ReplyDelete
They are still unsynced and seperate from each other
How can I remove "Google Chrome" folder from me docs? I disabled sync in chrome and tried to delete it but got message that this folder is read-only.ReplyDelete
Make sure you log in to the same Google account.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 21, 2009 at 5:34 AM
Cant get it to work in Chromium:(ReplyDelete
You're right, it doesn't work in Chromium and I'm using the latest build. Fortunately, you can install Chromium and Google Chrome on the same computer.
- AnonymousAugust 21, 2009 at 7:25 AM
@Yura: you can "hide" it.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 23, 2009 at 1:18 AM
I don't think the why of Google uses Google Docs to save bookmarks is a "tecnical issue", but a strategy: using Google Docs as the center of the user data.ReplyDelete
but nobody know it because Google said Nothing.It is Google's !ReplyDelete
You can also check the synchronization status though about:syncReplyDelete
Google with Google Docs want to do what microsoft with SkyDrive, doing a google Google Docs dive, this means that Google Bookmarks is going to disappear, but now which will shape to add our bookmarks to google docs, only with the sync?ReplyDelete
Still no sight of the new Docs interface and folder sharing UI. I think the Google guys are much too busy dealing with important things like doodles.ReplyDelete
Sweet feature, I cannot wait to see it on the Stable Channel. Google chrome is and always will be the best browser on the market and because Google extensively tests all extensions before pushing them out it's really clean and stable.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM
well, 4 me it is not working at all, I made it this way:ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 14, 2009 at 3:18 AM
It means Google want to know where you are and when you are. Once again, too much CONTROL -ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 14, 2009 at 3:20 AM
Is it possible for us to have less intrusive browser? inserting bookmarks into our USB stick and plug in and set the browser to connect the appropriate location in the usb stick?ReplyDelete
bookmark sync does not work:ReplyDelete
"Bookmark Sync Error! Google Chrome could not sync your bookmarks because it could not connect to the sync server."
Could anyone help me?
- AnonymousOctober 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM
What is funny is all the people that scream companies have to much control must never leave their homes. Since any time you walk within 1 block from your house you are getting your picture taken. If you go into town you get your picture and filmed. There are so many that have so much control that you do not even know, but you scream google has to much control. They are just doing what MS has been doing for years lol, cept now you are catching onto it. (ex; when you install your OS (windows)it calls home to MS, and many many other things lol. Enjoy what you can access and share everything for knowledge is freedom.ReplyDelete
Not working on the Mac Dev build of Chrome. I use terminal to open the app like so:ReplyDelete
open "/Applications/Google Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google Chrome" --args --enable-sync
When i open about:sync in Chrome, it says SYNC DISABLED.
I use mainly Safari as a browser, but I'm looking for some way to sync bookmarks across browsers easily.
- AnonymousOctober 27, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Tes my sync is disabled on mac os too. Any ideas please? 22.214.171.124ReplyDelete
There's no need for a google toolbar in chrome, when Google is releasing something better, a universal open api, that any browser can use.ReplyDelete
I'm running Chromium 220.127.116.11 (Ubuntu build 30813) from the "daily" deb packages channel, and I'm not seeing bookmark sync functionality when adding mentioned command-line argument. What's going on here?ReplyDelete
Judging by other comments this still seems to be Windows-only.
- AnonymousNovember 5, 2009 at 4:54 AM
Why don't save bookmark in Google bookmarks but in Google Docs? I like to edit and modify things in Google Bookmarks. But if Google keeps everything in Google Docs, Google should make editable bookmarks in Google Docs (Like import/export bookmark etc).ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 5, 2009 at 7:54 AM
Please make the google bookmarks sync better. The only thing that stops me from using Google Chrome is the fact that there is no flexible google bookmarks functionality like in google toolbar.ReplyDelete
I don't to see my bookmarks in Google Docs, I want see them build into the Chrome natively.
Is there any way to view which computers you are syncing to/from? Eg from within Google Docs or anything?ReplyDelete
I'm just thinking might be useful to be able to remotely disable syncing or something
Since updating to Linux Chrome build 184.108.40.206 bookmark sync is again disabled (greyed out) even with the --enable-sync option. What happened?ReplyDelete
I'm seeing the same thing with 22.214.171.124 on Ubuntu.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 24, 2009 at 5:32 PM
BJ, same here with Debian Lenny build. I starred your bug report here, thanks:ReplyDelete
Just updated to 184.108.40.206 on Ubuntu and it's still missing the bookmarks sync feature. Greyed out as BJ said about the previous version.ReplyDelete
That's a feature much needed for me.
I use this occasion to thank the Chromium team for the excellent work done. You already made me switch from FF ;)
Keep up the good work!
Chrome's bookmark sync via Google Docs lacks elegance. Google's insistence on not adding the Google Toolbar (and its Google Bookmarks) to Chrome is one of the major reasons I'm not using Chrome over Firefox. (FYI: The other reasons include Tree Style Tabs and Firebug.)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 4, 2009 at 6:33 AM
Installed Chrome 2 days ago and have been loving it. Then realized I cant access my bookmarks from my previous Google toolbar. I loved how easy it was to just log on it and all my bookmarks were available, at any pc. This is ridiculous. Why would anyone who worked on making this chrome browser think its ok to leave that feature out?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 7, 2009 at 6:28 PM
I run ChromiumOS cherry build, from a 2GB SD card, and its' "chrome browser" has the sync option enabled...when I boot into my ubuntu or ubuntu/jolicloud, the browser lacks sync ...ReplyDelete
After entering the password to do bookmark sync it works (means syncing works) even I am log off from Gmail account. Does it mean that Chrome stores my Gmail password somewhere to be able to sync?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM
I'm annoyed because there seems to be something wrong with my computer, claiming I entered a wrong password even though the same password can get me onto my Google account elsewhere. I don't know if it's a server error or the computer, but I think it's the computer because I was able to use it on another computer.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJanuary 1, 2010 at 3:42 AM
Try copying and pasting the characters from elsewhere or typing it somewhere else and pasting from there. I sometimes have the problem you're having due to key board setup issues or from my laptop, especially if there are numbers or special characters in the password.ReplyDelete
What's going on here Google? Are you reinventing the wheel? I've been using Google Bookmarks for some time now, (http://www.google.com/bookmarks/ in case your don't know about it) but your sync tool syncs with Google Docs? Can it be any more useless? And this "Import bookmarks and settings" item in the tools menu doesn't exist.ReplyDelete
I'm using the bookmark sync and I have been a google toolbar user forever. None of my bookmarks have been synced from my toolbar. This is very disappointing.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJanuary 26, 2010 at 8:44 AM
As ICT-system responsable I will install Google Chrome in our company for our emplopyees when Google Bookmarks is supported in Chrome.ReplyDelete
Now I still use FireFox with Google Bookmarks, and sometimes Google Chrome.
People receiving errors logging in:ReplyDelete
If you are receiving an error stating you can't login to google then you may try clearing the google cache and optionally your temp directory. I wasn't able to login to gmail from my work machine one random day (nothing changed on my machine) even after a reboot. a clearing of the chrome browser cache fixed the issue.
- AnonymousFebruary 6, 2010 at 8:59 AM
I have a suggestion for this feature. I am using the chrome bookmark sync feature and I use chrome at two locations - home and work. Suppose I have a bookmark "X" at home, when I go to work it will be added to the browser at work, if not already exists. Now, I renamed "X" to "Y" in the computer at work. When I get home, instead of having X being renamed to Y as well (intuitive result of synchronization), I have both bookmark X and Y. And I have to remember to delete X at home, for otherwise the next day I go to work, both X and Y appears at work! This is pretty inconvenient.ReplyDelete
In short, the sync should honor deletion and modification to the bookmarks in stead of just adding what's missing all the time.
Forget about Google Docs for now, if you use Google Bookmarks than just install this extension in Chrome, and you're done.ReplyDelete
I think that Google Bookmarks should also sync to the Google Docs system if this is the way Google wants to do things from now on. I'm tired of them making new systems with no backward compatibility.ReplyDelete
i think that when synced it should send ur bookmarks to ur gmail account or something for an easy get to...im one of those people who use alot of different computers and that would help(being as i only use gmail for newgrounds and my psp account stuff)ReplyDelete
Podrian hacer la extencion para Firefox?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 9, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Like several others, I can't get it to synch with my apps account.ReplyDelete
- Sleggy AllenMarch 14, 2010 at 10:20 AM
just found this tool and had no problems so far..when i bookmarked a site it synced automatically to my google bookmarks..ReplyDelete
Force Sync Option please. I have links on two other computers not syncing often enough.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 6, 2010 at 3:36 AM
can't i have more than one email accounts for 'sync'ing in google chrome! coz we are three roommates who share the same PC?ReplyDelete
No, of course not. You use should use multiple user accounts in Windows and install Chrome for each account. Each user should have his own settings, bookmarks, passwords etc.
- AnonymousJuly 2, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Why do I have to use the Google Toolbar to import bookmarks? I am on a Mac. Why can't I just go to the Google Bookmarks page and click an import button and import an html file? Google is dumb.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 3, 2010 at 9:14 PM
I'm getting really sick of this half-baked crap from "alternative" browser vendors. First it's Firefox's terrible memory leaking that forced me to look at Chrome, now it's this braindead lack of synchronization between Chrome and its maker's services. If you're trying to convince anyone that your "cloud computing" is worth anything Google, you're not doing a good job of it. Maybe I'll just go back to IE, where at least the Google toolbar works, and I don't have to periodically restart the browser because of browser-slowing memory leaks.ReplyDelete
I have been using the Google Chrome Sync for a couple months. Suddenly today all my bookmarks disappeared.ReplyDelete
Google Bookmark Sync shows not a single bookmark and the Bookmarks folder in Chrome is empty.
In one feel swoop years of work has disappeared.
Thanks a lot Google, it will take months to restore what you have destroyed.
Google chrome synch is awesome i've installed another OS and lost all the bookmarks but i again got it back. Thanks to googleReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 30, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Nope, don't like it a bit. Why do people take something that is great and then ruin it?? Firefox, here I come. Bye bye Chrome.ReplyDelete
Guess what? Firefox 4 adds a similar feature.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 23, 2010 at 4:22 PM
It's sad that browsers are making their own sync applications. Now for inter-browser applications, only Xmarks was wonderful, which is going to be closed in Jan11. I need such a tool. For Internet Explorer, there is similar sync operation using Windows LIve mesh. Read the post here. http://www.techlikes.com/2010/10/sync-bookmarks-online-windows-live-mesh.htmlReplyDelete
I am using a business account with googlemail. The format of the email is: firstname.lastname@example.com. Login works like with my private google account.
Unfortunately I cannot login to the synchronizing feature... Anyone has an idea?
Thanks a lot!
- AnonymousJanuary 4, 2011 at 8:34 PM
It would be great if they made a Chrome Sync Gadget that you could plug into Gmail, so you could access your bookmarks from Gmail.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 28, 2011 at 10:47 AM
I have Google Apps for Business account. I what to sync my browser bookmark so when I log-in at home or wherever I have all my stuff. How ever when I try to log-in with my email address and password it either fails or just sits there spinning. This should not be so difficult.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 12, 2011 at 6:46 PM
the procedure listed above to sync chrome bookmarks is absolutely ludicrous | i prefer to stick with delicious <> firefox <> opera <> safari|ReplyDelete
- ckpinguinAugust 25, 2011 at 7:43 AM
yeah, but delicious did not want to stick with usReplyDelete
Delicious did not want to stick with us ?..whyReplyDelete
My browser seems to not have sync'd in months. how is that?ReplyDelete
everything is activated.
Disable syncing, enable it again and log in.ReplyDelete


text:
Withdrawal of NINDS Participation in PAR-09-251, "Optimization of Small Molecule Probes for the Nervous System (R21)"
Release Date: December 21, 2011
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
This Notice informs potential applicants that the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) will no longer accept applications under PAR-09-251, "Optimization of Small Molecule Probes for the Nervous System (R21)," beginning with the February 16, 2012 receipt date. Researchers seeking support for chemical optimization of small molecules probes for preclinical, in vivo proof-of-concept experiments for the purposes of drug discovery should consider PAR-12-060, "Solicitation of Validated Hits for the Discovery of in vivo Chemical Probes (R01)."
The following Institutes will continue to participate in PAR-09-251:
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
National Eye Institute (NEI)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
All other aspects of PAR-09-251 will remain unchanged.
Please direct all inquiries to:
Rebecca Farkas, PhD
Office of Translational Research
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
6001 Executive Boulevard
Neuroscience Center/Room 2109
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 496-1779
Fax: 301-402-1501
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Office of Extramural
Research (OER)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Financial Accounting Foundation Chairman Responds to House Subcommittee's Action on "The Stock Option Accounting Reform Act"
Norwalk, CT, May 17, 2004—Robert Denham, Chairman and President of the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF), expressed grave concern over the approval of H.R. 3574 "The Stock Option Accounting Reform Act," by the Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee of the Committee on Financial Services.
"Advancing this bill in the legislative process harms the credibility of America's system for providing transparent and unbiased financial information to investors," Denham said. "By inserting Congress into the setting of standards for accounting by publicly traded companies, H.R. 3574 would undermine the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which Congress recently reaffirmed in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act."
The FAF is the parent nonprofit corporation that appoints members of the FASB and oversees its process. "An important function of the FAF Trustees," Denham explained, "is to protect the FASB's standard-setting process from undue interference from either the public or the private sector."
"Our capital markets depend on a system of continuously improving financial information about the underlying economic activities of companies, fostered by accounting standards independently and expertly developed. If Congress sends the message that special interests are able, through legislation, to overturn expert accounting judgment arrived at through open due process, necessary and timely improvements in financial reporting will likely become impossible."
"H.R. 3574 preempts and overrides the FASB's ongoing effort to improve accounting for equity-based compensation through public due process," Denham stated. "Once Congress starts setting accounting standards through its political process, the integrity of accounting standard setting in this country will be dangerously compromised."
"If enacted, H.R. 3574 would also severely impede the important ongoing efforts by the FAF and FASB to achieve international convergence of high-quality accounting standards," Denham added. "Because the International Accounting Standards Board has recently issued a final standard requiring the recognition of compensation cost for the fair value of employee stock options, Congressional action would result in a major difference between US and international standards, thus undermining the movement toward international convergence previously encouraged by Congress in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and by many investors and other market participants."
About the Financial Accounting Foundation
The Financial Accounting Foundation is responsible for overseeing, funding and selecting the members of the FASB and the GASB. For more information on the organizations it oversees, visit the Foundation's websites at www.fasb.org and www.gasb.org.


text:
Home > Shop by Brand > Acqua Di Parma > Acqua Di Parma Colonia Fragrance
(Details shown apply to the default selection)
Brand: Acqua Di ParmaRange: ColoniaGender: UnisexFragrance Type: Eau de CologneMain Fragrance Group: Citrus
View All Acqua di Parma Ranges
Acqua Di Parma Colonia was created in 1916 and was the first fragrance from the Italian brand. Colonia is a beautifully rounded blend of Sicilian citrus fruits, lavender, rosemary, verbena and rose.
UK Orders
FREE Delivery on all orders
European Orders
Orders to the value of £49.99 - £10 Orders with a value between £50.00 to £99.99 - £14 Orders above £100 - £16.00
Orders for the Rest of the World, including the USA & Canada
Orders to the value of £49.99 - £12 Orders with a value between £50.00 to £99.99 - £16 Orders above £100 - £20.00
Acqua Di Parma Colonia Assoluta EDC Spray 50ml£60.00
A refined and unisex cologne that magnificently represents the unmistakeable style and timeless elegance of Acqua Di Parma.
Acqua Di Parma Colonia Essenza EDC Spray 100ml£79.00
Acqua Di Parma Colonia Essenza is an innovative and creative re-imagining of Colonia, a composition of the purest and finest natural ingredients.
Acqua Di Parma Colonia Essenza EDC Spray 50ml£62.00
Acqua Di Parma Colonia Intensa EDC Spray 50ml£60.00
Colonia Intensa ia an Eau de Cologne which is elegant, sophisticated, intensely masculine.
Be the first to Write a Review for this item!
Acqua Di Parma Colonia Hair Shampoo 150ml£22.00
The ideal shampoo for frequent washing, suitable for all hair types.
Acqua Di Parma Colonia EDC Spray 180ml£105.00
A fresh, refined, and timeless fragrance created in 1916. A composition born from sunny Sicilian citrus fruits.
Acqua Di Parma Colonia EDC Spray 50ml£58.00
Colonia is a fresh, refined, and timeless fragrance created in 1916.
Acqua Di Parma Gift Sets
ColoniasColoniaColonia Body ProductsColonia EssenzaColonia ClubColonia IntensaColonia AssolutaColonia OudIngredients Collection
Collezione Barbiere
Feminine FragrancesAcque NobileIris NobilePeonia NobileMagnolia NobileGelsomino NobileRosa NobileProfumo
Blu MediterraneoItalian ResortCedro di TaorminaGinepro di SardegnaBergamotto di CalabriaFico di AmalfiPanarea di MirtoAranica di CapriMandorlo di Sicilia
Home CollectionCube and Cone CandlesFruit and Flower CandlesHome Fragrances
Acqua Di Parma News
The History Of Acqua Di Parma


text: Antivirus vendor Kaspersky Lab has launched a free removal tool for the Flashback Mac OS X malware and a website where users can check whether their computers are infected with it.Flashback is the most widespread malware on the Mac OS X platform to date. Two antivirus companies, Doctor Web and Kaspersky Lab, independently confirmed on Wednesday and Friday, respectively, that well over 600,000 Mac computers have been infected with the latest variant of the Flashback Trojan horse.Flashback first appeared in September 2011 and was originally distributed as a fake Flash Player installer. However, the number of infections drastically increased in March because the malware started infecting computers through Web-based attacks that exploited an unpatched Java vulnerability.Antivirus vendor F-Secure was the first to publish instructions on how to check whether a Mac OS X system is infected with the latest Flashback variant and how to manually remove it.However, F-Secure's instructions required users to type complicated commands in a Mac OS X terminal window and interpret the replies, which made them somewhat unsuitable for non-technical persons used to a graphical user interface.In order to make it easier for average users to check whether their computers are infected, Kaspersky Lab launched a website on Monday where people can input their systems' unique hardware identifiers (UUIDs) to see if they are among the almost 700,000 Macs known to be infected with Flashback so far.Kaspersky also released a stand-alone removal tool for the Flashback malware, which Mac owners can download and use for free. However, it's probably a good idea to install a full-featured antivirus program after running this tool in order to prevent future infections.In addition, Kaspersky's director of global research and analysis, Costin Raiu, made several Mac OS X security recommendations in a blog post on Monday. These included setting up a non-administrator account for everyday use, switching to Google Chrome as primary browser because of its sandboxed Flash Player plug-in and silent automatic updates, disabling the Java and stand-alone Flash Player plug-ins from other browsers, installing all software updates distributed by Apple, upgrading Adobe Reader to version 10, using a separate keychain for passwords that can unlock very sensitive accounts and disabling the IPv6, AirPort or Bluetooth services when they're not needed and enabling full disk encryption.


text: The world in which The Wheel of Time takes place is lifted directly out of Jordan's pages; it's huge and consists of many different environments. How you navigate the world will depend largely on which game - single player or multipayer - you're playing. The single player experience, with a few exceptions, will see Elayna traversing the world mainly by foot (with a couple notable exceptions). In the multiplayer experience, your character will have more access to travel via Ter'angreal, Portal Stones, and the Ways. However you move around, though, you'll quickly discover that means of locomotion can easily become the least of the your worries...During your travels, you quickly discover that four locations are crucial to your success in the game. Not surprisingly, these locations are the homes of The Wheel of Time's main characters. Some of these places are ripped directly from the pages of Jordan's books, made flesh with Legend's unparalleled pixel-pushing ways. Other places are specific to the game, conceived and executed with the intent of expanding this game world even further. Either way, they provide a backdrop for some of the most intense first person action and strategy you'll have this year.


text:
OTTAWA, CANADA, June 26, 2008—After twenty years of learning, 20Q is showing no signs of aging. This summer, 20Q is proudly celebrating its 20th anniversary as the artificial intelligence behind the world's smartest guessing
game. This spooky A.I. entertains everyone, from the inventor's friends and family (its first guinea pigs who played it on a floppy disk) to word game enthusiasts worldwide.
20Q's momentum is greater than ever. The deceptively addictive A.I. boasts a burgeoning lineup of specialty and licensed games, has earned an armload of awards and plays in more than twenty languages. What other artificial intelligence can
brag that it crossed lightsabers with Darth Vader, played Quidditch with Harry Potter, and ate a donut with Homer Simpson?
20Q is an artificial intelligence, a website, a company and a phenomenon that speaks for itself
at http://20q.net. Players think of something, and 20Q guesses what is on their mind, in twenty questions or less.
Inventor Robin Burgener has nurtured this A.I. technology since he created it in 1988. In its first ten years it played 2,000 games. It's popularity increased by leaps and bounds over the next ten years and by its twentieth birthday it had
played more than 63 million games and asked more than half a billion questions.
Each time the online game is played it learns a little more. With its ability to learn and discern, 20Q has evolved from an experiment in
artificial intelligence into marketable software, built on the capabilities of the A.I.
Mattel, Inc. makes the handheld versions of the original 20Q Classic game, 20Q Harry Potter, 20Q People, 20Q TV, 20Q Rock & Pop, and
more specialty versions yet to come. Millions of the popular and addictive handheld versions have been sold worldwide. Translated into more than 20 languages, players from around the world have the chance to train it and test its knowledge.
You can take the game with you wherever you go by downloading the mobile version distributed by Digital Chocolate, the mobile gaming company founded by Trip Hawkins.
Some of the accolades and awards that 20Q has received include the Toy Industry Association's Electronic Toy of the Year, the Canadian Toy Testing Council's Toy of the Year, the Oppenheim Platinum Toy award,
and the U.K. Toy Retailers' Association Special Recognition Award.
If it doesn't say 20Q, how can it read your mind? privacy, contact, license, sitemap ©1988-2017.
20Q.net Inc. All rights reserved. (070511) link to this page


text:
Kenai Peninsula Borough SChool District
Today: Budget Development Committee meets, interested community members invited to participate, Borough Assembly Chambers in Soldotna, 9 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
Nov. 12: School board meeting, 7-9 p.m., Soldotna.
Nov. 22-23: Holiday.
Chapman School
Today: Basketball vs. Cook Inlet Academy at Chapman, 4 p.m.
Nov. 9: Basketball at Nikolaevsk, 3:30 p.m.
Nov. 13: Basketball vs. ABC at Chapman, 4 p.m.
Nov. 15-17: Small Schools Basketball Tournament, Nikolaevsk, TBA.
Ongoing: Registration, call 226-1880.
Fireweed Academy (grades K-2)
Now serving hot lunches.
Fireweed Academy (grades 3-6)
Nov. 9: Disc golf field trip.
Homer Flex School
Ongoing: Registration, 1-3 p.m.
Ongoing: Youth Court training, Wednesday afternoons, 3:30 p.m.
Nov. 21: Thanksgiving lunch, noon.
Homer Middle School
Today: Picture make-up.
Nov. 9: Basketball at Kenai, 3 p.m.
Nov. 10: Basketball vs Seward at Homer, noon.
Nov. 16: Basketball at Nikiski, 3:30 p.m.
Nov. 21: Spelling bee, library, 3:15 p.m.
Nov. 27: Basketball vs Soldotna's Maroon team at Soldotna, 3 p.m.
McNeil Canyon
Elementary School
NOTE: It would be helpful if you would notify the office by 1 p.m. if your child needs a bus note that day or a message about changes in his or her after-school plans.
Today: Learning lab.
Today: Robotics, grades 4-6, until 4 p.m.
Nov. 10: McNeil Day at Homer Bookstore.
Nov. 10: Robotics at Health Fair, 7:30 a.m.-1 p.m.
Nov. 12: Picture retakes.
Nov. 12: Robotics, grades 4-6, until 5 p.m.
Nov. 13 and 15: Learning lab.
Nov. 15: Robotics, grades 4-6, until 4 p.m.
Nov. 17: Robotics tournament, Kenai.
Nov. 19: Spanish club.
Nov. 20: Learning lab.
Nov. 21: Holy day.
Nov. 26: Holy day.
Nov. 27: Learning lab.
Ninilchik School
Nov. 9: Career fair, Kenail Peninsula College.
Nov. 9-10: Volleyball vs. Dutch Harbor, leave Friday, come home Sunday.
Nov. 9: Middle school basketball vs. ABC, 4 p.m.
Nov. 13: Middle school basketball vs Homer Middle School, 4 p.m.
Nov. 15-17: End-of-season middle school basketball tournament at NIkolaevsk.
Nov. 16-17: CIA volleyball tournament.
Nov. 20: Volleyball vs CIA at Ninilchik, senior night, 4 p.m.
Paul Banks Elementary School
Nov. 9: Paul Banks Elementary shirt day.
Nov. 13: PTA meeting, 6:30-7:30 p.m.
Nov. 14: Site council, 3:15 p.m.
Nov. 21: Wear your harvest clothes.
Razdolna School
Note: The school will no longer purchase water bottles, spoons and forks for snacks with school funds. Plastic spoons and forks need to be sent with your child's snack. Water bottles or cups need to be supplied from home.
Nov. 21: Parent conferences.
Susan B. English School
Nov. 9-10: High school wrestling at Nikiski.
Nov. 15-17: Junior high small schools volleyball tournament, TBA.
Nov. 16-17: Volleyball tournament at CIA, TBA.
Voznesenka School
Nov. 9-10: Wrestling, NIkiski.
Nov. 16-17: Wrestling, Palmer.
Nov. 21: Parent teacher conferences.
Nov. 24: Wrestling, Homer.
Nov. 30: Wrestling, Anchorage.
West Homer
Elementary School
Today: Sixth-grade band, 2:40 p.m.
Nov. 9: Picture retakes.
Nov. 12: Fifth-grade band, 12:10 p.m.
Nov. 12: Girls basketball, 3:20 p.m.
Nov. 13: Sixth-grade band, 12:20 p.m.
Nov. 14: Fifth-grade band, 11:20 a.m.
Nov. 14: Girls basketball, 3: 20 p.m.
Nov. 15: Sixth-grade band, 2:40 p.m.
Nov. 19: Fifth-grade band, 12:10 p.m.
Nov. 19: Girls basketball, 3:20 p.m.
Nov. 20: Sixth-grade band, 12:20 p.m.
Nov. 21: Fifth-grade band, 11:20 a.m.
Nov. 21: Girls basketball, 3:20 p.m.


text:
Updated ReSpot, Servify issue persists.Updated ReSpot on the Market. Hopefully this update should make the application visible to owners of HTC Tattoo, HTC Desire and SE Xperia devices.
In other news the "playlist" issues seem to persist. Servify will throw TimeoutException's when trying to list playlists.
In the browser view (in ReSpot) you may try this: "meny->list". But dont hammer too quickly. Once executed either the playlists should surface or you can view the logwindow under the Connect tab - there any errors will be reported.
ReSpot 2010.04.11 and Servify 2010.04.11 Released!
New ReSpot and Servify release!
Re-vamped UI for ReSpot - still work in progress... Decided to release it now anyway 🙂
x) new UI! Work In Progress - please report issues
x) Fixed FC issue(s)
x) MoveToNext - moves track to be played next in play queue
As usual a big thanks to everyone reporting bugs and asking for (specific) improvements / features!
A special thanks to 'coolof' for the mockup which I've used for this design.
New UI in the works
Been implementing the new UI that 'coolof' kindly mocked. However to make it look good on various devices (different resolutions) quite a bit of work remains.
I'll release a fix later today that should address the (currently) most common force close issues.
Hopefully I can get the updated UI released sometime next week.. Stay tuned.
Let me know what you think about it in the comments!
ReSpot v2010.03.31
Update of ReSpot due to feature request...
(suggest new features by adding a comment on the posts on this blog!)
x) trigger artist/album browse from search view
Had totally overlooked adding these two options from the Search view.
If a artist/album browse is triggered from the Search view - the results of the browse will be displayed in the Browse view!
This may or may not change in the future... actually the search view will most likely be removed in a future update and a proper search manager implemented (ie: the android search will 'pop up' in the browse tab).
ReSpot – new features!
A few new features for the next release (not yet available on the market)
On incoming calls - ReSpot will mute the stereo playback.
I've chosen "mute" for now - at some point later on it'll probably change to "pause".
Once the call is done - music is unmuted.
Also revamped the SearchUI. I should use the standard SearchManager as provided by Android, but I'm more interested in adding new features. And the 'Search Button' brings you to the Search tab (if your device has a search button that is).
ReSpot – Spotify Remote for Android, new version out now!
Time for another release, 2010.02.06. Hopefully bug free 😉
Please note that Servify upgrade is required!
+ improved volume slider
+ shuffle function (it's hidden... playbackview->menu->shuffle)
+ new buttons (thanks to vaineh @ android forums)
+ a few Force Close issues ironed out (and no new ones introduced! 😛 )
The volume slider will indicate the wrong volume when first starting ReSpot. It's something i'll patch real soon. Need to do a bit of refactoring for that though.


text:
Super Easy Camel Video [in Spanish]
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
If you have any material to share, then you can reach out to the Camel community and ask to have a link added to your content.
Recently my twitter app highlighted a new tweet for a Apache Camel Video Tutorial from @jlbugarin.
|Apache Camel video presentation by @jlbugarin
In the following video tutorial, see how to copy files from a source folder, to a destination folder. The important thing is that you realize that it is super easy!
This is in fact our mission statement with Camel: Making integration easier.
Feliz viajando en el camello
( I hope the translation is correct, what I wanted to say is, happy riding the Camel)
Published at DZone with permission of Claus Ibsen, DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Petitioner Gilmer was required by respondent, his employer, to register as a securities representative with, among others, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). His registration application contained, inter alia, an agreement to arbitrate when required to by NYSE rules. NYSE Rule 347 provides for arbitration of any controversy arising out of a registered representative's employment or termination of employment. Respondent terminated Gilmer's employment at age 62. Thereafter, he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and brought suit in the District Court, alleging that he had been discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Respondent moved to compel arbitration, relying on the agreement in Gilmer's registration application and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court denied the motion, based on Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 - which held that an employee's suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not foreclosed by the prior submission of his claim to arbitration under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement - and because it concluded that Congress intended to protect ADEA claimants from a waiver of the judicial forum. The Court of Appeals reversed.
An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration. Pp. 24-35.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 36.
John T. Allred argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
James B. Spears, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert S. Phifer. *
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Association of Retired Persons by Cathy Ventrell-Monsees and Robert L. Liebross; and for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Laurence Gold and Marsha S. Berzon.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Center for Public Resources, Inc., by Jay W. Waks; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Peter G. Nash, Dixie L. Atwater, Michael J. Murphy, and Stephen A. Bokat; for the Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. by Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, Ann Elizabeth Reesman, and Donald L. Goldman; for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law by Alan E. Kraus, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Robert F. Mullen, David S. Tatel, Thomas J. Henderson, and Richard [500 U.S. 20, 23] T. Seymour; and for the Securities Industry Association, Inc., by A. Robert Pietrzak and William J. Fitzpatrick. [500 U.S. 20, 23]
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., can be subjected to compulsory arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a securities registration application. The Court of Appeals held that it could, 895 F.2d 195 (CA4 1990), and we affirm.
Respondent Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation (Interstate) hired petitioner Robert Gilmer as a Manager of Financial Services in May, 1981. As required by his employment, Gilmer registered as a securities representative with several stock exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). See App. 15-18. His registration application, entitled "Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer," provided, among other things, that Gilmer "agree[d] to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy" arising between him and Interstate "that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions or by-laws of the organizations with which I register." Id., at 18. Of relevance to this case, NYSE Rule 347 provides for arbitration of "[a]ny controversy between a registered representative and any member or member organization arising out of the employment or termination of employment of such registered representative." App. to Brief for Respondent 1.
Interstate terminated Gilmer's employment in 1987, at which time Gilmer was 62 years of age. After first filing an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Gilmer subsequently brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging that Interstate had discharged him because of his age, in violation of the [500 U.S. 20, 24] ADEA. In response to Gilmer's complaint, Interstate filed in the District Court a motion to compel arbitration of the ADEA claim. In its motion, Interstate relied upon the arbitration agreement in Gilmer's registration application, as well as the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The District Court denied Interstate's motion, based on this Court's decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974), and because it concluded that "Congress intended to protect ADEA claimants from the waiver of a judicial forum." App. 87. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding "nothing in the text, legislative history, or underlying purposes of the ADEA indicating a congressional intent to preclude enforcement of arbitration agreements." 895 F.2d at 197. We granted certiorari, 498 U.S. 809 (1990), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding the arbitrability of ADEA claims. 1
The FAA was originally enacted in 1925, 43 Stat. 883, and then reenacted and codified in 1947 as Title 9 of the United States Code. Its purpose was to reverse the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements that had existed at English common law and had been adopted by American courts, and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 219 -220, and n. 6 (1985); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 610 , n. 4 (1974). Its primary substantive provision states that "[a] written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of [500 U.S. 20, 25] any contract." 9 U.S.C. 2. The FAA also provides for stays of proceedings in federal district courts when an issue in the proceeding is referable to arbitration, 3, and for orders compelling arbitration when one party has failed, neglected, or refused to comply with an arbitration agreement, 4. These provisions manifest a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). 2 [500 U.S. 20, 26]
It is by now clear that statutory claims may be the subject of an arbitration agreement, enforceable pursuant to the FAA. Indeed, in recent years, we have held enforceable arbitration agreements relating to claims arising under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-7; 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b); the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.; and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 771(2). See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985); Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989). In these cases, we recognized that, "[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum." Mitsubishi, 473 U.S., at 628 .
Although all statutory claims may not be appropriate for arbitration, "[h]aving made the bargain to arbitrate, the party should be held to it unless Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue." Ibid. In this regard, we note that the burden is on Gilmer to show that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of a judicial forum for ADEA claims. See McMahon, 482 U.S., at 227 . If such an intention exists, it will be discoverable in the text of the ADEA, its legislative history, or an "inherent conflict" between arbitration and the ADEA's underlying purposes. See ibid. Throughout such an inquiry, it should be kept in mind that "questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration." Moses H. Cone, supra, at 24.
Gilmer concedes that nothing in the text of the ADEA or its legislative history explicitly precludes arbitration. He [500 U.S. 20, 27] argues, however, that compulsory arbitration of ADEA claims pursuant to arbitration agreements would be inconsistent with the statutory framework and purposes of the ADEA. Like the Court of Appeals, we disagree.
Congress enacted the ADEA in 1967 "to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; [and] to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment." 29 U.S.C. 621(b). To achieve those goals, the ADEA, among other things, makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 623(a)(1). This proscription is enforced both by private suits and by the EEOC. In order for an aggrieved individual to bring suit under the ADEA, he or she must first file a charge with the EEOC, and then wait at least 60 days. 626(d). An individual's right to sue is extinguished, however, if the EEOC institutes an action against the employer. 626(c)(1). Before the EEOC can bring such an action, though, it must "attempt to eliminate the discriminatory practice or practices alleged, and to effect voluntary compliance with the requirements of this chapter through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion." 626(b); see also 29 CFR 1626.15 (1990).
As Gilmer contends, the ADEA is designed not only to address individual grievances, but also to further important social policies. See, e.g., EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 231 (1983). We do not perceive any inherent inconsistency between those policies, however, and enforcing agreements to arbitrate age discrimination claims. It is true that arbitration focuses on specific disputes between the parties involved. [500 U.S. 20, 28] The same can be said, however, of judicial resolution of claims. Both of these dispute resolution mechanisms nevertheless also can further broader social purposes. The Sherman Act, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, RICO, and the Securities Act of 1933 all are designed to advance important public policies, but, as noted above, claims under those statutes are appropriate for arbitration. "[S]o long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum, the statute will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function." Mitsubishi, supra, 473 U.S., at 637 .
We also are unpersuaded by the argument that arbitration will undermine the role of the EEOC in enforcing the ADEA. An individual ADEA claimant subject to an arbitration agreement will still be free to file a charge with the EEOC, even though the claimant is not able to institute a private judicial action. Indeed, Gilmer filed a charge with the EEOC in this case. In any event, the EEOC's role in combating age discrimination is not dependent on the filing of a charge; the agency may receive information concerning alleged violations of the ADEA "from any source," and it has independent authority to investigate age discrimination. See 29 CFR 1626.4, 1626.13 (1990). Moreover, nothing in the ADEA indicates that Congress intended that the EEOC be involved in all employment disputes. Such disputes can be settled, for example, without any EEOC involvement. See, e.g., Coventry v. United States Steel Corp., 856 F.2d 514, 522 (CA3 1988); Moore v. McGraw Edison Co., 804 F.2d 1026, 1033 (CA8 1986); Runyan v. National Cash Register Corp., 787 F.2d 1039, 1045 (CA6), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 850 (1986). 3 Finally, the mere involvement of an administrative [500 U.S. 20, 29] agency in the enforcement of a statute is not sufficient to preclude arbitration. For example, the Securities Exchange Commission is heavily involved in the enforcement of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, but we have held that claims under both of those statutes may be subject to compulsory arbitration. See Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989).
Gilmer also argues that compulsory arbitration is improper because it deprives claimants of the judicial forum provided for by the ADEA. Congress, however, did not explicitly preclude arbitration or other nonjudicial resolution of claims, even in its recent amendments to the ADEA. "[I]f Congress intended the substantive protection afforded [by the ADEA] to include protection against waiver of the right to a judicial forum, that intention will be deducible from text or legislative history." Mitsubishi, 473 U.S., at 628 . Moreover, Gilmer's argument ignores the ADEA's flexible approach to resolution of claims. The EEOC, for example, is directed to pursue "informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion," 29 U.S.C. 626(b), which suggests that out-of-court dispute resolution, such as arbitration, is consistent with the statutory scheme established by Congress. In addition, arbitration is consistent with Congress' grant of concurrent jurisdiction over ADEA claims to state and federal courts, see 29 U.S.C. 626(c)(1) (allowing suits to be brought "in any court of competent jurisdiction"), because arbitration agreements, "like the provision for concurrent jurisdiction, serve to advance the objective of allowing [claimants] a broader right to select the forum for resolving disputes, whether it be judicial or otherwise." Rodriguez de Quijas, supra, at 483. [500 U.S. 20, 30]
In arguing that arbitration is inconsistent with the ADEA, Gilmer also raises a host of challenges to the adequacy of arbitration procedures. Initially, we note that, in our recent arbitration cases, we have already rejected most of these arguments as insufficient to preclude arbitration of statutory claims. Such generalized attacks on arbitration "res[t] on suspicion of arbitration as a method of weakening the protections afforded in the substantive law to would-be complainants," and, as such, they are "far out of step with our current strong endorsement of the federal statutes favoring this method of resolving disputes." Rodriguez de Quijas, supra, at 481. Consequently, we address these arguments only briefly.
Gilmer first speculates that arbitration panels will be biased. However, "[w]e decline to indulge the presumption that the parties and arbitral body conducting a proceeding will be unable or unwilling to retain competent, conscientious and impartial arbitrators." Mitsubishi, supra, at 634. In any event, we note that the NYSE arbitration rules, which are applicable to the dispute in this case, provide protections against biased panels. The rules require, for example, that the parties be informed of the employment histories of the arbitrators, and that they be allowed to make further inquiries into the arbitrators' backgrounds. See 2 CCH New York Stock Exchange Guide § 2608, p. 4314 (Rule 608) (1991) (hereinafter 2 N.Y.S.E. Guide). In addition, each party is allowed one peremptory challenge and unlimited challenges for cause. Id., at § 2609 (Rule 609). Moreover, the arbitrators are required to disclose "any circumstances which might preclude [them] from rendering an objective and impartial determination." Id., § 2610, at 4315 (Rule 610). The FAA also protects against bias by providing that courts may overturn arbitration decisions "[w]here there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators." 9 U.S.C. 10 (b). [500 U.S. 20, 31] There has been no showing in this case that those provisions are inadequate to guard against potential bias.
Gilmer also complains that the discovery allowed in arbitration is more limited than in the federal courts, which he contends will make it difficult to prove discrimination. It is unlikely, however, that age discrimination claims require more extensive discovery than other claims that we have found to be arbitrable, such as RICO and antitrust claims. Moreover, there has been no showing in this case that the NYSE discovery provisions, which allow for document production, information requests, depositions, and subpoenas, see 2 N.Y.S.E. Guide § 2619, pp. 4318-4320 (Rule 619); Securities and Exchange Commission Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes By New York Stock Exchange, Inc., Nat. Assn. of Security Dealers, Inc., and the American Stock Exchange, Inc., Relating to the Arbitration Process and the Use of Predispute Arbitration Clauses, 54 Fed.Reg. 21144, 21149-21151 (1989), will prove insufficient to allow ADEA claimants such as Gilmer a fair opportunity to present their claims. Although those procedures might not be as extensive as in the federal courts, by agreeing to arbitrate, a party "trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration." Mitsubishi, supra, at 628. Indeed, an important counterweight to the reduced discovery in NYSE arbitration is that arbitrators are not bound by the rules of evidence. See 2 N.Y.S.E. Guide § 2620, p. 4320 (Rule 620).
A further alleged deficiency of arbitration is that arbitrators often will not issue written opinions, resulting, Gilmer contends, in a lack of public knowledge of employers' discriminatory policies, an inability to obtain effective appellate review, and a stifling of the development of the law. The NYSE rules, however, do require that all arbitration awards be in writing, and that the awards contain the names of the parties, a summary of the issues in controversy, and a [500 U.S. 20, 32] description of the award issued. See id., §§ 2627(a), (e), at 4321 (Rules 627(a), (e)). In addition, the award decisions are made available to the public. See id., § 2627(f), at 4322 (Rule 627(f)). Furthermore, judicial decisions addressing ADEA claims will continue to be issued, because it is unlikely that all, or even most, ADEA claimants will be subject to arbitration agreements. Finally, Gilmer's concerns apply equally to settlements of ADEA claims, which, as noted above, are clearly allowed. 4
It is also argued that arbitration procedures cannot adequately further the purposes of the ADEA, because they do not provide for broad equitable relief and class actions. As the court below noted, however, arbitrators do have the power to fashion equitable relief. 895 F.2d at 199-200. Indeed, the NYSE rules applicable here do not restrict the types of relief an arbitrator may award, but merely refer to "damages and/or other relief." 2 N.Y.S.E. Guide § 2627(e), p. 4321 (Rule 627(e)). The NYSE rules also provide for collective proceedings. Id. § 2612(d) at 4317 (Rule 612(d)). But "even if the arbitration could not go forward as a class action or class relief could not be granted by the arbitrator, the fact that the [ADEA] provides for the possibility of bringing a collective action does not mean that individual attempts at conciliation were intended to be barred." Nicholson v. CPC Int'l Inc., 877 F.2d 221, 241 (CA3 1989) (Becker, J., dissenting). Finally, it should be remembered that arbitration agreements will not preclude the EEOC from bringing actions seeking classwide and equitable relief.
An additional reason advanced by Gilmer for refusing to enforce arbitration agreements relating to ADEA claims is [500 U.S. 20, 33] his contention that there often will be unequal bargaining power between employers and employees. Mere inequality in bargaining power, however, is not a sufficient reason to hold that arbitration agreements are never enforceable in the employment context. Relationships between securities dealers and investors, for example, may involve unequal bargaining power, but we nevertheless held in Rodriguez de Quijas and McMahon that agreements to arbitrate in that context are enforceable. See 490 U.S., at 484 ; 482 U.S., at 230 . As discussed above, the FAA's purpose was to place arbitration agreements on the same footing as other contracts. Thus, arbitration agreements are enforceable "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. 2. "Of course, courts should remain attuned to well-supported claims that the agreement to arbitrate resulted from the sort of fraud or overwhelming economic power that would provide grounds "for the revocation of any contract.'" Mitsubishi, 473 U.S., at 627 . There is no indication in this case, however, that Gilmer, an experienced businessman, was coerced or defrauded into agreeing to the arbitration clause in his registration application. As with the claimed procedural inadequacies discussed above, this claim of unequal bargaining power is best left for resolution in specific cases.
In addition to the arguments discussed above, Gilmer vigorously asserts that our decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974), and its progeny - Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981), and McDonald v. City of West Branch, 466 U.S. 284 (1984) - preclude arbitration of employment discrimination claims. Gilmer's reliance on these cases, however, is misplaced.
In Gardner-Denver, the issue was whether a discharged employee whose grievance had been arbitrated pursuant to [500 U.S. 20, 34] an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement was precluded from subsequently bringing a Title VII action based upon the conduct that was the subject of the grievance. In holding that the employee was not foreclosed from bringing the Title VII claim, we stressed that an employee's contractual rights under a collective bargaining agreement are distinct from the employee's statutory Title VII rights:
Barrentine and McDonald similarly involved the issue whether arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement precluded a subsequent statutory claim. In holding that the statutory claims there were not precluded, we noted, as in Gardner-Denver, the difference between contractual rights under a collective bargaining agreement and individual statutory rights, the potential disparity in interests between a union and an employee, and the limited authority and power of labor arbitrators.
There are several important distinctions between the Gardner-Denver line of cases and the case before us. First, those cases did not involve the issue of the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate statutory claims. Rather, they involved the quite different issue whether arbitration of contract-based claims precluded subsequent judicial resolution of statutory claims. Since the employees there had not agreed to arbitrate their statutory claims, and the labor arbitrators were not authorized to resolve such claims, the arbitration in those cases understandably was held not to preclude subsequent statutory actions. Second, because the arbitration in those cases occurred in the context of a collective bargaining agreement, the claimants there were represented by their unions in the arbitration proceedings. An important concern therefore was the tension between collective representation and individual statutory rights, a concern not applicable to the present case. Finally, those cases were not decided under the FAA, which, as discussed above, reflects a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Mitsubishi, 473 U.S. at 625. Therefore, those cases provide no basis for refusing to enforce Gilmer's agreement to arbitrate his ADEA claim.
We conclude that Gilmer has not met his burden of showing that Congress, in enacting the ADEA, intended to preclude arbitration of claims under that Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
[ Footnote 2 ] Section 1 of the FAA provides that "nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. 1. Several amici curiae in support of Gilmer argue that that section excludes from the coverage of the FAA all "contracts of employment." Gilmer, however, did not raise the issue in the courts below, it was not addressed there, and it was not among the questions presented in the petition for certiorari. In any event, it would be inappropriate to address the scope of the 1 exclusion, because the arbitration clause being enforced here is not contained in a contract of employment. The FAA requires that the arbitration clause being enforced be in writing. See 9 U.S.C. 2, 3. The record before us does not show, and the parties do not contend, that Gilmer's employment agreement with Interstate contained a written arbitration clause. Rather, the arbitration clause at issue is in Gilmer's securities registration application, which is a contract with the securities exchanges, not with Interstate. The lower courts addressing the issue uniformly have concluded that the exclusionary clause in 1 of the FAA is inapplicable to arbitration clauses contained in such registration applications. See, e.g., Dickstein v. DuPont, 443 F.2d 783 (CA1 1971); Malison v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 654 F.Supp. 101, 104 (WDNC 1987); Legg, Mason & Co. v. Mackall & Coe, Inc., 351 F.Supp. 1367 (DC 1972); Tonetti v. Shirley, 219 Cal.Rptr. 616, 618, 173 Cal.App. 3d 1144 (1985); see also Stokes v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 523 F.2d 433, 436 (CA6 1975). We implicitly assumed as much in Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987), where we held that the FAA required a former employee of a securities firm to arbitrate his statutory wage claim against his former employer, pursuant to an arbitration clause in his registration application. Unlike the dissent, see post at 38-41, we choose to follow the plain language of the FAA and the weight of authority, and we therefore hold that 1's exclusionary clause does not apply to Gilmer's arbitration agreement. Consequently, we leave for another day the issue raised by amici curiae.
[ Footnote 3 ] In the recently enacted Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, Pub.L. 101-433, 104 Stat. 978, Congress amended the ADEA to provide that "[a]n individual may not waive any right or claim under this Act unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary." See 201. Congress also specified [500 U.S. 20, 29] certain conditions that must be met in order for a waiver to be knowing and voluntary. Ibid.
[ Footnote 4 ] Gilmer also contends that judicial review of arbitration decisions is too limited. We have stated, however, that, "although judicial scrutiny of arbitration awards necessarily is limited, such review is sufficient to ensure that arbitrators comply with the requirements of the statute" at issue. Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 232 (1987).
[ Footnote 5 ] The Court in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., also expressed the view that arbitration was inferior to the judicial process for resolving statutory claims. 415 U.S., at 57 -58. That "mistrust of the arbitral process," however, has been undermined by our recent arbitration decisions. McMahon, 482 U.S., at 231 -232. "[W]e are well past the time when judicial suspicion of the desirability of arbitration and of the competence of arbitral tribunals inhibited the development of arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution." Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 -627 (1985). [500 U.S. 20, 36]
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting.
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states:
Petitioner did not, as the majority correctly notes, ante at 25, n. 2, raise the issue of the applicability of the FAA to employment contracts at any stage of the proceedings below. Nor did petitioner raise the coverage issue in his petition for writ of certiorari before this Court. It was amici who first raised the argument in their briefs in support of petitioner prior to oral argument of the case. See Brief for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations as Amicus Curiae; Brief for American Association of Retired Persons as Amicus Curiae; Brief for Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as Amicus Curiae 17-18.
Notwithstanding the apparent waiver of the issue below, I believe that the Court should reach the issue of the coverage of the FAA to employment disputes because resolution of the [500 U.S. 20, 37] question is so clearly antecedent to disposition of this case. On a number of occasions, this Court has considered issues waived by the parties below and in the petition for certiorari because the issues were so integral to decision of the case that they could be considered "fairly subsumed" by the actual questions presented. See, e.g., Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300 (1989) ("The question of retroactivity with regard to petitioner's fair cross-section claim has been raised only in an amicus brief. Nevertheless, that question is not foreign to the parties, who have addressed retroactivity with respect to petitioner's Batson claim. Moreover, our sua sponte consideration of retroactivity is far from novel" (citations omitted)); Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 84 -85, n. 4 (1986) (notwithstanding petitioner's seemingly deliberate failure to raise the equal protection issue, "[w]e agree with the State that resolution of petitioner's claim properly turns on application of equal protection principles, and express no view on the merits of any of petitioner's Sixth Amendment arguments"); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 646 , n. 3 (1961) ("Although appellant chose to urge what may have appeared to be the surer ground for favorable disposition, and did not insist that Wolf be overruled, the amicus curiae, who was also permitted to participate in the oral argument, did urge the Court to overrule Wolf."). See also R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice 6.26 (6th ed. 1986) (describing rule concerning need for presenting questions below and in petition for certiorari, and deviations from rule).
Only this Term, the Court has, on at least two occasions, decided cases on grounds not argued in any of the courts below or in the petitions for certiorari. In Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73 (1990), we decided the case on an issue that not only was not raised below or in any of the papers in this Court, but that also was not raised at any point during oral argument before the Court. "In our view, however," the decided question was "antecedent to these [issues presented,] and ultimately dispositive of the present dispute." Id., at [500 U.S. 20, 38] 77. Similarly, in McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991), the Court issued a decision on a question which the parties had not argued below and evidently had not anticipated would be at issue in this Court, "since respondent did not even mention [Wainwright v.] Sykes, [ 433 U.S. 72 ], or cause-and-prejudice in its brief or at oral argument, much less request the Court to adopt this standard." Id., at 522-523 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
In my opinion, the considerations in favor of reaching an issue not presented below or in the petition for certiorari are more compelling in this case than in the cited cases. Here the issue of the applicability of the FAA to employment contracts was adequately briefed and raised by the amici in support of petitioner. More important, however, is that respondent and its amici had full opportunity to brief and argue the same issue in opposition. See Brief for Respondent 42-50; Brief for Securities Industry Association, Inc. as Amicus Curiae 18-20; Brief for Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. as Amici Curiae 14-16. Moreover, the Court amply raised the issue with the parties at oral argument, at which both sides were on notice and fully prepared to argue the merits of the question. Finally, as in Arcadia, the issue whether the FAA even covers employment disputes is clearly "antecedent . . . and ultimately dispositive" of the question whether courts and respondent may rely on the FAA to compel petitioner to submit his ADEA claims to arbitration.
The Court, declining to reach the issue for the reason that petitioner never raised it below, nevertheless concludes that "it would be inappropriate to address the scope of the 1 exclusion, because the arbitration clause being enforced here is not contained in a contract of employment. . . . Rather, the arbitration clause at issue is in Gilmer's securities registration application, which is a contract with the securities exchanges, not with Interstate." Ante, at 25, n. 2. In my [500 U.S. 20, 39] opinion, the Court too narrowly construes the scope of the exclusion contained in 1 of the FAA.
There is little dispute that the primary concern animating the FAA was the perceived need by the business community to overturn the common law rule that denied specific enforcement of agreements to arbitrate in contracts between business entities. The Act was drafted by a committee of the American Bar Association (ABA), acting upon instructions from the ABA to consider and report upon "the further extension of the principle of commercial arbitration." Report of the Forty-third Annual Meeting of the ABA, 45 A.B.A.Rep. 75 (1920). At the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings on the proposed bill, the chairman of the ABA committee responsible for drafting the bill assured the Senators that the bill "is not intended [to] be an act referring to labor disputes, at all. It is purely an act to give the merchants the right or the privilege of sitting down and agreeing with each other as to what their damages are, if they want to do it. Now that is all there is in this." Hearing on S. 4213 and S. 4214 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., 9 (1923). At the same hearing, Senator Walsh stated:
My reading of the scope of the exclusion contained in 1 is supported by early judicial interpretations of the FAA. As of 1956, three Courts of Appeals had held that the FAA's exclusion of "contracts of employment" referred not only to individual contracts of employment, but also to collective bargaining agreements. See Lincoln Mills of Ala. v. Textile Workers Union of America, 230 F.2d 81 (CA5 1956), rev'd, 353 U.S. 448 (1957); United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America v. Miller Metal Products, Inc., 215 F.2d 221 (CA4 1954); Amalgamated Assn. of Street, Electric R. and Motor Coach Employees of America v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 192 F.2d 310 (CA3 1951). Indeed, the application of the FAA's exclusionary clause to arbitration provisions in collective-bargaining agreements was one of the issues raised in the petition for certiorari and [500 U.S. 20, 41] briefed at great length in Lincoln Mills and its companion cases, Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550 (1957), and General Electric Co. v. Electrical Workers, 353 U.S. 547 (1957). Although the Court decided the enforceability of the arbitration provisions in the collective bargaining agreements by reference to 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C. 185, it did not reject the Courts of Appeals' holdings that the arbitration provisions would not otherwise be enforceable pursuant to the FAA, since they were specifically excluded under 1. In dissent, Justice Frankfurter perceived a
Not only would I find that the FAA does not apply to employment-related disputes between employers and employees in general, but also I would hold that compulsory arbitration conflicts with the congressional purpose animating the ADEA, in particular. As this Court previously has noted, authorizing the courts to issue broad injunctive relief is the cornerstone to eliminating discrimination in society. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 415 (1975). The ADEA, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, authorizes [500 U.S. 20, 42] courts to award broad, class-based injunctive relief to achieve the purposes of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 626(b). Because commercial arbitration is typically limited to a specific dispute between the particular parties, and because the available remedies in arbitral forums generally do not provide for class-wide injunctive relief, see Shell, ERISA and Other Federal Employment Statutes: When is Commercial Arbitration an "Adequate Substitute" for the Courts?, 68 Texas L.Rev. 509, 568 (1990), I would conclude that an essential purpose of the ADEA is frustrated by compulsory arbitration of employment discrimination claims. Moreover, as Chief Justice Burger explained:
When the FAA was passed in 1925, I doubt that any legislator who voted for it expected it to apply to statutory claims, to form contracts between parties of unequal bargaining power, or to the arbitration of disputes arising out of the employment relationship. In recent years, however, the Court [500 U.S. 20, 43] "has effectively rewritten the statute", 1 and abandoned its earlier view that statutory claims were not appropriate subjects for arbitration. See Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 646 -651 (1985) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Although I remain persuaded that it erred in doing so, 2 the Court has also put to one side any concern about the inequality of bargaining power between an entire industry, on the one hand, and an individual customer or employee, on the other. See ante at 32-33. Until today, however, the Court has not read 2 of the FAA as broadly encompassing disputes arising out of the employment relationship. I believe this additional extension of the FAA is erroneous. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
[ Footnote 1 ] See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 493 (1987) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); id. at 494 (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 36 (1984) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting) ("[T]oday's exercise in judicial revisionism goes too far").
[ Footnote 2 ] See Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 252 -253 (1987) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 268 (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 486 (1989) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). [500 U.S. 20, 44]
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
|Miklas, Phillip - Phil
|FOURIE, DEIDRE - Grain Crops Institute Of South Africa
|Wagner, Jennifer
|Larsen, Richard
|CHAVARRO, CAROLINA - International Center For Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
|BLAIR, MATTHEW - International Center For Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
|GEPTS, PAUL - University Of California
Submitted to: Crop Science
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 5/15/2011
Publication Date: 11/1/2011
Citation: Miklas, P.N., Fourie, D., Wagner, J.J., Larsen, R.C., Chavarro, C., Blair, M., Gepts, P. 2011. Genetic characterization and molecular mapping pse-2 gene for resistance to halo blight in common bean. Crop Science. 51:2439-2448.
Interpretive Summary: Halo bacterial blight is a serious disease limiting bean production worldwide. Genetic resistance in the host is effective for controlling the disease but is not fully understood. We identified a robust gene Pse-2 with broad effect against 7 races of the pathogen. Pse-2 appears to be the most useful gene identified to date for global deployment by breeders to combat this pathogen. This gene was tagged with a molecular marker to simplify breeding for halo blight resistance via marker-assisted selection. It is expected that breeders worldwide will use the marker and gene to breed resistant culitvars for control of this problematic disease.
Technical Abstract: Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola (Psp) causes 'Halo Blight', which is a serious bacterial disease of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Several R genes have been discovered in host differential cultivar ZAA 12. Our objectives were to further characterize and enable marker-assisted selection (MAS) of the Pse-2 gene in ZAA 12 purported to have broad effect against multiple Psp races. – A recombinant inbred population, ZAA 12/Canadian Wonder, was challenged by the halo blight pathogen differential set consisting of nine Psp races. The resistance conferred by Pse-2 to Races 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 expanded the effect known for this gene from three to seven races. Segregation in F2 populations confirmed dominant inheritance for Pse-2 against all races except Race 8. Resistance to Race 8 was recessively inherited and most closely fit a 7 resistant to 9 susceptible segregation ratio in the F2 generation. Perhaps other genes are segregating which modify the effect of Pse-2 against Race 8. A SCAR marker tightly linked with Pse-2 was


text:
CfP: Petrocultures : Oil, Energy, Culture
University of Alberta: September 6, 7th and 8th, 2012
The "Petrocultures: Oil, Energy, Culture" conference will take place on September 6 – 8th, 2012, at the University of Alberta (Edmonton, Canada). Keynote speakers include Allan Stoekl (Penn State University), Warren Cariou (University of Manitoba) and Ursula Biemann (video artist, Switzerland).
Petrocultures will bring together scholars, writers, filmmakers and artists from around the world who are engaged in an exploration of the social and cultural dimensions and impacts of oil and energy. The conference will examine and (re)assess how energy has been and remains an intrinsic part of socio-political life and cultural productivity, with a focus on two areas of research:
1) How does our understanding of socio-cultural objects, events and phenomena change if we frame an analysis of them explicitly in relation to oil (and energy more generally)? What insights would we gain across the disciplines from such a theoretical/methodological maneuver? For instance, what might happen if we frame cultural and intellectual periods (as we do in the study of literature) not in terms of movements (e.g., modernism), nations (British modernism), or centuries (18th, 19th, 20th…), but in relation to dominant forms of energy at any given moment?
2) How do energy resources that fuel the exploitation of the environment impact not only everyday life but also the form and content of its representation? What is the potential of these cultural representations produced through multiple technologies of publication and artistic/communicative production (e.g., art, film, literature), to rupture and/or change the ways in which we live with and relate to oil?
We invite papers, panels and workshop proposals that take up the above questions as well as contributions that address any of the wide range of topics related to petrocultures:
- labour in petrocultures (influx of temporary foreign workers, transient labour forces, the rights or lack thereof of labour, etc.)
- the composition of communities in historical and contemporary oil economies
- education in energy societies
- health (sex, drugs, addiction)
- the intersection of cultural and environmental issues (resource management, water and oil, etc.)
- Aboriginal cultures and societies (land and mineral rights, community safety, race in petrocultures, etc.)
- gender issues and women's rights in male dominated labour markets
- politics and social-political life in petro-states
- and the impacts of all of these issues on forms of cultural production (art, literature, film, etc.) that attempt to represent and address the socio-cultural realities of living alongside oil technologies.
Papers will be accepted based on the merit of the proposed study, originality of approach, and fit with the aims and theme of the conference. Graduate students are especially encouraged to apply. Please indicate when you submit your abstract whether you are interested in also participating (at your own cost) in a three day excursion on (September 9th- 11th) to Northern Alberta to tour the oil/tar sands. A selection of papers and presentations from the 2012 conference will be published in an edited collection on Petrocultures by McGill-Queen's University Press.
Deadline for submission: October 15, 2011. Decisions will be announced by December 1st, 2011.
Please send all proposals to: email@example.com (c/o Imre Szeman and Sheena Wilson)
Types of submissions:
· 15-20 minute individual presentation: conference paper.
· 45-60 minute panel/roundtable (3-4 presenters).
· 90-minute workshop (hands-on learning, interactive): Interactive sessions that encourage participant involvement. These workshops can be focused on generating discussion and recording ideas on specific subjects and themes. These workshops can also encourage creative responses to oil and energy (e.g., through a writing workshop, a visual arts workshop etc. )
Propose an individual paper: Please send a 250 word abstract and a 100 word biography, as well as your contact information.
Propose a Panel: Please send a 250 word abstract for the panel, with a descriptive title for each presentation, and a 50 word bio and contact information for all members of the panel. When submitting the proposal, please copy it to all panel-participants to facilitate future correspondences.
Propose a Workshop: The Petrocultures conference will be the ideal venue for exploring theoretical and practical approaches to oil and energy in culture. If you would like to lead a workshop session either independently or with other presenters, please submit a 250 word abstract for the workshop, with a 100 word bio for all workshop leaders.
Petrocultures is supported through funding from the Kule Institute for Advanced Study (University of Alberta), Campus Saint Jean (University of Alberta) and the Canada Research Chair in Cultural Studies.


text:
Dsi Newburgh Dialysis is a Medicare Certified End-Stage Renal Dialysis (ESRD) facility located in Newburgh, NY. Dsi Newburgh Dialysis is certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). In order for Dsi Newburgh Dialysis to be included in the Medicare program, they are required to meet specific safety and quality standards. Dsi Newburgh Dialysis can be contacted at (845) 476-3788 or submit a request for more information.
Dialysis Facilities are also one of the Medicare certified provider types who are participate in the CMS Quality initiatives in order to accept Medicare for payment. To learn more Dialysis Facility quality measure performances, Medicare five star ratings, survey report information, patient-to-staffing ratios and more, please view the Medicare Report for Dsi Newburgh Dialysis.
The services provided by Dsi Newburgh Dialysis in Newburgh, NY may include: Hemodialysis, Peritoneal Dialysis Home Training,


text:
The KASUMI is a block cipher used to encrypt UMTS, GPRS, and GSM SMS messages. The references section in Wikipedia says that a related key attack is possible in 3G systems.
Q: Has it been proven that the related key attack may (or may not) apply to a given mobile provider? If so which ones are (not)affected?


text:
How to Curl Hair Like a Pro
Follow these expert hair care tips to learn how to curl hair into perfect curls every time you style
Ceramic and tourmaline irons: These are the first choice of professionals because they are the healthiest for your hair. Moticka says ceramic irons disperse heat through your hair more evenly, while tourmaline irons control frizz by releasing negative ions that close the cuticle down and lock in moisture. For a wand that will give you shine and keep you frizz-free, try the T3 Whirl Convertible Styling Wand, $185.
Gold and titanium irons: These are good conductors of heat, but won't protect against frizz. Try Hot Tools Professional Spring Curling Iron, $49.95.
SEE NEXT PAGE: Tip 4: How to Curl Fine Hair
Older comments
No new info
by Mollysunshine Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 01:46AM Report as inappropriate
Not usefull to me, but I can use on my daughters hair.
by MissPurple Friday, January 25, 2013 at 12:37PM Report as inappropriate
hydrating the hair is really important to mantain bouncy and shiny
by juan_carlos_ruiz_valencia Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 08:34PM Report as inappropriate
I dont know how I learnt but when I use my karmin clipless curling iron the curls just come out amazing. Haha!
by mary_jacobs Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 02:49PM Report as inappropriate
I have full thick curly hair, and I straighten it. This article was interesting, but truly of no interest to me.
by robyne00 Friday, October 26, 2012 at 05:37PM Report as inappropriate
My hair never holds curls when I use a curling iron. I'm going to try some of the tips in the "bouncy curls" slide and see if I can get my hair to look good with a curling iron!
by kara_lucas Monday, October 1, 2012 at 01:54PM Report as inappropriate
Nice, but can't one work for all?
by MissAmy00 Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 08:55AM Report as inappropriate
Great tips.
by Mysterylady Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 10:43AM Report as inappropriate
Some good tips
by T_rod93 Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 03:21AM Report as inappropriate
I have wavy hair and it is good to know how to enhance it.
by beautybody Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 09:37PM Report as inappropriate


text:
Detroit general manager Martin Mayhew said this week the Lions will dip into free-agency to improve a team that crumbled down the stretch in 2012.
Shopping around for players -- and trimming fat from the roster -- is a priority, but that won't pull the team away from attempting to lock down starting quarterback Matthew Stafford.
Jeremiah: Mock Draft 2.0
Who will the Chiefs take with the first overall pick? Where will Manti Te'o end up? Daniel Jeremiah projects the first round. **More ...**
"My thought on that is that we're going to try to extend him," Mayhew told the team's official site this week. "There hasn't been a whole lot of dialogue about it at this point, but I think that's coming."
It makes sense for the Lions because a long-term extension would bring immediate cap relief. DetroitLions.com reports Stafford will count more than $20 million against the cap next season, a figure that could be softened with a long-term deal spread over time. Of course, agreeing to terms with one of the league's better young quarterbacks is no simple task.
"It's never easy," Mayhew said. "You're talking about a quarterback that's your starter, that's a quality player, that's a talented guy and I think one of the better young quarterbacks in the NFL. So it'll be a challenge. But most of them, for good players, they're a challenge. The easy (contracts), usually (those players) aren't that good."
Plenty was made of Stafford's scattershot mechanics this season, but it's hard to argue with his 10,000-plus yards and 61 touchdowns over the past two years. Those numbers should make this an interesting negotiation for Mayhew and Detroit's front office.


text:
Asher Hooded Peacoat
Looks like we already have the selected size in stock!
We'll email you when we have it in stock!
Please select your size!
You have a pending inquiry for this item. Click 'Cancel Inquiry' below to cancel.
You have a pending inquiry for this item.
Thank You
We will email you at
if this item becomes available.
You're All Set!
You will no longer receive email notifications for size if more become available.CONTINUE SHOPPING
Krane was founded by Ken Chow, a Canadian menswear designer who graduated from New York's FIT. After graduation, he interned with Marc Jacobs and Alexandre Plokhov of Cloak. Started in Toronto in 2004, Krane has rapidly captured the hearts of urban professionals around the globe. Krane Design combines the practicality of vintage uniforms with details from modern industrial design in pursuit of forward, functional, innovative and individualistic everyday accessories. Old School traditional tailoring techniques meet technology and a new stylistic design attitude in delivering essential items that acknowledge the thoughts and aspirations of the contemporary man.
If an item you would like to purchase is out of stock, you can place a Special Order Inquiry. REVOLVE will then check the availability and obtain an approximate arrival date for the item, if available. Typically, it takes up to 3-4 weeks to verify this information.
Placing a Special Order Inquiry is absolutely free and there is no obligation to follow through with a purchase.
- You will be notified by email once we receive the item.
- You may cancel at any time without penalty
- Your card will ONLY be charged when your order is shipped.
- Availability is not guaranteed.