text:
Family participantsMember of the family told Eyewitness News that the suspected chauffeur, recognized as Homer Watford, 19, dropped by their house to ask forgiveness for what he had actually done prior to transforming himself over to the LAPD. They stated he was a family members friend.Authorities said the
guest in the cars and truck, Eric Roberts, 20, Watfords relative, pertained to the station too.claimed he was a family friend.Authorities claimed the
guest in the car, Eric Roberts, 20, Watfords cousin, came to the station. Both males were interviewed.Watford was after that booked right into the 77th Regional Prison on uncertainty of felony hit-and-run.
Earlier on Wednesday, the young boys family participantsmember of the family begged with the driver to give up during a psychological press conference.Think concerning your nephew
. Assume about your little brother. Believe regardingThink of your household memberrelative, if this were to happen to your family participantmember of the family. You will want that individual to find ahead … its just the right thing to do, stated Kimberlyn Lundy, an adult relative of the victim.Ronald Neal III was running acrossencountering 82nd Street at Towne Avenue when he was struck by
an environment-friendly Tahoe or Suburban on Tuesday at 5:15 pm As the boy was still on the ground, the lorry struck him a second time before taking off, according to LAPD Police officer Ruben Mendoza.Ronald was my child. I likedpreferred to call him Butt Butt. I just want whoever did this to transform yourself in, please, Jaychele
Turner, the boys mother, said via her tears. Butt Butt was an excellent kid … he was doing good in school. Im just going to miss him.Watch household participantsrelative speak at a press seminar in the video listed belowFamily participants told Eyewitness Information that the suspected motorist, identified as Homer Watford, 19, came by their home to say sorry for just what he had actually done before transforming himself over to the LAPD. Believe about your family members member, if this were to happen to your family member. Im simply going to miss out on him.Watch household participants speak at a press seminar in the video below.


text:
Don't forget! Please mention TrustATrader when you contact any of our trusted traders...
TM Shoveller Double Glazing
TM Shoveller Double Glazing is a Double Glazing Company based in Sittingbourne (ME10 3DA). Covering Kent
- Tel: 08003 357 275
- Mob: 07711 358 137
82 reviews
- Initial impression : 4.93 out of 5
- Cleanliness : 4.93 out of 5
- Value : 4.93 out of 5
- Punctuality : 4.91 out of 5
- Quality : 4.96 out of 5
- Overall opinion : 4.96 out of 5
0 missed appointments in the past 6 months
About TM Shoveller Double Glazing - Double Glazing in Sittingbourne (ME10 3DA)
We are a family run business and having over 20 years experience supplying and installing double glazing in the Sittingbourne area, UPVC and Aluminum windows doors conservatories porches fascia & soffits cladding & composite doors.
All our work is carried out by ourselves, we dont employ subcontractors, as the proprietor and installer every installation is of the highest standard. Choosing a company, which has many fitting teams, the customer never knows whether a good quality installer will be sent or not.
Our company has passed strict regulations to acquire accreditation through Exor and has attained the required government standards giving us a Government Trustmark for your peace of mind. All our work is covered by a ten-year Installation guarantee.
Due to us not employing any sales men or surveyors we are one of the cheapest in the market and most of our installation are from recommendations.
Also specialize in Curtain Walling for commercial contracts projects We can also provide you with Entrance Porches with Portal Surrounds (Columns and Pillars).
Our aim is to give you the highest quality products and service carried out by our own staff to give you the personal touch that you need.
We offer a free no obligation estimates and are members of Part L registration scheme.
Products carry a 10 year Insurance Backed Guarantee
We cover the following areas local to Sittingbourne:
Ashford, Beckenham, Bexley, Broadstairs, Bromley, Canterbury, Chatham, Chislehurst, Dartford, Deal, Dover, Erith, Faversham, Folkestone, Gillingham, Gravesend, Hale, Herne Bay, Horsham, Hythe, Longridge, Maidstone, Margate, Orpington, Rainham, Ramsgate, Rochester, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Sandwich, Sevenoaks, Sheerness, Sidcup, Sittingbourne, Southborough, Swanley, Swanscombe, Tenterden, Tonbridge, Whitstable Kent
We look forward to hearing from you to discuss your requirements.
- Trustmark
- Certass Registered
- Member of Trustatrader.com
Reviews (82)
TM Shoveller Double Glazing have received 82 customer reviews.
kenneth coward 16th April 2018
"did a first class job for a very good price, both workmen were friendly and went out of their way to do a good job and tidied up all mess when they finished"
The reviewer found this trader while searching on TrustATrader.com
Kathleen Fischer 22nd January 2018
"Brilliant job, lovely people. Would Recommend . Very happy with the work completed, whole house in 2 days Thank you very much"
Kara-Louise May 26th May 2017
"Incredible work, we are so happy with the install. The price was incredible. Friendly, happy and most importantly tidy workman. Have already recommended them to several people and will 100% use again in the future. Thanks so much"
Mr Young 10th February 2017
"The quality of work and the attention to detail by this company I have found to be exceptional and would readily recommend them to anyone."
Lindsay Godley 16th January 2017
"Tony and Jamie replaced out existing 20 year old polycarbonate conservatory with a new frame, glass roof and double glazed windows. We had previously had a couple of quotes from some of the "big" firms, and to be honest we were completely put off by the heavy sales pitch. Tony gave us a quote for the work (no gimmicks or haggling) and he and Jamie were courteous, polite and respectful. They did the most fantastic job and we now have an absolutely fabulous new conservatory. I would thoroughly recommend them to anyone."
The reviewer found this trader while searching on TrustATrader.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
At ECCS '13 this morning, Elsa Arcaute, Lecturer in Urban Modelling in CASA, is talking about our work on city size using percolation theory which has analogies to Hernan Makse's work on percolation and the brain. Click here for the programme and the paper in the Arxiv on which is it based. You can also see all seven of us from CASA who attended on the photograph of participants at ECCS the other day which is one the website but you will need a magnifying glass!
[Post republished from http://www.spatialcomplexity.info/archives/1714]


text:
The practice of Melbourne–based artist Miranda Skoczek engages with abstraction via painterly plays with form, colour, composition and gesture. Borrowing from the history of image making – from the iconography of ancient cultures to the decorative arts and domestic architectures – Skoczek creates lavish, celebratory works that embody her resonant fixation with beauty. This appropriative practice, where disparate images from myriad sources are recontextualised, fosters an allusive oscillation between antiquity and contemporaneity.
Hinged on Formalist and Colourist approaches to art, Skoczek's paintings are not preoccupied with the web of politics or conceptualism that mires so much contemporary art; rather, they center on the pure physicality and alchemy of painting. Channeling the modern philosophy of 'art for art's sake', the artist divests the work of preconceived narratives and fixed meanings, carving open an aesthetic space where sensuality and temporality can converge.


text:
Here is the full Ben. Continuing data here from Ben, once again describing how the cabal is being confronted and deconstructed.
"This writer is going to put his life where his word is by going at noon, Japan Standard Time on November 24th, 2015* to confront senior Khazarian Cabalist mass murderers Richard Armitage, Michael Green and Kurt Campbell. These murderers will be showing up at the Nikkei Hall in downtown Tokyo where they will be giving orders to their Japanese slave politicians and fomenting war.
"We encourage all readers to phone the following places and demand the arrest of these criminals since we know an exact time and place where they will be appearing: [list of US gov't. phone numbers]
"The world power struggle is intensifying with a now public and undeniable military blockade of Israel and its proxies… DEBKA is saying Iranian planes are attacking near the Syrian/Israeli border…
View original post 1,790 more words


text:
The Eaton
- Narrated by: Jeff Hays
- Length: 10 hrs and 57 mins
- Unabridged Audiobook
- Release date: 03-07-16
- Language: English
- Publisher: AE Press
- Whispersync for Voice-ready
Regular price: $24.95
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $24.95
We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method
Add to Library for $0.00
Publisher's Summary
The Eaton is the debut novel of John K. Addis, and combines a flashback-based narrative structure with the gruesome style of '80s horror classics, creating a unique new voice critics are calling "fresh, original, and truly terrifying."
Customer ReviewsMost Helpful
By AnnM on 10-09-16
Scary but explicitly gruesome
I liked this book better than I expected--really held my attention, super suspenseful and creepy. A warning to some that it gets pretty detailed in some gory/gruesome scenes.
33 of 35 people found this review helpful
By W. Talbert on 08-04-16
A great choice!!
Based on some of the story points in the summary, I decided to give it a try. I admit "debut novel" and "80's style horror" worried me that it might be weak or cheesy and I shouldn't get my hopes up too much.
But honestly, it was an absolutely great listen in story and narration. The characters and pace were wonderful. I never became bored. The setting, an abandoned location, which caught my attention in the first place, was perfect! In that respect, "The Eaton" most definitely exceeded my hopes and expectations. The narrator proved to be very very talented and at one point was able to send shivers through me when voicing the character of a demented old woman.
This book was a perfect story to curl up for a good old can't-put-it-down horror. My only regret is that I can't "un-read" it to be able dive back in and start it over totally fresh.
20 of 21 people found this review helpful
Customer ReviewsMost Helpful
By kanundra on 03-19-16
Scary stuff...
Would you recommend this audiobook to a friend? If so, why?
Yes, because it had lots of wonderful elements in it, it was scary, heartbreaking and just terrible all at once. :)
What did you like best about this story?
The fact that it took you on such an emotional journey with the characters, it takes you by surprise because even I wasn't expecting it as a horror. It was very character driven.
What about Jeff Hays's performance did you like?
Jeff has quite the difference in character voices. I enjoyed all of them, and when the characters were excited and scared so was I.... I really enjoyed his characters voices for Sarah, Kinsey and Janet. : ) so different, yet so woman like. Great job.
Did you have an emotional reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?
There were several moments that really got me. I have to admit, Janet and seeing 'the baby' in the linen basket. Would be horrid for anyone... Sarah and having her nipple in the chomper, and for me that moment when someone you love and care about is crying out to you 'Sarah, I'm hurt... please don't leave me' ugggh, just heart wrenching. I don't know how they could ever leave them, belief or not that it's the creature. What if it just wasn't?
Any additional comments?
Okay, so for the most part I did enjoy the performance of the book. It was great to listen to, had it's ups and downs, what I wasn't so sure about was some of the flashbacks and places of 'backstory' I know most of it seemed really relevant, and it was and it was much better than the 'reader of the journal' just recanting events as Jonathan experienced them. But, they did interrupt some of the story for me. Mostly because of their timing. I wasn't so sure some of them were totally relevant till I'd gotten past them and into the next scene or chapter.
What this as a book did do for me, was take me back to the scary films I used to watch and the stories I used to read as a young adult. It had good tone and great characters. I will defo come back and see if there are more in the future from this author, and yeah Jeff has a new fan to :) so thank you to both for the 10 plus hours of entertainment. Well worth investing my time, and energy into.
Extra thoughts - Prologue - Not so sure on it they're almost always not needed, but it ended well enough for Zeke, and the creature got out after all! damned. Sarah if she's still alive better run....
Author note - Interesting to hear that I'm not the only Author who takes their dreams and writes them out. Thank you for that. And pretty interesting that there are real facts in here. :) Kudos to the writer, for research. (heck you talk fast though)
~ Dawn
By sarahmoose2000 on 03-28-16
The Underlook Hotel
Chris purchases a wine bar and discovers it conceals an aged underground hotel. Who built it and why was it buried away as if it had secrets to hide?
This wasn't particularly scary until my cat went under my bed and started scratching at something and freaking me out; so kudos for that. It was slightly comic the way they could see the apparitions, but I won't spoil it for you.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful


text:
The Marseille has a decidedly European flavor. Elements include: a steeply pitched hip roof, a wrought iron balcony railing, and shutters that flank arched, multipaned windows.
This plan is designed for construction on a side sloping building. The garage is one level below the first floor.
Families who like to entertain will delight in the large gathering spaces that fill the main floor. A dining room is to the right of the foyer, and a living room with a fireplace is to the left.
The kitchen, nook, and family room flow together at the rear. This window-rich space has a French door that opens onto a partially covered deck. Four sets of multipaned windows sparkle across the back wall, and two more border the fireplace.
In the kitchen, a raised eating bar rims the work island. Cupboards and counters line three sides of the kitchen as well, and lazy Susan shelving makes corner access a breeze.
A handy powder room is close by, and a large utility room is also close, along with a recreation room. This room is large enough to house a pool table, home entertainment center, etc.
Each of the four bedrooms upstairs has direct access to a bathroom. Bathrooms for the owners' suite and one additional bedroom are private, while the other two bedrooms share a jack-n-jill bathroom. Other owners' suite features include: a large walk-in closet, dual vanity, spa tub, private toilet, and walk-in shower.


text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points
Offshore oil drilling in the United States should be legalized
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|7 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|8,164 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)
Round 3: Refutations/argument expansions
Round 4: Final refutations, conclusions (No new arguments or facts!)
I eagerly await someone to accept this challenge.
I thank the Instigator for this challenge and gladly accept. I hope to have an interesting and entertaining debate. Good luck.
I will first start by listing my contentions for opening offshore drilling in the United States.
1. Cuts reliance on foreign oil
The United States consumes nearly one-fourth of the world's oil but produces only about 10%. Its 1.76 billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf, which extends from about 3 to 200 miles offshore, is prime hunting ground.
At any moment, a country in our top 15 of oil imports, such as Venezuela or Iraq, could become or already have become threats to our economy. Venezuela (#4 in oil imports) {ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov...} is ruled by a dictator, while Iraq (#6) is currently inhabited by terrorists, American soldiers, and a fledgling government. Are these really the countries we want to depend on for our economy? Because let's face it, even if we want to change what route we take energy wise, oil is going to be in our future for at least the next couple decades. "Under any model of the country's energy future, we will still need more oil and gas over next 20 years," according to Sara Banaszak, senior economist at the American Petroleum Institute.
Imagine our country, so strong and stout, being brought down by an unstable foreign country on which we rely for our fuel; our source of power for all manner of machine. Such a notion is completely offensive, and we need to change this now. Offshore drilling can help meet that need to be dependent and will boost domestic economic activity. Senator McCain agrees, stating while he was campaigning... 'The ultimate goal, the candidate said: to "stop sending $700 billion a year (for oil) to countries that don't like us very much."' It is completely absurd to fuel a possible insurgency against America (such as Iraq) as opposed to stimulating our economy and fueling our machines. Who knows where the money we send to these unstable countries is really going, and with something as critical as oil, we shouldn't take the gamble.
2. Increase in Economic Activity
There are billions and billions of dollars just laying under sea, waiting for us to claim it. Who knows, with all the oil off our shores, it might even solve the lingering problem of our huge national debt. One thing is for certain, however; it would be irrational and illogical to leave such valuable treasures beneath the ocean floor, for our economy, and our people.
There is an estimated 45 billion barrels in the gulf of Mexico alone, not to mention 68 billion barrels which is estimated to be in already legal drilling spots. By most estimates, at least 18 billion barrels of oil can be produced from other areas that are off-limits, on top of 68 billion barrels in areas where drilling is allowed. The 18 billion barrels would be enough to fuel the country for 2� years. If you do the math, that's 8.75 years of total independence on oil, leading to hundreds of thousands of more American jobs to those unemployed, and to the families of those employed, it means finally a break in poverty and a chance to help our country grow.
It would be useful to figure out if the costs, economic and ecological, outweigh the benefits of producing offshore oil. Luckily, a recent study by Georgetown University economist Robert Hahn and Milken Institute economist Peter Passell offers some insight to this question. Published in the December 2009 issue of Energy Economics, their study "The economics of allowing more U.S. oil drilling," finds that the benefits of producing offshore oil greatly outweigh the costs.
In their analysis, Hahn and Passell look at three types of benefits: producer revenues, lower prices to consumers, and less fluctuation in oil prices. These benefits are considered in a scenario in which oil is priced at $50 per barrel, and in another in which it goes for $100 per barrel. (The current price is around $85 per barrel.) At $50 per barrel they estimate that 10 billion barrels of oil would be recoverable from the off-limits outer continental shelf, and at $100 this rises to 11.5 billion barrels.
On the cost side of the ledger they calculate that it would cost $17 per barrel to produce offshore oil at $50 per barrel and $20 per barrel at $100 per barrel. They incorporate a Minerals Management Service estimate of $700 million as the cost of the environmental damage [PDF] caused by producing 10 billion barrels of oil offshore. They include an estimate of damage caused by greenhouse gases produced by burning the oil as fuel, and the direct costs of local air pollution, and traffic congestion and accidents. So what did they find?
At $50 per barrel, the benefits of offshore oil production in the formerly off limits areas of the outer continental shelf would garner $492 billion in revenues, $42 billion in lower oil prices, and reduce the cost of oil price disruptions by $42 billion, yielding total benefits of $578 billion. The direct drilling costs would come to $166 billion, environmental costs $1 billion, greenhouse gas damages $1 billion, local air pollution $28 billion, traffic congestion $28 billion, and traffic accidents $32 billion, for a total cost amounting to $255 billion. So at $50 per barrel the benefits of producing 10 billion barrels of offshore oil would be $323 billion greater than its costs.
At $100 per barrel, outer continental shelf oil production of 11.5 billion barrels of oil would reap $1.15 trillion in revenues, lower oil prices by $99 billion, and reduce the costs price disruptions by $51 billion, resulting in total benefits of $1.3 trillion. Drilling costs would be $238 billion, environmental costs and greenhouse gas damages would total $2 billion, the costs of local air pollution, traffic congestion, and traffic accidents would be $22 billion, $33 billion, and $38 billion respectively. So the total costs of producing 11.5 billion barrels of offshore oil would be $332 billion. Hahn and Passell calculate that at $100 per barrel, the net benefits of producing offshore oil would come to $967 billion, or a trillion dollars. That, in the feds hands, could save our debt, and bring great changes to this country, while actually helping the environment, which will be discussed on my next contention, but before that, let's think real quick. These numbers are always changing (the price of oil and the amount we use, for instance). We need to put this in to perspective so everyone can actually see the negative effects of keeping all offshore drilling illegal. The costs on the ban: A new study commissioned by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) details the social, economic and environmental effects of oil exploration on and beneath federal lands. The report estimates that consumer energy costs will increase and cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) will decrease by $2.36 trillion over the next two decades. This is directly from negligence on the part of this country to open up offshore drilling.
3. Oil drilling lowers pressure of natural oil seepage
Oil in the ocean naturally seeps out, causing all manner of environmental problems. The pressure in the chambers that contain the oil reach a breaking point, and new oil seep spots pop up often. With oil drills in place, it will alleviate the pressure buildup and allow for an exit point for all the oil, not only benefiting America, but benefiting the environment as well. A risk of oil spills, albeit greatly diminished with improved technology, does exist with new drilling activity. But it would also significantly reduce the pressure on offshore seeps and decreases marine oil pollution. Bruce Allen, co-founder of SOS California has argued to lift state and federal moratoriums on offshore oil production. SOS California's new documentary, A Crude Reality, points out the environmental problems oil seeps present. (http://www.cfact.org...)
I await my opponents response
I. Resolution: The burden on the Con is to prove that the United States should not legalize offshore oil drilling. Thus, providing a better alternative is sufficient to negate.
II. Case
A. Overview: My strategy is going to focus on the benefits of continuing to invest in Petrobras, the national energy company of Brazil. The US Export-Import Bank has already "issued a 'preliminary commitment' letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount" (1). The plan is to continue along the current trend of investment instead of advocating US-based oil drilling.
B. Timing: Right now is the key time to increase investment.
1. "The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico" (2). This means that all of the impacts my opponent claim out of the Affirmative Case (AC) reference the amount of available oil can still be accessed through my advocacy.
2. "Brazilian state oil company Petrobras raised $70 billion on Thursday in the world's biggest share offering, giving the company the financial muscle it needs to tap vast offshore oil reserves. The cash will help fund the world's largest oil exploration plan, which at $224 billion for the 2010-2014 period aims to turn Brazil into a major energy exporter" (3). Brazil has already become the world's 4th largest company after the IPO, and is in position to become the world's largest oil producer by 2014.
3. Officials "have announced new discoveries since April 2011, and it was also announced that no fewer than 174 new licenses would be auctioned by Brazil in September. Brazil's huge and highly productive pre-salt reserves will no doubt be a focus of many new rigs in the coming years" (4). There will be at leave 174 new rigs licensed by September of this year that will lead to spikes in production.
C. Advantage 1 - Economics:
1. Because Petrobras is a public company, investing through preferred shared allows the United States to claim profits through all Petrobras sales. This helps two-fold:
i. When we buy oil from Petrobras, some of the money spent is coming back to our reserves to slash the price.
ii. When everyone else buys oil from Petrobras we make a profit. This will help to cut the country's debt.
2. Brazil is quickly becoming a developed nation and this new-found capital will allow them to expand their infrastructure and industries. This makes it a prime market for U.S. exports. Creating economic ties with Brazil through Petrobras donations will increase the chances to having access to this rapidly emerging gold-mine.
D. Advantage 2 - International Relations:
1. "Petrobras, an integrated energy company and the global leader in deepwater oil exploration and production, operates in 27 countries in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe" (5). Many countries around the world rely on Petrobras for the development of oil rigs. In buying shares of Petrobras, we create economic ties to this countries. They will be more open to political relations which will help promote American Interests abroad.
2. Petrobras is emerging as a political powerhouse in Latin America. This is a region where the United States has weak political relations. By allying ourself with what looks to be the economic powerhouse of the region we can start to repair our damages with the region and build new relations.
Onto my opponent's case.
C1: My plan gets out of the impacts of the first contention. Brazil will rely on the United States for funding and thus cannot simply cut-off sales. Also, it is a publicly owned company so it can't politically choose not to sell oil to the United States.
C2: There is no timeframe for when this economic activity will occur. He claims that there are oil reserves to be tapped but doesn't explain how long it will take us to access them. We have no quantifiable way to weigh the impacts. As for the Hahn-Passell study, you can cross-apply my economic advantage to see why we will still be making money. He also tries to say that the economic activity outweighs enviromental damage, but this simply isn't true. You can't buy a clean environment. Petrobras is actually being environmentally friendly, "The Capuava Refinery (Recap), in São Paulo, is a concrete example of water reuse; it is the first unit with zero effluent disposal" (6). They are already utilizing technology to be economically friendly. You can't just buy clean water, you have to work towards it. Also we can look at how the deep-water horizon spill effected the economy negatively, and this happened ONE MONTH before the study was released. The authors obviously aren't paying attention to the actual technology being used and its current failures.
C3: Investing in Brazil solves for the impact. My opponent claims that oil drilling is enough to lower seepage, it doesn't matter who is doing the drilling.
1. http://online.wsj.com...
2. ibid
3. http://www.financialexpress.com...
4. http://www.oil-blog.com...
5. http://laht.com...
6. http://www.petrobras.com.br...
I feel that Con has seriously misjudged Petrobras and it's potential, which I will elaborate on. But first it is important to point out that Con, on multiple occasions, agreed with the resolution throughout his debate. "This means that all of the impacts my opponent claim out of the Affirmative Case (AC) reference the amount of available oil can still be accessed through my advocacy." The only way to access said oil is by offshore drilling; not Petrobras drilling along our coasts, a notion that is complete lunacy, but us drilling along the coast. Again, he states "My opponent claims that oil drilling is enough to lower seepage, it doesn't matter who is doing the drilling." Is Con advocating for foreign companies to drill in OUR lands? That makes NO sense whatsoever. And again, it goes against Con's position on the resolution, helping me with this case. Do you really think we would make it illegal to drill in these areas, then let Petrobras come in and do it, then reap the rewards? The idea is ridiculous, but enough nitpicking. Time to move on to the big claims he made.
Con has seriously misjudged the value of Petrobras and the level of dependency we should throw at it. His claim is that they are a publicly owned company, and therefore we would:
A) Reap many economic benefits from them as "partners"
The serious problem that my opponent hasn't calculated is the nature of stocks and public companies. Right now, just by visiting the homepage of Petrobras, I can see that BRAZIL owns over 50% of the stocks [http://www.petrobras.com.br...], meaning that they control the company politically and economically. Nothing happens without their say-so, and I doubt a country that is trying to compete with us economically and hasn't really had the best of standing with us in the past is going to let ANY amount of money through to us, let alone an amount that can match the figures from my studies. Take Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for example. He siphons so much money from the oil drilling companies and directs it towards other things he feels are more important. The same exact thing can happen with Brazil, only it doesn't have to be the wants of a dictator, but if they decide they need the money for a better education system, or a larger economic trade expanse in the world; after all, they are trying to be a top economic dog, as my opponent had stated. This isn't a cycle that investors will ever benefit from; this is a public company, and it's controlled by Brazil. Anyone thinking it's a good idea to dump money into a foreign nations hands, especially one that is trying to get a boost up economically, is quite clearly not thinking. Let's follow this simple layout of the situation to see logically why Con's "Advantage 1- Economics" falls and is invalid.
1. Petrobras is a public company
2. Public companies have stock
3. The largest shareholder of stock determines where the money is re-invested
4. Brazil is the largest shareholder of stock for Petrobras
It is quite clear that although Petrobras is a public company, it is NOT an acceptable alternative for my proposed offshore drilling, nor is it even a feasible one at this point, seeing as we could very well end up broke by "hoping" that Petrobras pays off, which is what we would have to rely on; hope.
B) Establish international relations
My opponent claims that by buying shares of Petrobras, we would somehow be creating economic ties to all the countries that deal with Petrobras. There are a couple problems with this actually being a big deal. For starters, even though my opponent has given no actual names of what specific countries Petrobras deals with, it is more than likely that the United States of America, the leading economy of the world, has economic ties to most, if not all, of those countries already.
Also, like I stated before, Petrobras is basically owned by Brazil, so if Brazil decides to direct the funds from Petrobras into something internal, these countries would not benefit. I would actually like to know how Con suggests that we would be forming such crucial relations with foreign countries by investing in an oil company. It sounds too outlandish, and because of Petrobras's unstable situation, not a feasible suggestion either.
Both of my opponents points have failed due to the overlooked fact of Petrobras being controlled by Brazil.
Let the reader not be misguided by Con in trying to refute my points, for I will clarify them to the extent which they will be non-refutable and solid.
1. Cuts reliance on foreign oil
In 2010, the United States imported a rough total of 3,344,485,000 barrels of crude oil (http://www.eia.gov...). The highest amount per month that Petrobras has EVER exported was March 2010, reaching 22.73 million barrels of oil (http://www.ordons.com...). Let's just say every month they stay consistent with this number. At the end of the year, you are looking at 272 million barrels of oil. According to the evidence, Petrobras cannot even supply us with a third of the oil we need, and that's if we were buying up ALL of their oil they exported. Let's not forget those 27 other countries Con mentioned. This leads the United States to HAVE to buy oil from other sources, bringing us all back to my point of reliance on foreign oil. I would like Con to tell all of us how this would not be so, seeing as all the numbers point to it being impossible to simply invest in Pestrobras for all our oil.
2. Increase in Economic Activity
My opponent asks for a time frame of how long it would take to set up oil drilling. It would take about 6 years for the oil to hit the market (http://articles.sfgate.com...), but that doesn't mean it isn't a solution. It takes time to properly survey a site and construct the drills, keeping everything well maintained and making sure there are NO errors, so as to avoid an environmental problem. To make it simple, we need oil to survive as a country, and the sooner we start exploring these options, the better. Think of it this way. Should a long term cigarette smoker continue to smoke cigarette's simply because it would take a long time for them to actually quit and notice a difference in their health? Absolutely not.
3. Oil drilling lowers pressure of natural oil seepage
Con has not properly refuted this, simply stating that Petrobras is, yet again, the answer and savior. It's complete lunacy to say we can't drill off our shores, but Petrobras can. It goes against my resolution, making Con's refutations invalid, and leaving my point standing.
In conclusion, Con seems to thin it's a good idea to invest TAX PAYERS DOLLARS into a foreign controlled business that I have proved isn't reliable. I have properly refuted it by citing the Petrobras site and sharing that Brazil owns Petrobras through stocks, while Con hasn't managed to give a proper refutation to all my points, which are all standing.
It's like putting all your eggs in one basket, and the basket has holes in it. Big holes.
Back to Con for the last post of Round 3
I. Resolution
Extend the burden I established for myself in round 2. My opponent does not make any arguments against this in the debate, therefore if I provide a better alternative to the United States legalizing offshore oil drilling, I win.
My opponent argues that my case affirms the resolution by allowing Petrobras to drill in American waters. This interpretation, however, is misguided. Here is why: Extend my argument under B. 1. "The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico[.]" You see, by accepting the Negative advocacy we are not legalizing offshore oil drilling, but leasing the rights to the water. To conceptualize this let's look at the lend-lease act of WWII. We were able to lend tanks to the European forces to be used in a war without actually declaring war. In the same way we can allow Petrobras to drill in American waters without legalizing the activity for American companies.
II. Case
I'm going to first start off with the extremely rude overview he made to my case and then precede to line-by-line his refutations of my arguments before extending my own.
A. Opponent's refutations
1. Overview
Let's take a few of my opponent's statements and put them into perspective:
"The only way to access said oil is by offshore drilling; not Petrobras drilling along our coasts, a notion that is complete lunacy, but us drilling along the coast."
Instead of responding to my advocacy my opponent would rather insult me by claiming that my ideas are "complete lunacy[.]" However, in hopes to having a respectful debate, I will simply state that my opponent has no warrant and move on.
"Is Con advocating for foreign companies to drill in OUR lands? That makes NO sense whatsoever."
Again my opponent chooses to offend me instead of actually formulating answers to my arguments. But enough of this nonsense, to answer my opponent's question: Yes, that is precisely what I am advocating. Got a problem? Then refute it.
"Do you really think we would make it illegal to drill in these areas, then let Petrobras come in and do it, then reap the rewards? The idea is ridiculous"
Once again my opponent asserts that my ideas are "ridiculous" instead of properly refuting them. Yes, I do think that this is what we would do, hence the Bush administration's 5-year plan that allows for precisely this action to occur.
Now that I am thoroughly appalled by my opponent's behaviour, let's move on to the more specific arguments he made in the round.
2. .
A) Let's start off with my opponent blatantly lying to mischaracterize my evidence. Brazil owns 50.7% of the common shares, sure, but owns NONE of the preferred shares. If we look back at the evidence provided (1) we can clearly see that Brazil only owns 28.9% of the capital stock, or the total shares when combining common and preferred. Without this clear misrepresentation of the facts, my opponent's arguments for unilateral control of the company cease to matter, because they simply are not true. But even if my opponent wants to press that they have more shares than anybody else, let's look back at America's capital stock, which equates to 24.5% of the company when totalled. This is only 5.4% less than Brazil. It is quite evident that America will have a roughly equal voice in company actions. There is absolutely no risk of money being siphoned for other uses. But let's just pretend these lies are true, just for a moment. According to a CRS report (2) on pages 5 and 6, the new Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff "has also pledged to hold down—or even cut—government spending, and pursue reform of what many analysts consider to be an overly burdensome tax system." There is no reason why the government would need to suddenly dilute funds from Petrobras (which it doesn't have the power to do regardless) for increased State spending if the President is CUTTING spending.
B) All of the arguments about internal spending were addressed in the above paragraph. I will cover the specification of countries when I extend my own arguments. All that leaves is my opponent's assertion that my idea "sounds too outlandish, and because of Petrobras's unstable situation, not a feasible suggestion either." Before I answer this, I have a question for my opponent: Is it suddenly cool to be rude and insult your opponent's arguments instead of responding to them? As for the actual argument being made, there is no warrant as to why Petrobras is unstable, I'll expand upon this when I extend my case.
B. Extensions
B) Timing: My opponent fails to realize the exponential being undertaken by Petrobras. No company has ever had a larger IPO, and Petrobras put the money they earned towards a $224 billion exploration plan for the 2010-2014 period. This places Petrobras in position to be the world's largest oil exporter. Also consider that due to the exploration plan, in April 2011 Petrobras made new oil discoveries that will allow them to produce 174 more rigs than previously expected, beginning in September of this year. The time frame for the advantages coming out of the negative advocacy are clear and immediate, as opposed to my opponent's "6 years." I'll be kind and correct him as his evidence states it will happen in 2015. But alas, my opponent is once again misrepresenting evidence. Even if oil hits the market in 4 years, his evidence also claims than it will fail to alter prices until 2030, 19 years. This means he is not actually accessing the economic impacts he claims for a much longer period of time. Even so, this estimate was made in 2008, under the assumption that the oil ban is lifted. As it hasn't been repealed, we must assume that the 3 years between it's publishing and now have seen no progress and the targeted date 2015 will not be met. Petrobras is developing now, in the status quo.
C) Economic Advantages: We already have money invested in Petrobras, and own 24.5% of the company. While I recommend continuing investment at current rates, we could also leave our investments stagnant and still reap the benefits claimed in my impacts, without spending another penny. My opponent has no possible way to match this return on investment. Remember that Petrobras already has the necessary equipment to drill for oil, while American companies do not, as the activity is currently illegal. You see, my opponent claims that we could "end up broke" if we invest in Petrobras, but the truth is we will have to spend much more on uncertain American development in addition to the extreme start-up costs required.
It's quite clear that the most important factor in the debate is the economic, so I'll kick international relations.
1. My opponent argues that Petrobras would not be able to supply America with all of its oil needs. My advocacy gives Petrobras access to American reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. This means my advocacy has access to ALL of the oil the AC does in addition to the oil coming from other rigs. Even if other countries are buying oil from Petrobras, there is an exponentially larger supply coming from this company than we would see from American reserves alone. Cross-apply my time frame argument, we aren't seeing his impacts until 2030 at the soonest. Mine start in September. Also extend his Sara Banaszak evidence that states we will only need more oil and gas for "20 years[.]" My opponent's impacts happens when they are no longer needed.
2. Again, we start seeing returns from my advocacy in September, while his promises returns in 19 years, after start-up costs. Only my advocacy has immediate and significant impacts.
3. Again my opponent insults me by calling my argument "complete lunacy." I make it clear throughout the debate why my advocacy with Petrobras negates the resolution because leases do not require the legalization of drilling. Even if we aren't drilling in American water, my opponent doesn't state why the location of drilling is vital to decrease seepage.
Contention A)
Like I said before, it's the majority shareholder that makes the decisions with a public company, and Con even proved that the government of Brazil owns more than everyone else in all Petrobras stocks, amounting to roughly 29%. It's not like a committee or something; the government of Brazil owns the most, so the government of Brazil calls the shots. Con states that the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, is cutting spending and reforming the tax system; this by no means guarantees that funds won't be siphoned for other uses, seeing as the GOB (government of Brazil) owns enough stocks to do so. Just because she is cutting spending, doesn't mean she won't take some of these funds for domestic use. In fact, it more than likely increases the chances of this happening. Just think, how easy would it be for the GOB to fill the monetary holes they are creating with some of Petrobras's funds. It's completely realistic and more than likely going to happen.
My opponent cites the lend-lease act, back in WWII. I would like everyone to be aware how that act went down. We traded armored vehicles to Britain and other allies in exchange for all their western hemisphere military bases and territories. If Con is suggesting something similar to the lend-lease act, then we would give Brazil the right to drill in our waters, but we would desire something of theirs as well. I doubt Brazil is in a position to hand over some of their prized territories. Britain only did it because they were in desperate need of those tanks. Brazil is not in desperate need of our waters.
Con wishes for me to actually refute his argument of Petrobras drilling in our lands, and I will. It's a known fact the the United States has strong international relations, and yes it makes sense that foreign nations would be drilling, but they would only be allowed to drill in international waters, 12 miles past our coasts. Even if we did give Petrobras a lease for drilling in our waters, it would make no difference as if we were to drill in our waters. My opponent argues that Petrobras has a time frame advantage over how long it would take us to drill, but what exactly is that time frame advantage? His only advantages that he claims are that Petrobras made new oil discoveries that allows them to produce more oil rigs. I'm glad for Petrobras, but that doesn't give them an advantage over anything. First off, all companies expand and plan on contingencies for their corporations. Petrobras is no different, yet my opponent believe that they are the solution. He cites that beginning in September, Petrobras will be able to start going forward with these 174 new rigs. How does this AT ALL affect the United States and OUR waters? These effects are not going to make an immediate impact on America, and they don't correlate with the debate topic, making it invalid. The timeframe argument is a standstill, seeing as Con has provided no source or otherwise stating how long it would take Petrobras to set up oil drilling in our waters. I, however, have given that number, and it is logical that Petrobras would take the same amount of time, if not LONGER, to establish drilling platforms and whatnot in our waters. My opponent tries to make them out to be a super oil company, but they can't build a drill and survey an area any faster than anyone else. In fact, a lot of dormant oil rigs off our coasts would be much faster to reopen rather then build new ones. Petrobras doesn't have this option, though we do, giving us an edge with the time frame argument. My opponent claims if he comes up with a better alternative, than he has negated the resolution properly. How is what he claims a better alternative?
Let me lay it out simply.
-PETROBRAS- (Alternative)
1. Time frame for setup: around 6-10 years
2. Monetary Gain: Not reliable, too many risk factors
3. Oil Seeps: Only handled in Gulf, where Con suggests Petrobras will drill
- U.S.- (Original)
1. Time frame for setup: >6 years (pre-established oil rigs)
2. Monetary Gain: All profit for our companies and our economy as I have already proven.
3. Oil Seeps: All will be alleviated along coasts and in Gulf
The time frame for Petrobras would take longer because they are located in Brazil, creating a distance; not a huge impact, but still time wasted. Also, Petrobras doesn't have the advantage of pre-established oil rigs, which is why the time frame argument goes to the U.S., or me.
The monetary gain argument I have already proved to be false on Con's part, through the stocks and other mediums that will have to be accounted, such as the portion of funds Petrobras as a company will take. Legalizing our shores for the United States to drill in, however, creates a stimulas in oil activity, and will be pure profit for us.
Oil seepage. Con cited the Bush administration plan, saying that it will allow Petrobras to drill in the GULF of mexico, not our coasts. Legalizing all offshore drilling will allow for the United States to alleviate oil seepage where it matters; along the east and west coast, the most populated areas.
I will leave it to the reader to decide the better option, the alternative (according to Con) or the original idea, but at this point I think it is very clear that there is NO advantage to allowing Petrobras to drill in our waters or increase investment with them, while there is nothing but advantages for opening up our shores for us to drill in.
On a side note, my opponent misinterpreted the Sara Banaszak fact; it's not that we will only need oil and gas for 20 more years, but she was saying that at the very least, if we started trying to wean off oil and go to an alternative energy source, it would take 20 years. That fact was meant to show the reader that oil is here to stay.
In this debate, the reader must analyze, according to Con, whether or not his alternative is more suitable and beneficial to us then the United States doing the drilling. Not only have I proven Petrobras to be an unstable company to depend on for our oil needs, but I have given multiple reasons, all of which are standing at this point, as to why opening our shores for drilling is a good idea for our Country. There is no way that the United States would sit by and allow Petrobras to do the drilling for us while we have it illegal for us to do it. It is a very far-fetched idea and not a more suitable alternative. Therefore, I win the debate not just becase Con didn't offer a more suitable and beneficial alternative, but because all my points were not properly refuted, and they are as follows.
1. Cuts reliance on foreign oil
2. Increase in Economic Activity
3. Oil drilling lowers pressure of natural oil seepage
I thank everyone for taking the time to read this, and urge a Pro vote. I also want to especially thank Mestari for being the Contender and making this debate a learning experience.
Thank You.
I thank my opponent for the intellectual challenge he has provided in this debate.
1. Petrobras is not a majority shareholder. His argument about unilateral control would be right, as I said, IF, this were true. Having the most shares in not having a majority of them. The very definition of majority specifies having more than half of something. Here's the reality of the matter, public companies are, in fact, "like a committee or something[.]" There still have to be board meetings to make decisions based on share-holder votes. The United States' voice is almost as large as Brazil's. However, to be clear, this share-distribution sub-debate is based on the current distribution in the status quo. As I stated from the beginning of the round, my advocacy is that the United States would be "continuing to invest in Petrobras[.]" This means that we would soon have more shares than Brazil as we have been investing more rapidly into the company. If my opponent's argument is true, then that just goes to show all the great things we can do when we are in charge. Sadly enough it's not true as unless you own 50% of the company, you cannot make unilateral decisions.
2. As for Brazil diluting funds, first of all they can't, because they don't have unilateral control over the company. The evidence clearly shows that Brazil is dedicated to cutting spending, but my opponent argues that this increases the chances of funds being siphoned to fill monetary holes. This however, is not true. By cutting spending you are reducing monetary holes by reducing the necessity for money in the first place. My opponent has failed to show how spending less makes a country poorer, thus increasing the need to steal money from a public company. But alas, Brazil cannot take this action regardless.
3. Let me clarify the purpose of referencing the lend-lease act. I wasn't claiming that the Bush Plan would function in the mold of the lend-lease act, but rather cited the act as a way to conceptualize how leases function legally. Not all leases demand military bases in return. Most of them simply require payment, which the British could not afford during WWII, but Brazil can now. The last time I checked, car leases don't require military bases in exchange either, but I could be wrong. The point is: The United States Federal Government can lease out water rights to Petrobras and allow them to drill without actually legalizing drilling, just as the United States leased out tanks for use in war without declaring war.
4. My opponent states, "Con wishes for me to actually refute his argument of Petrobras drilling in our lands, and I will." I would like to make it very clear that my opponent is making new arguments in his final speech due to his refusal to make them sooner. When he set the rules for this debate he stated that in round 4 there would be "[n]o new arguments[.]" Based on the rules he established, he is not allowed to make these arguments and they should be disregarded. Nonetheless the individual claims will be addressed as I compare advantages between our advocacies.
Comparative Analysis
A. Petrobras
1. Petrobras is already established and successful. They have rigs around the world and work internationally. If they weren't competent then their reputation would not be as impeccable as it is.
2. The impacts are being seen immediately, with a $224 billion exploration plan continuing throughout 2014 and 174 new rigs being built in September. My opponent claims that it will take 6-10 years for Petrobras to set-up. However, Petrobras already has rigs, in the status quo. If my opponent is claiming that this is the time it would require Petrobras to set up in American waters then I would like to point out that it is arbitrary and there is no warrant to back up the claim presented. Furthermore, Petrobras already has many of the supplies needed for rigs while American companies would not only have to be formed, but also hire faculty and charter waters to build these rigs. Petrobras is able to establish itself in American waters faster.
3. While we can invest more money and still spend less than we would on American Companies, no additional investing is required to see economic benefits. Petrobras is a public company, we own 24.5% of the shares so we get 24.5% of the profit.
B. The United States
1. There is no established history of American success with offshore oil-drilling provided by my opponent. There is no evidence in the round explaining why American company's will be able to utilize the oil reserves in American waters any better than Petrobras. My opponent states in his last speech that there are "pre-established oil rigs" but provides no reason to believe that they are U.S. owned, safe, or even operable. They may be so far out-of-date that we must spend even more time removing them and building new ones. There is no reason to believe the US companies are a safe choice.
2. Time frame of 19 years. My opponent tries to say in his last speech that it is simply greater than 6 years, but fails to explain why this number is preferable to the time frame I've warranted. His own evidence states that the impacts will not be seen until 2030, which is 19 years from now. Even if we accept his time frame, I still reach the impacts much sooner.
3. American companies have to be formed, staff must be hired, materials must be bought. This process will cost a lot more money that what we must spend on Petrobras at this point (not a penny). The start-up costs are simply too much of a detriment.
I'm winning that Petrobras is more economical because:
1. The time frame is much sooner.
2. The impacts include everything American companies can do, as well as international prospects.
3. There is less of an investment needed, if any at all.
4. There is no reason why American Companies are more efficient in any aspect than Petrobras.
The most important argument in the round is whether or not Petrobras is more economical for the United States than American companies, however I will also address the environmental concerns my opponent has. First of all, he still doesn't explain why the exact area of oil drilling is vital to lower seepage. Does the seepage stay in one geographical location, or do ocean currents disperse it? This is important to know, as if it is dispersed then location is irrelevant. My opponent, however, fails to provide us with this essential piece of information. In addition, there is no reason why Petrobras will not be able to lease water rights on the coasts. Thus, the oil seepage point garners offense for neither side of the debate.
A. Petrobras
I provided evidence within my opening argument about the Capuava Refinery's environmentally-friendly zero effluent disposal statistics. This is the first refinery ever to do this, showing why Petrobras is on the edge of innovation when if comes to the environment.
B. The United States
The Hahn-Passell study's claim that technology will prevent oil spills is an argument in favor of American companies. However, I would like refer you back to my argument made against it in round 2 that is not responded to: "Also we can look at how the deep-water horizon spill effected the economy negatively, and this happened ONE MONTH before the study was released. The authors obviously aren't paying attention to the actual technology being used and its current failures."
If there is no reason to prefer either option economically, I have advantages environmentally that American companies cannot match.
Closing Note
I would like to make it explicitly clear that my opponent messaged me soon after I posted my last argument and thoroughly apologized for his rude tactics. I have accepted this apology and hope that this round leaves no ill-thoughts in the minds of the judges of my opponent as a debater. Parts of this speech were written before I saw his message, and if I by chance failed to change any syntax of my language or references to him being rude, I apologize.
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Just to clarify, I wasn't making a new argument in the last round. It was a refutation. A FINAL refutation. I didn't bring in new facts, or a completely different contention that Con didn't know about.
(1) http://www.petrobras.com.br...
(2) http://www.google.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by spenserririe 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: I dont believe that the con did a sufficient job of negating the resolution. Rather that refuting the pro, he thought it was enough to come up with a counterplan, leaving the pro beniefits standing. Con simply found another way to achieve those beniefits, but in no way proved that his way was better.
Vote Placed by 000ike 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: On conduct: I found CON's accusations to be slightly fallacious. In the debate,CON's dismissal of PRO's ideas are shown in an equally rude yet less obvious way.This occurs in every debate,where one contender disrespects the ideas of his opponent.It would be unfair for PRO to lose points, even though this rudeness came out in the form of obvious words. Conduct would be lost when one contender insults his opponent. Insulting the opponents ideas is a part of every debate, however subtle or obvious
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
Per flow packet sampling for high-speed network monitoring
This source preferred by Damien Fay
Authors: Fay, D., Canini, M., Miller, D.J., Moore, A.W. and Bolla, R.
Start date: 5 January 2009
Publisher: IEEE
Abstract We present a per-flow packet sampling method that enables the real-time classification of high-speed network traffic. Our method, based upon the partial sampling of each flow (ie, performing sampling at only early stages in each flow's lifetime), provides a sufficient reduction in total traffic (eg, a factor of five in packets, a factor of ten in bytes) as to allow practical implementations at one Gigabit/s, and, using limited hardware assistance, ten Gigabit/s.


text:
Busan International Film Festival
12-21 October, 2017
2017 Busan International Film Festival
OverviewAsian Cinema and the late Kim Ji-seok, the Program Director of Busan International Film Festival
The (late) Program Director of the Busan International Film Festival (who passed away this May), Kim Ji-seok's love and passion toward Asian cinema, as well as his friendship with Asian films professionals will remain a valuable inheritance to the festival for years to come. It is unbearable to endure his absence; however, the Busan International Film Festival prepares diverse programs to honor and follow his spirit. The memorial service embodying condolences and sympathy from Korean and Asian cinema will be arranged on October 15 th , Sunday, during the festival, and a photobook will be published to commemorate his dedication with filmmakers. In addition, the Busan International Film Festival will launch Platform Busan, a network among Asian independent filmmakers that Kim Ji-seok had carefully organized, as well as maintain the identity to discover and support Asian cinema with the 'Kim Jiseok Award' presented to two titles in the A Window on Asian Cinema.
The Busan International Film Festival, a hub of Asian cinema, launches Platform Busan this year. Platform Busan offers a platform, where Asian independent filmmakers can communicate, share experiences and eventually grow together, as well as to develop association within Asian independent films and establish a foothold on the world stage. Platform Busan provides seminars, forum and workshop sessions to exchange information from October 14 th to 18 th , 2017.
Korean Cinema Retrospective this year spotlights actor Shin Seong-il, whose career followed the essential flow of the 20 th -century Korean film history. Also, Special Program in Focus 'Suzuki Seijun: A Drifter Across the Borders' will be held to commemorate Suzuki Seijun, a master in Asian genre film who passed away this February. Special Program in Focus will honor his cinematic legacy and contribution in Asian films. There will be 7 screenings that place his major works in the limelight of the cinematic world. The Busan International Film Festival has expanded the scope diversity on Asian cinema over the last 20 years through 'Mapping the Asian Cinema' and discovering new Asian films. Following this tradition of diversity, the Special Program in Focus 'Sakha Cinema: World of Magical Nature and Myth' spotlights unexplored Sakha films full of regional legends and the great nature of Far East Siberia for the first time.
The Asian Film Market will continue to run 'E-IP Pitching' and 'Book To Film', which record high contract accomplishments every year through the special attention given by many film and media professionals. Asian Project Market (APM) will also maintain its reputation as a co-production market that celebrates its 20 years. Various opportunities will be provided to all independent cineastes and participants through Platform Busan at the Busan International Film Festival and Asian Network of Documentary (AND) Program in Asian Cinema Fund that will be held at the market site.
Busan International Film Festival this year will launch 'VR CINEMA in BIFF', co-organized with Barunson Co., Ltd., the leading company in VR industry. In VR CINEMA screening room, nearly 30 VR films from all over the world will be screened. The conference and forum will compose VR CINEMA in BIFF. The events will offer audiences diverse experiences to see both the present and the future vision of the VR industry. VR CINEMA in BIFF will perform as a platform for the activation of VR in film production.
Programming TrendGrowth in Greater China Cinema
Asian films screened at the 22nd Busan International Film Festival are an opportunity to look into the current position of rapidly thriving Greater China cinema, as well as newly emerging trends. It draws attention for up-and-coming directors and independent films to become a new mainstream venue by replacing leading directors who played an important role in Taiwan and Hong Kong cinema, but later expanded their boundaries into China. Somewhere Beyond the Mist by Cheung King Wai, a Hong Kong film selected for New Currents in 7 years, and a Taiwanese film The Last Verse by Tseng Ying-Ting are invited to the New Currents. Numerous Taiwanese films are also invited to this year's Busan International Film Festival's A Window on Asian Cinema including The Great Buddha+ by Huang Hsin-Yao (a highprofile film that will be screened in A Window on Asian Cinema), Missing Johnny by Huang Xi (a film that Hou Hsiao-hsien helped produce), The Bold, The Corrupt And The Beautiful by Yang Ya-Che (a 2012 APM project), and On Happiness Road by Sung Hsin-Yin (an animation). In addition, many other Chinese films will be screened along with this year's 7 closing film Love Education by Sylvia Chang such as a New Currents nominated End of Summer by Zhou Quan, One Night on the Wharf by Han Dong, a new film Ash by a former New Currents director Li Xiaofeng, a debut film Dragonfly Eyes by a leading Chinese artist Xu Bing, Walking Past the Future by a former New Currents director Li Ruijun, and Have a Nice Day by Liu Jian (an animation). Diverse Greater China Cinema raises new expectations and will be enjoyed at the 22 nd Busan International Film Festival.
Japan is the most invited country to this year's Busan International Film Festival. Previously, numerous Japanese films have been presented at the festival and well-received by audiences; however, films invited this year give a different meaning of affluence. Dynamic Japanese cinema features several experienced filmmakers who direct more than one film along with various small-scale independent films that have been screened in theaters. The abundance in Japanese films is proven by theaters in Japan that are almost fully booked until the first half of the next year. As well as notable Japanese directors (such as Kore-eda Hirokazu, Kurosawa Kiyoshi and Kawase Naomi), diverse Japanese films will also visit the 22nd Busan International Film Festival such as Narratage by Yukisada Isao, a long-waited film Outrage Coda by Kitano Takeshi, new films The Scythian Lamb and A Beautiful Star by Yoshida Daihachi visit Busan for the first time, Side Job. and The Miracles of the Namiya General Store by Hiroki Ryuichi. Independent Japanese films are also outstanding; a rising director Ninomiya Ryutaro directed Sweating the Small Stuff, and after making a TV documentary with Kore-eda Hirokazu, Yoshiyuki Kishi moved his field to film drama and directed a 5-hour-running film Wilderness starring a Japanese star Suda Masaki and a popular Korean director Yang Ikjune. The 22 ndBusan International Film Festival will hold a special exhibition for a talented animator Yuasa Masaaki, and will screen the animation film Fireworks, Should We See It from the Side or the Bottom? by Shimbo Akiyuki, based on Iwai Shunji's film of the same title, in the Open Cinema.
It is impossible to discuss Asian cinema without Indian and Philippine cinema. The Busan International Film Festival has grown in importance for Indian independent cinema since several Indian indie films were featured. Like the previous years, the Festival invites diverse films of up-and-coming Indian directors, to develop new talent. The 22 nd Busan International Film Festival will screen a new film Smaller and Smaller Circles by Raya Martin, an acknowledged Philippine director, as well as focus on films from emerging young Philippine directors. Two Nepalese films Goodbye Kathmandu by Nabin Subba and A Curious Girl by Rajesh Prasad Khatri are invited to A Window on Asian Cinema and the Short Film Competition. Many singular Southeast Asian films with distinct characteristics are also invited.
The 22nd Busan International Film Festival abounds with Korean Cinema. In addition to Opening film Glass Garden by Shin Suwon and Gala Presentation Butterfly Sleep by Jeong Jae-eun, there are 3 films in the New Currents, 16 films in the Korea Cinema TodayPanorama and 11 films in the Korea Cinema Today-Vision. Among 16 films in Korea Cinema Today-Panorama, 8 films have not had a theatrical release. Veteran directors such as Jeon Sooil, O Muel, Pang Eunjin, Shin Yeonshick, Min Byunghun, Kim Sungho, Park Kiyong, Ko Eunki will release new films. Ryoo Seungwan presents The Battleship Island: Director's Cut, which has an additional 19 minutes to the original film. In New Currents, Last Child by Shin Dongseok which was a project from the Post-Production Fund in the Asian Cinema Fund, After My Death by Kim Uiseok and How to Breathe Underwater by Ko Hyunseok have been selected. All 3 pieces convincingly tell tragic stories in different ways. In the Korean Cinema Today-Vision, February, the second feature-length film of Kim Joonghyun selected in the New Currents with the first film Choked (2011), Mothers by Lee Dongeun who received KNN Award with In Between Seasons (2016), A Tiger in Winter, the third feature-length film of Lee Kwangkuk following Romance Joe (2011) and A Matter of Interpretation (2014), Possible Faces, the first drama film of Lee Kanghyun who is wellknown for documentary, Microhabitat directed by Jeon Gowoon and produced by Gwanghwamun Cinema which formerly produced The King of Jokgu (2013), Park Hwayoung by Lee Hwan, produced by Myung Films Lab, A Haunting Hitchhike by Jeong Heejae, which is about children who crave for a family, home by Kim Jongwoo, Hit the Night by Jeong Gayoung, Counting the Stars at Night by Choi Yongseok and Black Summer by Lee Weonyoung have also been selected. The Korean Cinema Retrospective spotlights a legendary actor Shin Seong-il, screening 8 of his major works. Adopting the preliminary round this year, the Korean Short Film Competition will present 15 films. There are also 5 selections in the Korean Documentary Competition and 4 films in the Korean Documentary Showcase.
Non-Asian films, presented this year, consist of new films by master and veteran directors, which were hot issues of the year, and debut films by promising filmmakers with overwhelming creativity. Masterpieces that mark an era, by master directors such as Paolo and Vittorio Taviani, Aki Kaurismaki and Bruno Dumont, are lined up. The film of Jean-Luc Godard from 1980s, starring the New Wave champion Jean-Pierre Léaud, is premiered in Asia. New films by veteran directors such as Andrey Zvyagintsev, Sharunas Bartas, Sergei Loznitsa, Lucrecia Martel, Fatih Akin, Ruben Östlund, and Michel Franco, which transpose historical and social matters into cinematic distress, are also screened. Standout films, such as Tomorrow and Thereafter by Noémie Lvovsky, The Intruder by Leonardo Di Costanzo and The Double Lover by François Ozon, which have experimental style and flawless mise-en- 9 scène by veteran writers are screened this year. Great advances in North American films are represented by films such as Wonderstruck by Todd Haynes, Downsizing by Alexander Payne, The Florida Project by Sean Baker who created a great sensation with Tangerine (2015), and Mother! by Darren Aronofsky who is well-known for Black Swan (2010). Genre films will entertain cinephiles with an abundance of repeated variations. Attempts by Santiago Mitre and Kornél Mundruczó to extend the boundaries of genre films like thrillers and SF, the persistence of Olivier Marchal continues the tradition of original French crime series and Five Fingers for Marseilles, a Western genre film from South Africa, are must-see.
North American documentary films make a strong mark this year. Preeminent pieces are curated, such as Ex Libris: New York Public Library by the master of documentary, Frederick Wiseman, and The Work by Gethin Aldous and Jairus Mcleary which was awarded the Grand Jury Prize at SXSW Film Festival. Makala by Emmanuel Gras, with the backdrop of the Congo, has driven new wave upwards. This year features many works from up-and–coming filmmakers. Astonishing debut films and independent films from Europe, North America, Africa and Latin America will be introduced through the Flash Forward. There are 11 nominees for the Busan Bank Award (Flash Forward Audience Award) which utilizes the audiences' votes.


text:
Lost, I was not
Born into infinity, utterly lost in time, as a polyp,
most tether in place, situation of "life" only as it appears.
But I did not begin so. I knew its limits, in the matrix.
Headed home, before birth, I was perfected in expectation…+
From her matrix I was taught the deep of esoteric, beyond.
Mom knew, this twelfth of thirteen, this untethered one,
would understand. So I was put into its crucible,
the crucible of time, meditation & comfort of silence,
quiet, oh so quiet, while she cooked supper, watching.
She was comforted I would not falter finding within.
Touching my eyes, my eyes within, I was sent on my way.
It was okay, I knew 'where' I was going, deep within,
no one to stop me, neither man nor angel, up Jacob's Ladder.
She knew I'd find its beginning place from quiet deep within,
which nothing can disturb in its nascent silence, ready.
And so I began in deep, confident nurture, Procyon mid-Heaven,
revisited a year before she departed unto sweet sleep,
mid-flare of Sol, southward aurora, Procyon's rays prominent
where I stood remembering Sol rising opposite Cancer,
resplendent Capricorn set upon ascendant. - Jupiter at home,
I was headed home, before I was born, in great exultation…+
--RK, 10:23pm, 6/8/2014


text:
Due to the personal nature of special occasion cakes, we do not take orders place via our website, email address or Facebook Page. Pop in or give us a ring (781) 444-4843, so that we may provide personal attention to your request.
In-Store Cake Rings
Chocolate Iced Angel Food Cake
Divinely delicious
Orange Iced Angel Food Cake
The perfect zest this cake needs
Strawberry Iced Angel Food Cake
A fruit a day keeps the doctor away...
White Iced Angel Food Cake
A sinfully white glazed cake
Unfrosted Angel Food Cake
Perfect just as it is
In-Store Cakes
Boston Cream Pie
The official dessert of Massachusetts
Chocolate Cake
Who needs vanilla?
Gold Cake
Good as gold
Lemon Layer Cake
Layered with lemon
Marble Cake
The perfect vanilla to chocolate ratio
Washington Pie
Named after George Washington, himself
Cake Rolls
Strawberry Iced Jelly Roll
Filled with flavor
Chocolate Rolls
What could be better than a chocolate roll?
Sugared Jelly Roll


text:
Promos are a great way to help encourage print sales from your clients. We recommend offering a smaller promo for the first 3-5 days of the sharing your gallery to catch help capitalize on the initial excitement of your clients. Then a few days before the gallery expiration date, we recommend running another "before it's too late" sale to catch any procrastinators with a bit of time pressure.
Finally there's no better time to run a promotion than the holiday season. A timely reminder of the available products in a Holiday Gift Guide Custom Page, or a Holiday Gallery Re-Release combined with a discount can get you up to 20% more print sale from each of your clients.
Discounted holiday packages are often used by some of our top sellers. The steps are simple:
Below is an example of content for your gallery invite and reminder. Feel free to copy, paste, and edit it for your own use.
P.S. Don't forget to share the password again if your galleries are password protected.
Holiday Gift Packages Are Here!
Just in time for the holidays, I've created a few holiday packages to help you with your holiday shopping. These are some of my most popular gift products bundled together for a bigger discount.
There really is something available for everyone and every budget. One package can take care of almost everyone on your list with a thoughtful personal gift.
Hope I've been able to make your holiday season a little brighter.


text:
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: This past week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated testing for the Zika virus at all U.S. blood centers. That juices demand for Zika-testing technology, but one company that isn't welcome to provide it yet is Theranos. The beleaguered blood analysis startup has run afoul of the FDA, yet again, The Wall Street Journal reports (Warning: may be paywalled). Specifically, regulators found that in developing and testing a new Zika-diagnostic technology, Theranos failed to use proper patient safety protocols, the type approved by an institutional review board. Such protocols are critical in ensuring the ethical treatment of patients involved in studies, and their safety. Theranos had sought the same FDA authorization, but voluntarily withdrew its request once regulators called the startup out, this time, on the safety protocols issue.
of this story at Slashdot.


text:
Despite Excellent Growth Strategies, Vendors Struggle to Make their Mark in Global Pharmacy Repackaging Systems Market Due to Dearth of Product Differentiation
It is not always possible for pharmacies, especially the ones dedicatedly serving a hospital, to purchase all medications in ready-to-use formats. As such, repackaging of these medications is an integral activity across a number of hospital pharmacies so as to effectively manage the continuously fluctuating stores of a variety of medications in bar coded unit dose. There has also been a vast rise in adoption of medication repackaging practices across retail pharmacies and the area has come under the radar of several regulatory bodies in the past few years. Resultantly, a number of regulations have been put in place to ensure that repackaging of medications does not involve manipulation of the drug in any form, including reconstitution, mixing or combination with other ingredient, or dilution.
The market has witnessed the introduction of a vast number of automated systems to ensure proper and error-less repackaging in the past few years. Advanced technology solutions such as compact dispensing robots to tablet counters are witnessing increased demand from pharmacies across the globe reckoning to improve their operational workflow.
Transparency Market Research (TMR) estimates that the global market for pharmacy repackaging systems will exhibit a promising CAGR of 7.8% from 2016 to 2024, rising from a valuation of US$997.1 mn in 2015 to US$1.8 bn by 2024.
Obtain Report Details: http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/pharmacy-repackaging-systems-market.html
In this blog post, TMR analysts highlight some of the key trends presently influencing the course of development of the market:
What factors are chiefly boosting adoption of pharmacy repackaging systems?
The rising concern regarding patient deaths due to erroneous or improper management of medication dosages is one of the key factors bringing focus on the numerous medication repackaging systems and solutions available in the global market. Stringent regulations across a number of countries demanding hospitals and pharmacies to implement measures to reduce such deaths is also another key factor boosting the increased adoption of medication repackaging solutions in pharmacies across the globe. Increased awareness regarding the potential of innovative pharmacy repackaging systems in efficiently managing inventory is also expected to provide sufficient impetus to the overall growth of the market in the next few years.
Which regional market holds the most promise for pharmacy repackaging systems?
North America is presently the most promising regional market for pharmacy repackaging systems. The region commands dominance on the world market owing to the presence of several leading companies in the pharmacy repackaging systems sector and the highly technologically advanced healthcare infrastructure. The region is expected to remain the key contributor of innovative products and revenue to the global pharmacy repackaging systems market in the next few years as well. By 2024, the region will have accounted a massive 35.5% of the overall market.
Is the vendor landscape conducive to new vendors?
The vendor landscape presently features an intense level of competition owing to no or very little product differentiation. The market is relatively consolidated with the top two vendors, namely Swisslog Holding AG and Omnicell Inc. collectively holding a nearly 34% of the market in 2015. The market does not have very tough entry barriers for new vendors and new companies could establish their grounds with innovative products. Small vendors in high growth potential regional markets could also benefit from the rising trend of mergers and acquisitions by leading vendors to expand their operations across promising regional markets.


text:
Parts Catalog – Part Detail
Part Number: 8-141
Manufacturer: Cinch
Description: Terminal Blocks 8 TERMINALS .438
Category: Terminal Blocks
IHI Electronics provides the parts you need at extremely competitive prices. Take part number 8-141, for example. It is a Terminal Blocks 8 TERMINALS .438. The manufacturer is Cinch. It's located in our Terminal Blocks category. IHI has direct relationships with all of the largest markets in the world for commodity items like CPUs & Memory.
Request a Quote Form
Phone: 888-444-8862
Minimum order is $100.00. We only sell to CEMs and OEMs in the USA.
No sales to Import/Export Distributors, Students or Individuals.


text:
South Lakeland Leisure Village
Carnforth, Cumbria & The Lakes
Residing at the gateway to the Lake District is an exclusive five star development of luxurious holiday lodges with excellent facilities.
Read More >
Weekly prices: £319 – £1139
Accommodation on Site
Superior Lodge 2
Luxury and contemporary lodge with one double and one twin. Open plan lounge/kitchen/dining area. Bath with overhead shower. Outdoor decking.
View & Book
Lakeland Country Home
Spacious two storey contemporary lodge. Ground floor: One master double one twin and one with bunks or two doubles and one with bunks. Bath or shower. First floor: Open plan lounge/kitchen/diner. Outdoor decking area. No pets.
View & Book
Exclusive Lodge 3
Luxury and contemporary lodge with one double and two twin. Open plan lounge/kitchen/diner. Bath with overhead shower. Outdoor decking area.
View & Book
Accommodation Features
Accommodation Features
Luxury and exclusive lodges offering stylish contemporary interiors.
- TV with Freeview/DVD
- Kitchen including microwave and freezer
- Bath or shower
- Bed linen and duvets included
- Double glazed and centrally heated
- Gas and electricity included
- Travel cots and highchairs £16pw each
- Group bookings may be subject to restrictions
- Pets £35pw or £20 per short break each (max 1) (in specific lodges only)
- All non smoking accommodation
Park Info
About South Lakeland Leisure Village
Residing at the gateway to the Lake District is an exclusive five star development of luxurious holiday lodges with excellent facilities.
Set around a picturesque lake in 43 acres of beautifully maintained grounds and nestled between the dramatic landscape of the southern Lake District the rolling Yorkshire Dales and the coastline of Morecambe Bay South Lakeland Leisure Village is an ideal base to discover some of the UK's most stunning scenery.
After a day exploring come back relax and enjoy the park's superb facilities with on site restaurant and bar health and fitness centre indoor swimming pool and steam room or indulge in a soothing treatment or two at our fabulous Pure Essence Spa.
Ideally situated near Arnside and Silverdale 'Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty' the parks location is perfect for exploring the many delights this wonderful area has to offer. The Lake District and ever popular Windermere are just 25 minutes' drive and the famous Yorkshire Dales National Park is also within easy reach.
Park Features
- Leisure complex with indoor pool*
- Steam room*
- Gym*
- Beauty treatments*
- Restaurant and bar with outdoor terrace
- Launderette*
All facilities available for all dates. *Charges apply.
Location Map


text:
- Description
DetailsThe RTIC can is designed to keep your 12 oz. can or bottle ice cold - and is decorated exclusively for the PRCA with two red and black designs, one on each side. Produced using a patented technology so logos will not scratch or fade. The stainless steel, double wall vacuum insulation and locking gasket seals in the cold. Easy to clean.
- Reviews


text:
Characters: same as previous novel other than Gates, a new character introduced as leader of the Saints
This begins exactly where the previous book left off, with the kids in the school running for the outside and freedom. A bus crashes into the exit doors though, and it turns out that it's parents who tell the kids they are safer in there instead of outside, as the military has been given instructions to kill all infected.
The leader of the parents is Sam's dad, although he tries to hide the fact at first to prevent Sam being harmed. Will overhears Sam talking to the man one day though and figures it out.
The parents tell the kids they'll bring them food drops as the military has been reassigned. The leader of the military charged with overseeing the school was ordered to release poisonous gas at the school before pulling out but he couldn't do it, so that's why the parents have come to take care of the kids.
When the first drop happens, the parents aren't prepared for the fight that always ensues in the quad, and the huge palette breaks from the crane and crushes a bunch of kids, a lot of whom were Loners.
The Loners are now down to just ten, as a lot of the others either got crushed or escaped before the bus hit the school, and although they try to keep it together, they eventually all join other gangs to have a sense of safety and access to food.
The Saints is the name given to the new gang at the school, who are the would be rescuers which got stuck inside too when the bus came. Will joins with the Saints and becomes quick friends with their leader Gates.
He sees another Saint with a white eye latch and recognizes it as David's. When be asks the kid where he got it, the boy says he found it on a dead kid while scavenging one day, and Will realizes David is dead.
Gates tells Will its way worse on the outside and they've been hiding out from the military this whole time to keep from being killed. When they heard the kids at the school were still stuck, they came to try to help them out after the military left to try to round up any healthy ppl and put them in safety camps.
Lucy joins the Sluts and after a crazy initiation, starts dating a boy named Bart, but when she tries to go all the way with him she realizes she can't because she doesn't love him.
Gates wants their group to come out on top at the school and kidnaps Sam to use as leverage against the parents, bribing them into giving the teens things they want in exchange for Sam not being killed. Sam had been overthrown as leader of Varsity by a guy named Terry who is actually a fair person to the rest of the gangs, so no one is too upset to see this happen to Sam.
Nonstop parties ensue, with everyone thinking Gates and the Saints are best of the best. At one party, Gates even comes riding in on the back of a large boar. He falls off it drunk and the pig escapes. They try to find it and Gates and Will finally do. Turns out it was a sow and she's had babies. Will feels sorry for the pig and tells Gates they should leave her alone with her babies as she didn't want to be kept here any more than they do.
Hilary's been trying to get back on top now. After helping Terry out by promising assistance from The Pretty Ones, she had planned on remaining "queen" of the school by seducing him, but turns out he's gay.
She tries to turn to leader of the Skaters, Pnut, as he's always wanted her, but the deal goes sour when he tells her that her girls would be used as high dollar call girls for the rest of the school and Hilary knows they wouldn't agree to that, so she contents herself for the moment with remaining at Varsity as just another Pretty One rather than head honcho.
Will is figuring out that Gates is a bit bonkers as he is very clingy to Will and keeps telling him how he reminds him of his brother Colton who was shot by the military when he tried to turn himself in.
At the next drop when Gates has Sam present for their demands to the parents, Sam's dad pulls out a gun and shoots at Gates feet, scaring the kids and giving Sam a chance to escape. His escape doesn't last long though, when he comes face to face with the pig from the party. He accidentally steps on one of the sow's babies and she mauls him to death.
After Sam escapes all the Saints are looking for him. Gates is going nuts and mention of his brother comes up. Another guy in the Saints, Pruitt, tells Gates he needs to stop telling people the military killed his brother and face facts.
Turns out that there was only one lone military guy they saw in a hazmat suit while Gates, Pruitt and Colton were out scavenging. When the guy saw them he ran but they knew they couldn't let him get away since he would tell the rest of the military where they were. They split up and went after him, and when Gates heard footsteps coming towards him he fired and it was his brother instead of the military guy.
Pruitt tells Gates he needs to remember so he can move on, and Gates goes psycho, attacks and kills him. Will runs away and finds Lucy. She takes him to a room no one knows about and tells him he can stay there. They end up having sex and Lucy knows she was right to wait, as she does love Will and didn't want to admit it, although he's told her he loves her all along.
After their night together she goes to the bathroom and sees Hilary there. Wanting to get revenge on Hilary for the hell she put her through in The Pretty Ones, she spies quietly from a stall and sees Hilary pull out her broken tooth to reglue it. Lucy grabs the tooth and flushes it down the toilet and runs before Hilary can catch her, right into Gates who takes her hostage.He announces on the loudspeaker to Will that he "needs to come home" and Lucy won't be harmed.
Will goes to Violent and the Sluts for their help and they go with him to get Lucy back. A fight ensues between the Sluts and Saints and Lucy and Will escape.
Will's nose begins bleeding and he and Lucy rush to the parents, knowing it means he's of age where the virus is going to kill him if he stays there. The dad says he won't let them out unless they bring Sam, so he and Lucy find Sam mauled but bundle up his body with a hood to make it look like he's just unconscious.
The parents fall for it and let Will get on the crane hook to be pulled out with Sam but Gates rushes up and tries to stop him. When he sees that Will, who he now thinks IS Colton, is too far up on the crane to reach he attacks Lucy but she fights back and manages to kill him.
We finish out the book with Hilary pulling out a freak girls tooth to file down and use as her own, all the while plotting revenge on Lucy, who is now without a gang since she knows the Sluts are dead due to the fact she saw Violent's (leader of the Sluts) necklace hanging around Gates neck when he attacked her.
Finally, we see Will escaping to the woods and finding a cabin in the woods to hide out in. When he hears someone enter he thinks it's Sam's dad and calls out that he didn't kill him, he was already dead. The voice says that's good to know and Will recognizes the voice as David's.


text:
Initiative 42 is a constitutional amendment to ensure adequate funding for public schools in Mississippi.
The opponents claim that it is a "radical ploy to shift power from voters to judges." The opponents make this claim because the amendment makes it clear that the adequate funding requirement would be enforceable by the state courts.
This claim is absolutely baffling. I have been practicing law in federal and state courts for 30 years. Going to court to ensure that governmental bodies follow the law is as common as dirt. It happens every day in courts all over this country.


text:
Paytm Sunday Bazaar Deals are Live here. Buy from a wide range of Fashion, Home & Furniture, Kitchen Accessories, Games, Electronic Gadgets, Stationary, and more. Grab these super saving deals Today as these are valid only on Saturday and Sunday. Start shopping across hundreds of categories and millions of products only on Paytm.
CashBack Offer Paytm's Sunday Bazaar


text: Anaxibius 0 Posted December 6, 2005 (edited) What are the limitations of RunAsSet? If I deploy a software install that will run under a user with no rights how does RunAsSet handle it? Example RunAsSet( "administrator", "blah.com", "Insertpasswordhere") RunWait( "\\SomeServer\somefolder$\SomeFolder\SilentInstall.bat") Sleep(10000) RunWait( "\\SomeServer\somefolder$\SomeFolder\Configuration.bat") RunAsSet() The script above functions if I am logged on as an admin. I have checked to see if the user has access to the folders listed and they do, but I cannot get the script to run. I am very new to all of this so any advice would be appreciated. Edited December 6, 2005 by Anaxibius Share this post Link to post Share on other sites