text:
* At last... the mass desertion by true conservatives appears to have begun. See this by Paul Craig Roberts, of all people, who was Ronal Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and contributing editor of National Review.
He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Like Paul O'Niel, Ben Nighthorse Campbell and a few others, these are not traitors to conservatism; they are angry over an ongoing betrayal of genuine conservatism by a cabal of extremists who have taken over the movement for their own purposes.
* Even more telling and devastating is the conversion of Kevin Phillips, whose book "The Emerging Republican Majority" (published as he began work for Nixon in 1969) first coined terms like the "sunbelt," forecasting the southern and rural GOP strategy that we now think of as "red state culture war." (That deserves a high score, whatever predictions "registry" you happen to be using.)
Like Newt Gingrich, Phillips foresaw the developing neoconservative movement not only as a march back to power, after catastrophic political defeat in 1964. During the subsequent long process of reappraisal and renewal, those who were reinventing conservatism envisioned a values-oriented return to decent American norms... sort of an immune reaction to - and correction of - purported anti-individualism excess by a fetishistically paternalistic Left.
According to this expectation, a broadly populist political uprising on the right would lead to fiscal responsibility, reduced debt, cautious restraint in foreign policy, efficient and limited government, elevated social discourse, electoral and legislative transparency, emphasis on professionalism and readiness, rising personal wealth for most Americans, a renaissance of entrepreneurial small business and the fostering of healthy civil society through a Tocquevillian process that devolves power from elites to the people.
Read that list of expectations over and over again, as many times as it may take for the irony to sink in. Did this fantastically successful American political revolution, seizing nearly all of a great nation's significant institutions of power, accomplish any of its worthy surface aspirations? Any at all?
That is, aspirations other than raw power? For those special few who in effect own the GOP, the active and profound reversal of all stated goals may not matter very much. (After all, power is power.) And other parts of the ruling neocon coalition - Straussian Platonist Mystics and religious fundamentalists - are easily satisfied with symbolic gestures, rather than tangible outcomes.
But for old-fashioned Goldwater Conservatives, who still make up a high fraction of grassroots Republican voters, the betrayal of every principle and desideratum must tear, grind and fester. Logically, this kind of cognitive dissonance should lead to agonized-but honest reevaluation, starting from the ground up. Well, it should. But, alas.
And yet, aren't we praying, right now, for just such a grim admission to emerge out of the festering pain of decent American conservatism? The honest and sincere conservatism of Barry Goldwater, that was based upon a straightforward dedication to rectitude and accountability, arising out of some combination of market forces, law, and a vibrantly empowered, democratically enlightened citizenry? The kind that proudly faced the best of liberalism, ready to negotiate how problems should be solved, not whether they should be ignored?
That notion of conservatism remains valid and continues to deserve a place at-table, even now, after the movement's tiller has been hijacked by monsters. Is there even a slim chance that it can be rescued, before its reputation is permanently ruined by association with monsters?
Imagine how it might help save conservatism - and the republic itself - if a critical mass of decent, conservative paragons were to see their public-spirited duty in time. A clear duty to emulate the Miracle of 1947.
That was when several thousand moderate American liberals - having learned the truth about Stalin's Soviet horror - gathered their courage and resolve, stood up, and admitted that "the radicals of our side can be mad." In a combination of patriotism, pragmatism and idealism, they resolved to separate themselves, from any association with Communism, even at the level of nostalgic sympathy!
Nothing less would have sufficed. A schism of the left was necessary, in order to save the American left as a dynamic force in our national life.
Not only was this move courageous, it proved spectacularly successful. What ensued was not a defeat of American liberalism, but rather its greatest era - that of Martin Luther King and Betty Friedan - when citizens were inspired to redouble every progressive effort, to pass bills, revise laws, change their communities, and above-all to repair deep character flaws of racism, sexism and the shortsighted abuse of our grandchildren's planet. These problems were not completely solved, of course. But few of us regret those strenuous exertions, or call them wasted. Nor could any of it have happened, if honest American reformers had not decisively separated liberalism from a far-left that was deeply sick.
Are they truly loyal to such monsters? Are they kept in rigid lockstep out of some misplaced fealty to a ridiculous "political axis" that was insipid even when the French invented it, in 1789? A left-right axis that offers no relevance or insight or utility for an agile and sophisticated Third Millennium? (Gather a dozen people and no two will even define it the same way!)
In frantic denial, these classic conservatives tell themselves that "at least Clinton was worse..." without ever explicitly showing how he was worse, by even a single rationally explicit metric of human governance!
Such is our human genius for self-delusion. The same deep character flaw that toppled every other great nation, even at its height of power. The character flaw that our pragmatic enlightenment was supposedly designed to overcome.
Will decent American conservatives see their duty in time, the same way that members of the ADA and AFL-CIO and NAACP saw theirs, way back in 1947? Or will we finally see how decisively different these two movements really are, when the chips are down? One with a record of openminded heroism and the other... displaying craven cowardice till the bitter end?
Alas, Newt Gingrich hasn't stepped forward yet. (An in-depth essay 'Should Democrats Issue a New Contract with America'? re-appraises Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America, considering how this masterful piece of 20th Century political polemic might be used by the other side, in the 21st. Indeed, Gingrich might even approve... if his goal remained sincere.)
(And yet, George F. Will, like Cato, continues shrieking hysterically at anemic Carthage, while making wincing excuses for a homegrown tyranny.)
But let's look at the bright side. Look around for signs of hope. Glimmers like Kevin Phillips who recently came out with American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. A book that every one of us should go out and buy, for two reasons:
(1) in order to make it a best-seller, and
(2) in order to shove each copy into the hands of at least one honest, sincere and mentally-competent American conservative. (Well, perhaps as a test of mental competence.)
I won't go into the author's arguments here. Not in detail, although it certainly is refreshing to see a "conservative" concede the obvious - for example, that an ingrown, secretive, and historically selfish petro plutocracy is hardly the most credible cabal to trust with a great nation's energy policy, or its foreign policy, for that matter.
Phillips admits that he was shocked by the course that his revolution took, veering in directions that left all of the old goals of empowered citizenship and public rectitude abandoned, in the dust. He never expected the mass-populist neoconservative movement could be so easily -- almost trivially -- hijacked by elements that are anti-freedom, anti-future and anti-enlightenment, taking this route not only out of venial self-interest but also as a matter of fundamental personality.
According to Phillips, those elements include not only the petrocracy, but also religious fanatics, contemptuous media moguls and foreign elements that seek world power in the most efficient and straightforward way possible - by directly influencing American elites.
While focusing especially upon two of these elements - the new theocrats and the petrocracy - Phillips comes closer than anybody else to actually recognizing what's going on... a return to the consistent pattern that dominated nearly every other urban culture in human history. A power-sharing arrangement between resource controlling aristocrats and mystical clerics, who chant justifications for aristocratic rule.
Don't even try to deny that this was the freedom-suppressing formula in every culture, from Babylon to China to Rome... and all the way to the British Imperium that our founders finally rejected, in their daring gamble. A wager instead upon Periclean-Lockean notions of institutionalized reciprocal accountability. (Moreover, it is worth pointing out that the same formula dominated the old Confederate South, which Phillips now calls the ultimate winner of an ongoing Civil War.)
* Just to keep up my reputation of balance, let me point out that the Soviet Union followed this classic pattern in every detail, down to a mutually beneficial alliance where power-holders bent on ferociously enforced rule by an inherited nomenklatura, relied upon quasi-religious Marxian dogmatists to justify the elites' monopoly of power. Everything else - every bit of "egalitarian" Communist rhetoric - was hypocritical, Potemkin window-dressing. *
Far from being a matter of left versus right, what we are seeing today is a renewal of the same battle fought by Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, Marshall and every other great American hero. Every generation of American heroes. A battle pitting the new maturity of accountability, pragmatic self-improvement and rambunctious citizenship against the endlessly recycled power-rationalizations that served tyrants of every stripe. An age-old reflex that's the real enemy of freedom, still calling to us from Egypt and Ur. From the caves. From our genes.
Liberals (the smartest and best of them) were able to see this, when they performed a miracle in 1947, choosing to side with Franklin, Madison and Marshall. In a similar manner, decent conservatives may yet rescue us from a similarly dire crisis, in 2006, ending "culture war" by the simple expediency of saying "this is not conservatism. No, this is madness."
Will it happen, though?
Let's be clear about this. Patriots of all kinds will stand up and stop the monsters. As our parents and grandparents passed every test, we too will rise up and be counted, in defense of both our republic and civilization. America will be saved. That is not the real issue.
No, the issue is whether enough decent conservatives will rise up, joining this struggle, to save any hope for their movement during generations to come.
If Newt and his friends want a better version of conservatism to survive and thrive, with a reputation for anything other than spineless dogmatism, they will heed the call of history, and stand up. Now, when we need them most.
culture war" between rural and urban America, but a much simpler matter, about ejecting a nasty gang of thieves, in order to let our nation get back to business. In doing so, they will save their own movement. But don't hold your breath.
So far, the pioneers in this conservative turnaround are so few that individual quirkiness dominates over any sense of momentum. From Kevin Phillips to David Brock to Paul O'Neil, the exceptions merely serve to attract Rovean spasms of character assassination, while raising false hopes, that this generation will be able to accomplish its historic mission - preserving the Great Experiment - with significant help from the right.
So far, despite those few exceptions, it seems unlikely.
If we can find any consolation, during this time of darkness, it is in a strange fact... or rather, a bit of inspiring truthiness... that the State of Arizona has started producing copious amounts of clean electricity from magnetic coils that surround the furious spinning in Barry Goldwater's grave.
See more: Politics for the 21st Century


text:
Bethel College's eighth president, Orville L. Voth, Hesston, died Sept. 22 at St. Francis' Harry Hynes Memorial Hospice in Wichita following a stroke. He was 84.
Voth was born Jan. 4, 1924, in Rosthern, Saskatchewan. The son of John J. and Mariecha Voth, Orville grew up as a Bethel College "campus kid." John Voth was on the Bethel faculty, teaching Bible and industrial arts, from 1925-46 and also served as superintendent of buildings and grounds from 1936-48.
Orville graduated from Newton High School but his studies at Bethel College were interrupted in 1943 when he was drafted into Civilian Public Service. He served in Fort Collins, Colo., and Kalamazoo, Mich.
In 1945, Voth married Helen M. Voran, Belmont. He graduated from Bethel in 1948 and continued his education at Oklahoma State University, where he received an M.S. in chemistry with a minor in physiology. He went on to Pennsylvania State University, where he earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry with minors in bacteriology and organic chemistry.
Voth began his teaching career at Kansas Wesleyan University in Salina. He served as interim academic dean at Bethel and then as president from 1967-71 before returning to Kansas Wesleyan as vice president of academic affairs. He ended his career as director of independent study at the University of Kansas.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Phil would never incite or encourage hate.
We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.


text:
It's Cold & Flu season! Are you prepared? It can really be super overwhelming as parents when our babies get sick. Safety 1st is here to help though, with essentials for our little ones. Check out what cold and flu essentials are needed for your baby this season over at Raising Whasians!
Ready for a giveaway?
To help get you prepared for the cold & flu season, enter now to win a Safety 1st "Care" prize pack! It includes…
– Safety 1st Ultrasonic 360 Humidifer
– Safety 1st Healthcare Kit
Ends 11/13. Here's how to enter:


text:
As you might imagine, there aren't many entirely incomprehensible acts that can take place in one's own garden. However, the fact that some people grow their own herbs, fruit and vegetables and then fail to make any use of them succeeds superbly in making my mind boggle. Luckily, I am neither lazy nor feckless, though some may wish to contest the former, and try my hardest to make use of my own produce as often as is humanly possible. Happily, our mint seems to be rather enjoying our unseasonably wet weather, so this will be the first in a three-part series of simple, mint-based treats. Mint really is a gorgeous herb and one of my favourites, so I shall truly enjoy posting a trio of ideas based around it.
This dip, though very straightforward in its conception, is a little more interesting than one's average minty dip. Indeed, the fact that this particular recipe makes use of a mint sauce really raises it above the competition; it has the flavour to back up its freshness. However, it is similar to most other mint sauces in its versatility. To be honest, there isn't much that doesn't go well with a sprig of mint and this dip would serve to freshen up curries, falafel (as you'll soon see), lamb and almost any veggie burger. In this case, constrained you are not.
One thing you may have noticed about this blog is an extreme dearth of recipes which contain cucumber. To be honest with you, I hate the sodding fruit. It lacks a backbone of flavour and tastes of rotting water, yet even a seemingly innocuous quantity of cucumber placed in any dish is enough to ruin it. Indeed, as you might have guessed, this is why the cucumber is merely optional; apparently other people like it. Use it at the peril of your own and your family's taste buds. I will accept no liability for any cucumber based insult you may have thrown at you.
Mint and Coriander Dip
Serves 3-4
• 6 tbsp natural yoghurt, not greek
• 1 tbsp mint and coriander, in equal quantity
• 1 tsp mint sauce, not jelly
• A little cucumber, finely chopped
• A pinch of salt
• A pinch of sugar
1. Simply chop the fresh herbs extremely finely, and then mix everything together. Serve cold, or it may turn out to be a little unpleasant.
Cost: Let's face it; no dip is ever going to break the bank. However, I suppose I had better tell you that this dip set me back approximately 35p. That's cheap, right?


text: Kickapoo Valley Reserve The Kickapoo Valley Reserve is located in the heart of the 'driftless' (unglaciated) area of Southwest Wisconsin. The 8,500 acre site was slated as the site of a large dam and reservoir until environmental concerns caused the project to be permanently delayed. The Reserve features unique natural and cultural resources in the Kickapoo River Valley and includes numerous recreational activities. The 8,000 square foot Visitor Center serves as the gateway for visitors as well as the administrative headquarters for staff, with offices, classrooms and exhibition space. Natural materials, including some harvested from within the Reserve, connect building with site, as do exterior decks and viewing platforms. Completion 2004


text:
Before Mitt Romney set foot in Ohio for a two-day bus tour this week, his campaign was spinning the state of the presidential contest there. On a flight between Newark and Dayton on Tuesday, Romney political director Rich Beeson argued that publicly available polling, most notably a Washington Post survey that showed President Obama ahead by 8 points in the state, had the race all wrong. "The public polls are what the public polls are," he said. "I kind of hope the Obama campaign is basing their campaign on what the public polls say. We don't. We have confidence in our data."
Beeson didn't share any of the campaign's internal polling–nor did he explicitly say that it shows a radically different race than the public surveys. But like many Republicans at the moment, he was adamant that polling samples based on exit polls from the 2008 election overstate Democratic support. (Some are taking that theory to extremes.) Romney is "inside the margin of error in Ohio," Beeson said, a statement that suggested a close race without really putting a number on it. True, the Post poll could easily be an outlier, and a New York Times/CBS News poll released Wednesday is almost certainly one: it found Obama up by 10 points in Ohio, a margin larger than any other major firm has reported. But even if the number strains credulity, it's bad news for Romney.
Both candidates will sweep through Ohio on Wednesday, the unofficial start of the final mad scrum for swing-state votes. Romney rallied with Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Rob Portman on Tuesday in Dayton, and he'll hit three more cities Wednesday, while Obama visits Bowling Green State and Kent State universities. Those efforts make sense regardless of the latest polls.
Beeson claimed the map is "wide open," that Romney does not need to win Ohio to carry the election. While it's true that there are scenarios in which Romney would not need Ohio to win, losing it would seriously handicap his chances. If you add Ohio to the category of states that Obama is almost certain to win, that group adds up to 255 electoral college votes, just 15 shy of the total needed to carry the race. In other words, Romney can't afford to withdraw from Ohio. Taken in this light, Beeson's comments can be interpreted a little differently. He said repeatedly that the Romney campaign is "basing our decisions off" trusted internal data, not darkening public polls. If this week is any indication, that decision is to fight for Ohio, no matter what the numbers say


text:
Let Silva Management Insurance Services Insure Your Fall and Winter Toys
Ah, fall and winter: the seasons of pumpkin spice lattes, cozy scarves, and—for those of us who refuse to hibernate—an arsenal of recreational toys that go "vroom" in the crisp air. Whether it's your four-wheeler, your snowmobile, or your super-extra-awesome jet ski that doubles as a snow sled (don't try that, seriously), the seasonal fun starts to pile up as fast as autumn leaves or winter snow.
But wait! Before you unleash your "need for speed" down a snow-covered hill, have you thought about insurance for your fall and winter toys? No? Then buckle up, my thrill-seeking friend, because it's time for a hilarious, yet entirely factual and potentially life-saving, journey through the wonderland of 'Toy Insurance 101.'
For a quote on your recreational toys, please call us at 888-611-7647.
All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) and the Tale of the Tree
Picture this: You're out on your ATV, feeling like the king of the off-road world. The wind's in your hair, the mud's on your face, and life is grand—until you take a sharp turn and your ATV decides to hug a tree. First off, trees are not huggable; they're the introverts of the plant world. Second, do you have insurance that covers the "tree-hugging" tendencies of your ATV?
Snowmobiles and the Infamous Snowman Incident
Let's switch gears to snowmobiles, the ATVs of winter. So, you decide to go for a spin in the freshly fallen snow. You're maneuvering through a winter wonderland, zigzagging around snowmen that local kids have built. Then, it happens—you misunderstand your GPS's cry of "Turn left!" and you ram into Frosty the Snowman, annihilating him! Children cry, parents glare, and someone calls the authorities. You're left with a damaged snowmobile and a room of disapproving snowmen.
This could be a fun story to tell at parties—or a legal nightmare. The solution? Snowmobile insurance that covers property damage and medical bills for when Frosty decides to get revenge.
Jet Skis and the Winter Lake Plunge
You're probably thinking, "Who uses a jet ski in the winter?" Good question, and the answer is hopefully nobody (but never underestimate human creativity). However, if you've stored your jet ski for winter and a tree falls on it or it gets stolen by someone with very poor seasonal judgment, you'll want to have insurance to cover the damages or loss.
What's the Big Deal?
Sure, we can laugh about these hypothetical scenarios, but these stories could be your reality—minus the humor—if you don't insure your recreational toys.
Types of Coverage to Consider:
- Liability Insurance: For when your toy's adventurous spirit goes a little too far.
- Collision Coverage: For the unavoidable embraces with trees or the remains of Frosty.
- Comprehensive Coverage: For those moments when Mother Nature or a thief runs away with your toy.
Bottom Line
Whether you're an ATV aficionado, a snowmobile samurai, or a jet ski jedi, protecting your seasonal toys is no joke. Well, actually, it is (we just made several), but the need for insurance isn't. So, before you head out for your next adventure, call us here at Silva Management Insurance Services, , to make sure you're covered. Then, when you hit that tree or Frosty, it'll be a story, not a financial disaster.
Now, gear up, get insured, and go turn those fall and winter days into the adventurous seasons they were always meant to be! Just remember: trees are not for hugging.


text:
Spears to Cruise: You're Not Crazy at All!
TMZ spotted Britney befriending more photogs, as a non-Adnan joined Brit for her nightly escapade! It gets weirder as Brit had a few words for Tom Cruise -- it's crazy talking about crazy!
Brit picked up her new friend outside of Adnan's house, then headed over to Goa -- where she simply sat in the car outside while the frenzy erupted! Talk about parkin' lot pimpin'!
After inviting paps to her house -- Brit Brit presto chango'd into different clothes and her pink personality wig -- grabbed her new pap friend and took off again! Wonder if this guy is the new Adnan?


text:
Nakajima walks, helps turn two in spring debut
PHOENIX -- Ryan Braun homered in his first at-bat of the year and the Brewers led all nine innings in the traditional opener between the Cactus League's two Phoenix-based teams, beating the A's, 2-1 at Maryvale Baseball Park on Saturday.
Braun may be a step ahead of other hitters this spring because he's been preparing to be Team USA's regular left fielder in next month's World Baseball Classic. With two outs in the first inning, he connected with a 1-and-2 pitch from A's starter Jesse Chavez for a solo homer to center field.
"Certainly, it's a good sign," Braun said. "I would rather homer than strike out, especially staying through the middle, hitting the ball the other way. When I'm going my best, that's what I do."
Braun began hitting and throwing well ahead of Christmas in an effort to be ready to play all nine innings by March 8, when Team USA plays its first Classic game against Mexico. He is already planning to ramp up his workload with back-to-back games on Monday and Tuesday.
His first-inning home run came right after Oakland missed a chance to take an early lead against Brewers starter Mike Fiers, who loaded the bases with two outs in the top of the first inning before striking out Chris Young on three pitches. Fiers returned to work a 1-2-3 second inning before calling it a day, after allowing one hit and two walks in two scoreless innings.
The Braun homer was Milwaukee's only hit against Chavez, who walked two batters in two innings.
The Brewers tacked on another run in the fourth inning on Jean Segura's RBI groundout, and Oakland answered in the seventh when Shane Peterson greeted Brewers reliever Santo Manzanillo with a double and scored on Michael Choice's single.
In his unofficial A's debut, shortstop Hiroyuki Nakajima walked and struck out. He also teamed with second baseman Jemile Weeks to turn a highlight-reel double play in the second inning.
"The environment and the ambience were fabulous, and it pumped me up," Nakajima said through a translator.
A's up next: The A's will make the short trek over to Tempe, Ariz., on Sunday for a road contest with the Angels, and they'll be bringing a strong cast of characters with them to face Angels righty Barry Enright. Outfielder Yoenis Cespedes is slated to make his Cactus League debut, as are Coco Crisp and Jed Lowrie, whose first game in the green and gold will come at shortstop. On the mound will be lefty Travis Blackley, who will be stretched out as a starter this spring while he battles for a roster spot as a long-relief option. First pitch at Tempe Diablo Stadium is set for 12:05 PT.


text:
I am looking to re-create a bakery-style fruit tartlette. I was wondering what the glaze on top of the fruit tarts you find in US bakeries is and how you can create it at home.
I have heard that it's just heated apple jelly, but I imagine that might change the flavor of the whole tart. It seems like it's largely a preservative since I don't see any glaze in home recipes, but I like texture it adds.


text:
Inverse, Exponential and Logarithmic Functions
University of Michigan
Runs his own tutoring company
Carl taught upper-level math in several schools and currently runs his own tutoring company. He bets that no one can beat his love for intensive outdoor activities!
To unlock all 5,300 videos, start your free trial.
University of Michigan
Runs his own tutoring company
Carl taught upper-level math in several schools and currently runs his own tutoring company. He bets that no one can beat his love for intensive outdoor activities!
We're now going to look at a compounded interest question. So basically what we have is a set up where we invest $3000 in an account that earns 4% interest, how much will you have after 4 years if interest is compounded in a number of different ways?
For this what we need to remember is our equation. Let's go write that over here and we end up with A, the amount we end up with is equal to P, our initial amount, 1 plus r over n to the nt. Going through this problem what we need to figure out is what we're given. We know that we are investing $3000. That's going to be our initial amount, so that's just going to be our P. We're asked to figure out how much we end up with, so that's going to be A for a number of different scenarios. Our rate is 4%, we need to put it in as a decimal so that goes in as .04. Let's write that a little bit bigger so to make sure you see it, this goes in as .04. N is the number of times per year that we calculate interest, that's going to vary depending on which part we look at, if we look the a, b, or c portions. So we're going to hold off on that and t is the time we invest, which the problem tells us is 4 years. This is going to be, let's use a different color, this is going to be 4. I didn't use a different color at all.
We have our general set up and now we're just going to go and plug these numbers in for the different cases. Biannually, our 3000 is still there. Our 1 plus our rate is still the same but now our n is the number of times per year. Biannually, that means twice a year so the number of times per year is 2, and then it's to the nt, n is the number of times per year so that's just going to be 2 as well and then length is 4. I forgot a zero in my 3000, didn't I? Let's plug that back in, make sure it's actually 3000. There we go. I'll hold off on calculating this until we get all the actual equations up.
Monthly, so we still have the same initial investment, we still have the same rate but now we're dealing with monthly. That's going to affect the n, which instead of being 2 for biannually it's now going to be 12 and then it's to the nt so this is just going to be 12 times, our time hasn't changed, it's still 4 years.
Daily, same exact formula except instead of having n being 2 or 12, we're now talking about daily which is just going to be 365. This is now 3000, 1 plus our rate hasn't changed over 365 to the 365 times 4.
We can go ahead and plug this into out calculator which I've already done, I hope you don't mind, and what we end up getting is, this is 3514.98. This is 3519.60 and this is 3520.50.
It doesn't really matter how many times we invest, they're all roughly the same, the more you invest slightly more interest you get.


text: The Maastricht Collection comprises a broad selection of legal instruments and provisions that have proven to be particularly relevant and useful to students and practitioners of international, European, and comparative law. The compilation is based on the Maastricht University Law School's longstanding expertise in teaching and researching European, international, and comparative national law. It includes codes and statutory law from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, international treaties, as well as legal instruments of the European Union. The provisions contained in The Maastricht Collection are reproduced in the original English or in the authentic English version, where applicable, or they are freshly translated under critical editorship. Existing translations of written law, including officious translations available on government websites, often seek to turn old-fashioned or ambiguous original texts into modern and elegant English. Or, instead of translating, they seek to explain how certain terms and formulations are interpreted in practice. The translations in The Maastricht Collection remain as faithful as possible to the content and linguistic style of the original, thus allowing the reader not only to appreciate the substance but also the authentic form of legal sources. The fifth edition of The Maastricht Collection constitutes not only a full revision and update of the fourth edition, but also comprises many important additions, aiming to further enhance its value as a resource in teaching and research. Due to the significant expansion of the collection, this new edition has been divided into four reader-friendly volumes: • Vol. I - International and European Law (ISBN 9789089521941) • Vol. II - Comparative Public Law (ISBN 9789089521958) • Vol. III - International and European Private Law (ISBN 9789089521965) • Vol. IV - Comparative Private Law (ISBN 9789089521972) The four volumes of The Maastricht Collection are available both individually and as a complete set.


text:
As you'd expect, Gwyneth Paltrow is taking a lot of sh-t today for this story that appeared in Page Six:
Just in time for Earth Week, Gwyneth Paltrow took a 10-second car ride from the Stella McCartney party to the following dinner in LA on Friday. Most guests later walked four doors down for the dinner at Madeo restaurant on Beverly Boulevard. Our spy said, "It's a short walk. Also at the dinner was Gwyneth [who has starred in green public- service announcements] with husband Chris Martin — except she left the party in a gas-guzzling Town Car, were chauffeured a few feet and got out at the restaurant that was pretty much next door to the party." Reps confirmed that while Gwyneth took the car, Chris walked. According to Mapquest, the McCartney boutique (at 8823 Beverly) and Madeo (8897 Beverly) are 0.06 miles apart, a 10-second drive. Gwyneth's rep Stephen Huvane said this morning, "Chris walked to the restaurant and Gwyneth took a car in hopes of splitting up the paparazzi who were getting very aggressive and nasty. This is what the security at the event suggested they do because other guests had a difficult time walking to the restaurant. Do you really think she did not want to walk?"
Now we're all getting on G because she's too precious to move her feet. Please. G is full of her own ass all the time, but G is not my Mimi. Mimi doesn't walk. G actually walks a lot. We've seen her walk. We've seen her walk all the time. She walks from the train station (the train!) upon arrival in Paris from London. She walks around in New York when she's out with her brother. She walks in Mayfair when she's out with her friends.
When doesn't she walk then?
The only time G doesn't walk is when she's with HIM.
Her husband.
The man who books it down the street because he doesn't want to be seen at a party in her honour. Her being the mother of children. Chris Martin, more the environmentalist than his wife (have you ever been to a Coldplay concert?), would rather put his wife in the car for 10 seconds and walk separately than have to be photographed side by side with her leaving an event.
It's not like this is behaviour we've never seen from him before. I've documented it several times on this blog. But, you know, it's never Mr Martin who eats it; it's always Mrs Martin who takes the hate. Because... Chris Martin is nice to his fans? Yes, but he's a DICK to his wife. How does he get a pass?
Put it on her for her insufferable twang, her impossible recommendations, the way she smears herself all over Beyonce because it's the only career move she has left...
All of that, yes, yes, yes, and don't ever stop. Throw it at her with enthusiasm, I totally agree.
But this? Don't absolve him for this just because she eats tree bark and works out 5 hours a day, come on.
Here's Gwyneth in Beverly Hills yesterday after having lunch with friends. Coldplay is in Calgary tonight and then Vancouver this weekend. I wonder if she's travelling with the band but I care more about this top she's wearing and must have it.
It's never Mr Martin
As you'd expect, Gwyneth Paltrow is taking a lot of sh-t today for this story that appeared in Page Six:


text:
Kontaktujte nás
Marantz Europe is a division of D&M Europe B.V. and is headquartered in The Netherlands.
To contact Marantz Europe, you can use the send a mail function or click on contact information to find mailing details.
For information on local European offices, please check the world site and choose a local language sites for local office details.
Pošlite E-mail
Please use the contact form to contact Marantz Europe.
Kontaktné informácie
Please check contact information for Marantz Europe.
Marantz dealers & distributors for Europe
To contact or find one of our local dealers, sales offices or distributors,please click on the dealers search navigation function to find the closest dealers near you.


text:
The Sad State Of Zealots With Microphones
America, you are an idiot.
You are a moocher, a zombie, soulless, mouth-breathing, ignorant, greedy, self-indulgent, envious, shallow and lazy.
The foregoing is a summation of "analysis" from conservative pundits and media figures — Cal Thomas, Ted Nugent, Bill O'Reilly, et cetera — seeking to explain Mitt Romney's emphatic defeat. They seem to have settled on a strategy of blaming the voters for not being smart enough or good enough to vote as they should have. Because America wasn't smart enough or good enough, say these conservatives, it shredded the Constitution, bear-hugged chaos, French-kissed Socialism, and died.
In other words, the apocalypse is coming.
Granted, such thinking does not represent the totality of conservative response to the election. The reliably sensible columnist Kathleen Parker offered a, well… reliably sensible take on what's wrong with the Republican Party. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal spoke thoughtfully to Politico about how conservatism must change to meet the challenges of the future.
Unfortunately, for every Parker or Jindal, there is a Donald Trump urging revolution or a petition drive advocating secession from the union. And just when you think you've heard it all, just when you think you could not possibly be more astonished at how panic-stricken and estranged from reality much of the political right now is, there comes word of Henry Hamilton's suicide.
He was the 64-year-old owner of a tanning salon in Key West, FL. As recently reported in The Miami Herald, he was found dead two days after the election with empty prescription bottles next to him, one for a drug to treat anxiety, another for a drug to treat schizophrenia. Hamilton, according to his partner, Michael Cossey, was stressed about his business and had said that if President Obama were re-elected, "I'm not going to be around." Police found his will, upon which was scrawled "F— Obama."
Sometimes, they act — the Hannitys, the O'Reillys, the Trumps, the Limbaughs, the whole conservative political infotainment complex — as if this were all a game, as if their nonstop litany of half-truths, untruths and fear mongering, their echo chamber of studied outrage, practiced panic, intellectual incoherence and unadulterated equine feculence, had no human consequences. Sometimes, they behave as if it were morally permissible — indeed, morally required — to say whatever asinine, indefensible, coarse or outrageous thing comes to mind in the name of defeating or diminishing the dreaded left. And never mind that vulnerable people might hear this and shape their beliefs accordingly.
Did the conservative political infotainment complex kill Henry Hamilton? No.
But were they the water in which he swam, a Greek chorus echoing and magnifying the outsized panic that troubled his unwell mind? It seems quite likely.
One hopes, without any real expectation, that Hamilton's death will give pause to the flame-throwers on the right. One hopes, without any real expectation, that somebody will feel a twinge of conscience. Or shame.
But that will not happen.
Because, what you see here is not the behavior of calculating showmen who don't believe half the garbage they say. If it were, we might have hope.
But these, I have come to believe, are not showmen. They are zealots. They do believe half the garbage they say, and they have microphones to say it with. That is infinitely more frightening.
So one can only hope, with slightly more expectation, that the GOP will finally disenthrall itself from this ongoing affront to decency and intelligence and thereby render it moot.
Until it does, we can only absorb the impact of these regularly scheduled meltdowns. And pity the likes of Henry Hamilton.
For him, the apocalypse already came.
(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via email at email@example.com.)
(c) 2012 The Miami Herald Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Photo by Justin Hoch via Flickr.com


text:
Handwoven Ebony Black Pure Mashru Silk Kadwa Banarasi Fabric
Category - Pure Mashru Silk Fabric
Khinkhwab brings you an exclusive Mashru Silk range that is sure to make you fall in love with.
Fabric - Pure Mashru Silk
Mashru silk has a silk warp and a cotton weft and warp-faced fabric, or sateen which means that the face of the cloth is predominantly silk and the reverse is cotton. It is a lightweight fabric and as soft as butter.
Weave – Kadwa
Color –Black
The price mentioned is for 1/2 meters.
Note- There may be slight color variations due to photographic reasons.
This is a hand-woven product and any irregularities in the weaving or pattern should not be taken as a defect. These irregularities make every handloom piece unique


text:
Privacy Policy
Customer Privacy Statement
- Introduction
- What Personal Data do we collect?
- How do we collect your Personal Data?
- How do we collect your Personal Data from our website?
- What do we use your Personal Data for?
- Accessing/Limiting/Correcting/Updating your Personal Data
- Withdrawing Consent
- To whom do we disclose your Personal Data?
- How long may we retain your Personal Data?
- Notifications of Change
- Contact
MASwings Sdn Bhd ("MASwings") is committed to the protection of your Personal Data and takes the matter of protecting your privacy as a high priority matter.
This Privacy Statement explains the general terms on how we protect the privacy of your Personal Data under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 ("PDPA").
What Personal Data do we collect?
The types of Personal Data that we collect directly from you or from third parties may include (but not limited to) your name, address, flight and other travel details, credit/debit card number and expiry date, billing address, telephone numbers, Frequent Flyer number or other loyalty program membership details, dietary requirements (if any) and health issues relevant to your travel arrangements.
How do we collect your Personal Data?
This Privacy Statement covers any Personal Data provided to us:
When making a booking with us, checking-in for a flight or lodging freight;
Via any online sites operated by MASwings and its contractors;
Under any other contractual agreement or arrangement; and/or
Via a third party i.e. travel agent.
Some of the other ways we may collect Personal Data also include (but is not limited to):
- Via telephone,letter,fax,email;
- When you visit our website or one of our contractors' websites;
- When you contact us in person;
- When we contact you in person; or
- When we collect information about you from third parties.
1. MASwings group request form
3. MASwings passenger namelist for charter services
How do we collect your Personal Data from our website?
IP Address
We use your IP address to help diagnose problems with our server, and to administer our website. Your IP address is used to help identify you and your membership information and to gather broad demographic information.
User Feedback Form
Our Customer Care Feedback Form requires you to give us contact information (e.g. your name and email address) so that we can respond to your comments. We use your contact information from the registration form to send you information about our company. Your contact information is also used to contact you where necessary. Demographic and profile data are also collected at our site. We use your Personal Data to tailor your experience at our site by showing you contents that we think you may be interested in contents according to your preferences.
Information on Cookies
A cookie is an element of data that a website can send to your browser, which may then store it on your system. We use cookies in some of our pages to store your preferences and record session information. The information that we collect is then used to ensure a more personalised service level for our users. You can adjust settings on your browser so that you will be notified when you receive a cookie. Please refer to your browser documentation to check if cookies have been enabled on your computer or to request not to receive cookies.
What do we use your Personal Data for?
We may use your Personal Data for the following purposes ("Purpose")
- To facilitate your travel and freight arrangements;
- To be able to process any commercial transaction e.g. In-flight sales;
- To facilitate your participation in the loyalty programs of MASwings and third parties;
- To send you promotions and information on products and activities;
- To protect the safety and well being of yourself and/or other customers;
- To investigate and respond to claims from you; or
- To comply with any legal or regulatory requirements.
Accessing/Limiting/Correcting/Updating your Personal Data
You may request to obtain information of your Personal Data, limit the processing of your Personal Data and also update or make amendments to your Personal Data as below:
For online registered customers, you may login to your MASwings online account and update your Personal Data; or
For every other customer, you may forward your request to [email protected] Please note that depending on the information requested, a nominal fee may be required. We will endeavour to provide the information back to you as soon as practicable; however we also reserve the right to validate all requests for the authenticity of the request.
Withdrawing Consent
Please note that it is obligatory for us to process your Personal Data, without which we will not be able to make travel arrangements for you and keep you updated about our future, new and/or enhanced services and products.
Nonetheless, you may stop receiving promotional activities by:unsubscribing from the mailing list; editing the relevant account settings to unsubscribe; or sending a request to [email protected]
To whom do we disclose your Personal Data?
We will not trade or sell your Personal Data to third parties.Your Personal Data shall only be disclosed or transferred to the following third parties who may be located within or outside Malaysia for the fulfillment of the Purpose:
- Other MASwings affiliates and subsidiaries where necessary to facilitate your travel;
- Credit card verification providers, data warehouse and other third parties in order to process your commercial transactions;
- Legal bodies as permitted or required by law such as in compliance with a warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; and/or
- Customs, immigration or other regulatory authorities applicable to you.
How long may we retain your Personal Data?
We will not retain your personal data longer than necessary for the fulfillment of the Purpose. However, relevant Personal Data may be retained subject to the conditions below:
As and when required under legislation; or
Where legal actions have arisen and are pending.
MASwings shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all Personal Data is destroyed or permanently deleted when no longer required for the Purpose.
Notification of Changes
Please note that this Privacy Statement may be amended from time to time in accordance to applicable laws and regulations and such variations may be applicable to you.
The latest version of this Privacy Statement will be made available to all customers. Do revisit our website from time to time for updates on our Privacy Statement.
For any queries, concerns or complaints in relation to our handling of your Personal Data or MASwings' Personal Data Protection policies, please contact us at [email protected]


text: Popping the Cork on the Screwcap Debate by Chuck Hayward Aug 7 2012 The debate over corks and wine is causing controversy once again, proving its unique ability to be an issue of contention for the foreseeable future. Much ballyhoo has been raised by the cork industry recently regarding Christian Canute, the owner of Rusden Wineryin the Barossa Valley, and his decision to forswear screwcaps in favor of corks (despite the fact that he only used screwcaps for one of the ten wines in his portfolio and even that was only for a few vintages). In other news, UC Davis and PlumpJack Winery recently announced the commencement of a two year study that will attempt to determine, once and for all, how different closures affect the ability of wines to age. (Read more about the study here). This research is taking place despite the fact that the Australian Wine and Research Institute (AWRI) has been involved in a similar project for more than a decade. That study, analyzing 14 different types of closures, is in the process of concluding that screwcaps are superior when compared to other types of seals. Looking at the picture above (courtesy of Old Bridge Cellars), I don't think I would want any of the wines on the right side of the picture. And by the way, the screwcap bottles are on the left. This is all great for science but it's rare for consumers and those of us in the trade to experience first-hand proof that screwcaps are superior to corks for aging wine. Last year, JJ Buckley customers had a chance to determine how wines age under screwcaps at a unique tasting of pinot noirs from Mt. Difficulty (read more about that event here), but there was no direct cork vs. screwcap showdown at that special event. The result: a hands-down preference for the bottle under screwcap. The bottle under cork had more diffused aromas, redolent of herbs and muddled spices and a more advanced palate lacking the signature message of deep shiraz fruit. With deeper aromas and flavors filling up the darker range of the fruit spectrum, the screwcapped bottle clearly left a fresher, more youthful impression with a core of soft fruits that had matured enough to show softer textures with just a hint of secondary complexity. It was as though the wines came from two different places.So a festive JJ Buckley gathering a few weekends ago looked like a great opportunity to pull a few bottles from my cellar that would address the issue. Out came two bottles of2002 Wolf Blass "Gold Label" Shiraz, one under cork and the other in screwcap, both stored at the same location since they were purchased. This was one of only five Australian wines exported to America where one vintage was sold in both screwcap and cork, so this provided us with a rare opportunity to taste the wines side by side. While this is not a scientific study and merely another in a litany of anecdotal stories regarding the virtues of screwcaps, it's also quite evident that our simple tasting will do little to settle this robust debate. Nevertheless, it sure caused a commotion among the JJ Buckley staff. Here's hoping that everyone seeks out the opportunity to try the same wine under different closures, it's truly an eye-opening experience. Tags (awri), mt. difficulty, old bridge cellars, plumpjack, rusden winery, screwcaps, uc davis, wolf blass Share on Social Media


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Under 57(a)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 57(a)(8) (1976 ed.), "the excess of the deduction for depletion . . . over the adjusted basis of" "property (as defined in [] 1614)" is an "ite[m] of tax preference" on which a taxpayer must pay a "minimum tax" for the tax year in question. See 56(a). In computing the minimum taxes due on their interests in oil and gas deposits for tax years 1981 and 1982, respondents Hill calculated their depletion allowances according to the "percentage depletion" method, and included in the interests' adjusted bases the unrecovered costs of certain depreciable tangible items used in drilling and development (machinery, tools, pipes, etc.), as identified in 1.612-4(c)(1) of the applicable Treasury Department regulations. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disputed that inclusion, and assessed larger minimum taxes based on the exclusion of the tangible costs from the mineral interests' adjusted bases. The Hills paid the resulting deficiencies and filed a refund claim, which the Commissioner denied. The Claims Court granted summary judgment for the Hills in their ensuing refund suit, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The term "adjusted basis," as used in 57(a)(8), does not include the depreciable drilling and development costs identified in Treas.Reg. 1.612-4(c)(1). Pp. 553-564.
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Kent L. Jones argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Ann Belanger Durney, and Charles Bricken.
Richard B. Robinson argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Robert A. Wherry, Jr. *
[ Footnote * ] Timothy B. Dyk filed a brief for the National Coal Association et al. as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under 56 and 57(a)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 56, 57(a)(8) (1976 ed.), a taxpayer must pay a "minimum tax" on the excess of the allowable depletion deduction for an interest in a mineral deposit over the taxpayer's adjusted basis for that interest. The question presented here is whether the term "adjusted basis," as used in 57(a)(8), includes certain depreciable drilling and development costs identified in 1.612-4(c)(1) of the Treasury Department regulations. We hold that the term does not cover such costs.
In 1981 and 1982, respondents William F. and Lola E. Hill were in the oil and gas exploration and production business, and, on their federal income tax returns for those respective years, they deducted $439,884 and $371,636 for depletion with respect to their interests in oil and gas deposits. Under 26 U.S.C. 57(a)(8) (1976 ed.), the excess of the allowable depletion deduction for each of the deposit interests over the interest's "adjusted basis" is an "ite[m] of tax [506 U.S. 546, 549] preference" on which a taxpayer must pay a "minimum tax" for the tax year in question. 1 See 56(a). In determining the adjusted bases of their deposit interests, the Hills included not only the unrecovered portions of the amounts they originally paid to purchase the interests, but also the unrecovered costs of depreciable tangible items (machinery, tools, pipes, and so forth) used to exploit the deposits. Having thus reduced the amount of each item of tax preference under 57(a)(8), they calculated and paid minimum taxes on those items of $29,812 for 1981 and $26,736 for 1982.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disputed the inclusion of the tangible costs in the deposits' adjusted bases, and assessed a larger minimum tax based on their exclusion. The Hills paid the resulting respective deficiencies of $30,963 and $18,733, and filed a refund claim, which the Commissioner denied. The taxpayers then sued the United States, petitioner here, for a refund in the Claims Court, which granted summary judgment in their favor. 21 Cl.Ct. 713 (1990). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. 945 F.2d 1529 (1991). Because of the importance of the issue to the federal fisc, we granted certiorari. 503 U.S. 1004 (1992). We now reverse. [506 U.S. 546, 550]
An oil and gas producer cannot ordinarily depreciate or otherwise recover (before disposition) his investment in land on which he drills wells because the process of producing his taxable income does not wear out or use up the land. See, e.g., Treas.Reg. 1.167(a)-2 (disallowing a depreciation deduction for "land apart from the improvements or physical development added to it"). Part of the purchase price of a fee simple interest in the land, however, represents investment in the right to extract any oil and gas from subsurface deposits, which (unlike the land) are "wasting assets," gradually depleted as the minerals are removed. An owner of such wasting assets, according to basic income tax theory, should accordingly be allowed a "reasonable allowance for depletion," 26 U.S.C. 611(a) (1976 ed.), "to compensate [him] for the part exhausted in production, so that, when the minerals are gone, the owner's capital and his capital assets remain unimpaired." Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner, 380 U.S. 624, 631 (1965).
To a degree, however, practice and theory have drifted apart. The Code and associated Treasury Department regulations require taxpayers to calculate depletion allowances by whichever of two methods produces the larger deduction for the current taxable year. Treas.Reg. 1.611-1(a)(1); see also 26 U.S.C. 613(a) (1976 ed.) ("In no case shall the allowance for depletion under section 611 be less than it would be if computed without reference to this section [concerning percentage depletion]"). The first method, "cost depletion," remains firmly moored to the rationale articulated in Paragon Jewel. Under that method, the taxpayer estimates the number of recoverable units in his mineral deposit, and deducts an appropriate portion of the deposit's adjusted basis for each unit extracted and sold. See Treas. Reg. 1.611-2, 1.612-1. When the sum of prior deductions equals the cost or other basis of the deposit, plus allowable capital [506 U.S. 546, 551] additions, 2 "[n]o further deductions for cost depletion shall be allowed." Treas.Reg. 1.611-2(b)(2). The second method, "percentage depletion," has no such ties. It generously allows the taxpayer extracting minerals from a deposit to deduct a specified percentage of his gross income, even when his prior depletion deductions have exceeded his investment in the deposit. See 26 U.S.C. 613 (1976 ed. and Supp. V); Treas.Reg. 1.613-1. For the tax years at issue, percentage depletion produced the larger deduction for the Hills, and they accordingly calculated their depletion allowance according to that method.
For those tax years, however, percentage depletion's gleam is dimmed by the minimum tax. 3 Section 57(a)(8) of [506 U.S. 546, 552] the Code requires a taxpayer to calculate as a "tax preference" "[w]ith respect to each [interest in a mineral deposit], 4 the excess of the deduction for depletion allowable under section 611 for the taxable year over the adjusted basis [of the mineral deposit interest] at the end of the taxable year (determined without regard to the depletion deduction for the taxable year)." In turn, 56 of the Code requires a taxpayer to pay an extra minimum tax of 15% on the amount by which the sum of the enumerated tax preference items in 57(a) exceeds the specific deductions permitted by 56. Because the amount subject to the extra tax is reduced dollar for dollar by every outlay that can be added to the adjusted basis of the mineral deposit interest, a taxpayer would like as long a list of eligible outlays as possible.
In this case, the dispute is about the inclusion in adjusted basis of certain tangible drilling and development costs, as defined by the Treasury Regulations implementing 263(c) and 612 of the Code. Section 263(c) grants taxpayers an option to deduct against current income certain "intangible drilling and development costs." The regulations limit the costs recoverable under that option by distinguishing "intangible costs" from costs for "capital items," which the parties refer to as "tangible costs":
The taxpayers enter the race with a handicap. As we have noted, see n. 4, supra, 57(a)(8) defines the "property" with which it is concerned by reference to 614, which speaks in terms of the adjusted basis of "each separate interest owned by the taxpayer in each mineral deposit." 26 U.S.C. 614(a) (1976 ed). A regulation defines "mineral deposit" as "minerals in place," Treas.Reg. 1.611-1(d)(4), while a neighboring regulation defines another term, "mineral enterprise," to include "the mineral deposit or deposits and improvements, if any, used in mining or in the production of oil and gas," Treas.Reg. 1.611-1(d)(3) (emphasis added). Because these regulatory definitions were well-established at the time Congress passed 57(a)(8), see 25 Fed.Reg. 11796 (1960); Pub.L. 91-172 301, 83 Stat. 580, 582, we think it reasonable to assume that Congress relied on the accepted distinction between them in its reference to [506 U.S. 546, 554] "mineral deposit" as contained in 614. Thus the definitional scheme suggests strongly that the "property" we are concerned with in 57(a)(8) excludes just those improvements that the Hills wish to treat as part of the property's adjusted basis.
They assert, however, (and petitioner does not dispute) that the term "mineral enterprise" occurs in only that one operative provision in the regulations, Treas.Reg. 1.611-1(d)(4), which concerns the allocation of a portion of the cost of a mineral enterprise to a mineral deposit or deposits. On that basis, the Hills argue that the term has the limited function of "assist[ing] in identifying depletable and depreciable costs when an operating mineral property is acquired as a unit." Brief for Respondents 18, n. 21. Consistently with that view, they note, a regulation implementing 57(a)(8) directs us to "see section 1016 and the regulations thereunder . . . [f]or the determination of the adjusted basis of the property." Treas.Reg. 1.571(h)(3). The computation of adjusted basis under 26 U.S.C. 1016 (1976 ed. and Supp. V), they argue, is independent of the definition and function of "mineral enterprise" in the 611 regulations; thus, the implications of this term's definition do not extend to the calculation at issue in this case.
We agree that 1016 is the proper place to look for the rules concerning adjustment of basis, but we conclude that the computation of adjusted basis under 1016 is wholly predicated on, rather than independent of, an understanding of "mineral deposit," as distinct from "improvements," within the meaning of the regulations under 611.
Section 1016 is one of a number of general provisions that together determine the amount of gain or loss a taxpayer must recognize when he sells or otherwise disposes of any type of property. Section 1001(a) provides the basic rule: gain or loss is determined by subtracting "adjusted basis" from "amount realized." Section 1011(a) defines "adjusted basis" as "basis (determined under section 1012 [or other [506 U.S. 546, 555] parts of the Code]), adjusted as provided in section 1016." Section 1016 provides the rules for making "[a]djustments to basis."
The taxpayers, acknowledging the centrality of 1016, seize on the last phrase of a regulation addressing that section:
The Hills' chosen passage, however, cannot carry the weight they ask it to bear. The purpose of the phrase "including the cost of improvements and betterments made to the property" in Treas.Reg. 1.1016-2(a) is not to provide guidance in particular cases as to whether, for tax accounting purposes, an expense should be added to the basis of an existing "property," or treated as a separate "property" of its own. Rather, it is to ensure coordination of 1016 with 263, the Code section from which the term "improvements and betterments" (which should probably be read as a unit) is borrowed. Section 263(a)(1) provides that an expenditure may not currently be deducted from income if it is "paid out for new buildings or for permanent improvements or betterments made to increase the value of any property or [506 U.S. 546, 556] estate." 6 26 U.S.C. 263(a)(1) (1976 ed. and Supp. V). We have said that "[t]he purpose of 263 is to reflect the basic principle that a capital expenditure may not be deducted from current income. It serves to prevent a taxpayer from utilizing currently a deduction properly attributable, through amortization, to later tax years when the capital asset becomes income producing." Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1, 16 (1974). In turn, inclusion of the term "improvements and betterments" in Treas.Reg. 1.1016-2(a) ensures the fulfillment of 263's implicit promise: if a taxpayer cannot deduct an expenditure from current income because it has been deemed an "improvement or betterment" to property, he will be able to recover it later, either through a form of cost recovery such as depreciation or depletion, or upon sale as a deduction from the amount realized. 7 [506 U.S. 546, 557]
Thus, it is not by deciphering particular terms in the regulations accompanying 1016 that the question in this case is answered, but by relying on the basic principles embodied in 1016's directives. For our purposes, the most important mandate is found in 1016(a)(2), which requires a taxpayer to subtract from his original basis in the property sold or exchanged "not less than the amount allowable [for exhaustion, wear and tear, obsolescence, amortization, and depletion] under this subtitle or prior income tax laws." In other words, whether or not the taxpayer ever took a depreciation, amortization, or depletion deduction with respect to the item he is selling, he must, for purposes of 1016, determine whether such deductions were allowable with respect to that item, and reduce his basis by at least that allowable amount. 8
To follow this directive, the taxpayer must determine whether parts of the item sold are subject to different tax treatments, and must treat those parts as different properties for purposes of 1016. Thus, a taxpayer who bought an apartment building and the land it sits on for a single price must determine how much of that price went to pay for each, and must treat each cost as a separate asset for purposes [506 U.S. 546, 558] of 1016. This is so because the depreciation deduction allowable for the building (if the building is used to produce income) must, upon the sale or exchange of the property, be subtracted from the taxpayer's basis in the building whether the deduction was taken or not; but there is no subtraction from the land's basis, since no such deduction is allowable for the land. See, e.g., Treas.Reg. 1.167(a)-5 (requiring an apportionment of basis when a taxpayer has acquired "a combination of depreciable and nondepreciable property for a lump sum, as for example, buildings and land").
Although the Code and regulations allow some flexibility within such major categories of tax treatment, 9 the boundaries between the major categories are almost completely impassable. When a taxpayer is dealing with associated items falling into two different major categories, he cannot, as a general matter, choose to treat those items as a single property falling into one category or the other; a taxpayer may not, for example, decide to treat some or all of his apartment building as more land. Nor may a taxpayer choose to add "improvement" costs to the basis of whichever item he pleases: some costs, say of a new roof, must be treated as adding to the value of the depreciable building (or as separate depreciable assets), whereas other costs, like that of grading a building site, must be treated as additions to the value of the nondepreciable land. See, e.g., Rev.Rul. 74-265, 1974-1 Cum.Bull. 56 (distinguishing between depreciable and nondepreciable improvements to land).
Depletion and depreciation are two of these major categories of tax treatment. As this Court said almost a [506 U.S. 546, 559] half-century ago, "[t]h[e] distinction between depletion and depreciation runs through the basis provisions of the [Internal Revenue Code]." Choate v. Commissioner, 324 U.S. 1, 3 (1945). Thus, the Code's depreciation allowance "does not apply to natural resources which are subject to the allowance for depletion provided in section 611." Treas.Reg. 1.167(a)-2. Accordingly, 611 itself carefully appends, to its provision for "a reasonable allowance for depletion" in the case of natural deposits and timber, the qualification "and for depreciation of improvements, according to the peculiar conditions in each case." 10 26 U.S.C. 611(a) (1976 ed.); see Treas.Reg. 1.611-5(a). To implement this distinction, the regulations under 611, mentioned above, separately define "mineral deposit" as "minerals in place," Treas.Reg. 1.611-1(d)(4), and "mineral enterprise" as including "the mineral deposit or deposits and improvements," 1.611-1(d)(3). The section defining "mineral deposit" then further provides that, "[w]hen a mineral enterprise is acquired as a unit, the cost of any interest in the mineral deposit or deposits is that proportion of the total cost of the mineral enterprise which the value of the interest in the deposit or deposits bears to the value of the entire enterprise at the time of its acquisition." Treas.Reg. 1.611-1(d)(4); see also 1.611-2(g)(2)(vii) (requiring a statement to be attached to the taxpayer's return showing "[a]n allocation of the cost or value among the mineral property, improvements and the surface of the land for purposes other than mineral production"). These provisions are designed to isolate those portions of the cost of a "mineral enterprise" that are subject to recovery through depletion.
Thus, just as one generally cannot calculate an adjusted basis under 1016 by treating an apartment building as "more land," one generally cannot treat tangible tools and [506 U.S. 546, 560] equipment as "more mineral deposit." If a mineral deposit and associated equipment are sold together, 1016 requires the seller to separate them for the purpose of determining his gain or loss on the sale, just as 167 and 611 required him to keep them separate for the purpose of calculating his depreciation and depletion deductions. Since, as the Hills point out, a regulation incorporates the 1016 rule into 57(a)(8), and since the Hills have identified no exception to this rule, we infer that the Hills' tangible costs may not be included in the basis of depletable mineral deposits for purposes of calculating the amount of percentage depletion subject to the minimum tax.
Our conclusion is confirmed by the astonishing, circuitously achieved results of reading 57(a)(8) as the taxpayers urge. A regulation that the Hills do not challenge provides that, "[i]n no event shall percentage depletion in excess of cost or other basis of the property be credited to the improvements account or the depreciation reserve account." Treas.Reg. 1.6112(b)(2). The tangible costs at issue here are recorded in these accounts. Thus, under this regulation, a tangible cost is not itself adjusted for the amount of percentage depletion that, on the Hills' theory, it would shelter from the minimum tax each year. As a result, the tangible cost would shelter, over the years the taxpayer owned the capital item it represented, an amount of percentage depletion many times that of the cost itself. For example, a $21,000 capital item, subject to straight-line depreciation over 20 years with a salvage value of $1,000, would add $20,000 to the basis of the mineral deposit the first year, 11 [506 U.S. 546, 561] $19,000 the second year, and so on for 20 years. At the end of the 20th year, the item would be fully depreciated, and the taxpayer's basis in the item would then remain at $1,000, the salvage value, for as many more years as he continued to own it. Thus, over the first 20 years, the capital item would shelter $210,000, or 10 times its cost, from the minimum tax; beginning in the 21st year, it would shelter $1,000 per year for as long as it remained in the taxpayer's hands. At a minimum tax rate of 15%, a taxpayer would realize a tax benefit, from his $21,000 investment, of $31,500 over the first 20 years from 57(a)(8) alone, without regard to the additional tax benefit from ordinary depreciation of the item. It is hard to believe that Congress would enact a minimum tax to limit the benefit that taxpayers could realize from "items of tax preference," only to define one of those items in a way that would create an even greater proportional tax benefit from investing in tangible items, and to do so in an oblique fashion that, as far as we know, has no precedent in the history of the federal income tax.
The Hills contend that two Treasury Department regulations we have not yet discussed foreclose our conclusion. They point first to one of the cost depletion regulations under 612, which, but for its title and one adjective, would independently reinforce our conclusion:
The infelicity is understandable here. The calculation of percentage depletion is unconnected to the concept of basis; the annual percentage depletion deduction is not measured in relation to basis, nor are the cumulative deductions limited by basis. See 26 U.S.C. 613 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). The concepts of basis and percentage depletion meet only in the minimum tax provisions, for the purpose of calculating the item of tax preference in 57(a)(8). Since 1.612-1(h)(1) was issued long before the minimum tax was enacted, see 25 Fed.Reg. 11801 (1960); Pub.L. 91-172, 301, 83 Stat. 580, that regulation's reference to a "special rule" for "cost" depletion cannot have been intended to indicate that [506 U.S. 546, 563] some other rule applied to the calculation of basis for percentage depletion. After the minimum tax was enacted, the Treasury Department inserted a regulation about basis for percentage depletion where one would expect it: among the regulations implementing the minimum tax. That regulation, 1.57-1(h)(3), directs us to 1016, but unfortunately contains no correlative reference to the regulations under 612.
Second, the Hills argue that excluding tangible costs from the adjusted basis of their mineral deposit interests would run counter to regulations specifying the inclusion of certain intangible costs. As we have already noted, 26 U.S.C. 263(c) (1976 ed., Supp. V) grants taxpayers an option to deduct as expenses certain "intangible drilling and development costs." If a taxpayer chooses instead to capitalize those costs, the regulations require the taxpayer to sort the costs into two bins. Costs "represented by physical property" are recoverable through depreciation, either through adjustments to the bases of preexisting items to which the costs relate or through an initial entry in a new depreciation account. Treas.Reg. 1.612-4(b)(2). Costs "not represented by physical property" are recoverable through depletion, as adjustments to the bases of the mineral deposit interests to which they relate. 1.612-4(b)(1); see 1.612-4(d) (if a taxpayer fails to elect to expense intangible costs correctly, "he shall be deemed to have elected to recover such costs through depletion to the extent that they are not represented by physical property, and through depreciation to the extent that they are represented by physical property"). Since these latter costs are added to depletable basis, the taxpayers argue, so should the tangible costs that are excluded altogether from the 263(c) option. We fail to see the logic of this argument. To the extent that the regulation allowing intangible costs "not represented by physical property" to be added to a mineral deposit's basis deviates from general principles of basis allocation, we see no reason [506 U.S. 546, 564] why one deviation should force the Government, or this Court, to create another. Nor have the Hills explained why this regulation in fact represents a deviation. 12
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
[ Footnote 2 ] Allowable capital additions include intangible drilling and development costs that are not represented by physical property, such as expenditures for clearing ground, draining, road making, surveying, geological work, grading and the drilling, shooting and cleaning of wells to the extent that the taxpayer opts to capitalize these costs, rather than deducting them as expenses. Treas.Reg. 1.612-4(b)(1). For further discussion of these costs see infra, at 563-564.
[ Footnote 3 ] The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub.L 97-248, 201, 96 Stat. 411, repealed the minimum tax for noncorporate taxpayers tor tax years beginning after December 31, 1982. See 201(c)(1), 201(e)(1). At the same time, however, the Act also included items of tax preference, such as excess percentage depletion under 57(a)(8), in the calculation of a taxpayer's "alternative minimum taxable income." 201(a). While the "minimum tax" was simply added to the amount of income tax due under the normal provisions, the alternative minimum tax provision, 26 U.S.C. 55 (1982 ed.) requires the recalculation of a taxpayer's income under a different set of rules. A tax is then imposed at a graduated rate on the taxpayer's "alternative minimum taxable income;" if the amount of alternative minimum tax so calculated is greater than the income tax calculated under the ordinary provisions, the taxpayer must pay both the normal tax and the amount by which his alternative minimum tax liability exceeds his ordinary tax liability. Because items of tax preference were added to "alternative minimum taxable income," the issue in this case continued to be relevant for tax years beginning after December 31, 1982. For the subsequent history of 57(a)(8), see n. 1 supra.
[ Footnote 4 ] Section 57(a)(8) applies to "each property (as defined in section 614)." Section 614(a) defines "property," "[f]or the purpose of computing the depletion allowance in the case of mines, wells, and other natural deposits," as "each separate interest owned by the taxpayer in each mineral deposit in each separate tract or parcel of land." (The remainder of 614 provides detailed rules about when a taxpayer may, and sometimes must, combine separate interests and treat them as one "property.") Section 1.614-1(a) of the Treasury Department regulations makes the definition in 614 applicable "[f]or purposes of subtitle A of the [Internal Revenue] Code."
[ Footnote 5 ] The regulations also foreclose the option with respect to the cost of "labor fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies, etc., in connection with the operation of the wells and of other facilities on the property for the production of oil or gas." Treas.Reg. 1.612-4(c)(2). These costs must be "charged off as expense." Ibid.
[ Footnote 6 ] Section 263(a)(1) has one of the longest lineages of any provision in the Internal Revenue Code. The Revenue Act of 1864 included a provision specifying that "no deduction shall be made for any amount paid out for new buildings, permanent improvements, or betterments, made to increase the value of any property or estate." 117, 13 Stat. 282. The wording of this provision remained the same in 28 of the Revenue Act of 1894, 28 Stat. 553, and in 2(B) of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 167. The current wording of the provision was adopted in the Revenue Act of 1918. See 215(b) of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1069. The language of Treas.Reg. 1.1016-2(a) apparently originated in a passage in a House Committee Report on the Revenue Act of 1924, discussing the progenitor of 26 U.S.C. 1016. See H.R.Rep. No. 179, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 50 (1924) ("Under this provision capital charges, such as improvements and betterments . . . are to be added to the cost of the property in determining the gain or loss from its subsequent sale"). The forerunner to Treas.Reg. 1.1016-2(a) was issued that same year. See Treas.Regs. 65, Art. 581 (1924).
[ Footnote 7 ] After tracing the word "improvement" from the regulations implementing 611 through the regulations implementing 1016 to the text of 263, one might hope that 263 itself would provide some insight into whether tangible development costs should be treated as an "improvement" to the mineral deposit, or as a separate property. Two circumstances dash this hope. First, as we said above, the phrase "improvements [506 U.S. 546, 557] and betterments," as used in the 1016 regulations and in 263, should probably be read as a single term unrelated to the term "improvements" in 611 and the regulations thereunder. Second, 263 is concerned only with identifying those payments that "serv[e] to create or enhance . . . what is essentially a separate and distinct additional asset." Commissioner v. Lincoln Saving & Loan Assn., 403 U.S. 345, 354 (1971). So long as one can say that a payment must either be "creating" a separate asset or "enhancing" one that already exists, one need not, for purposes of 263, identify which of these is the case. Here, we are presented with precisely that question.
[ Footnote 8 ] The directive is phrased "not less than the amount allowable" to account for the case in which a taxpayer has erroneously deducted more than that amount in a prior year. In that case, the taxpayer must reduce the basis by the greater amount actually deducted, to the extent that it resulted "(by reason of the deductions so allowed) in a reduction for any taxable year of [his] taxes." 26 U.S.C. 1016(a)(2)(B) (1976 ed.); see 1016(a)(2)(A).
[ Footnote 9 ] For example, a taxpayer may set up a depreciation account for a new furnace separate from that of the account of the building in which it is installed; he may also, under some circumstances, set up a "composite" account which combines the cost of the building with the cost of "improvements," such as the furnace. See generally Treas.Reg. 1.167(a)-7 (describing "group," "classified," "composite," and component accounts for depreciable property).
[ Footnote 10 ] As we have noted, see n. 7, supra, the word "improvements" carries a different meaning here than it does within the term "improvements or betterments" as used in 263(a).
[ Footnote 11 ] Under 57(a)(8), percentage depletion is offset by "the adjusted basis of the [mineral deposit interest] at the end of the taxable year." (Emphasis added.) Assuming that the capital item was placed in service at the [506 U.S. 546, 561] beginning of a taxable year, by the end of the year, the taxpayer's basis in it would be reduced by the first year's depreciation. Thus, in our example, the $21,000 capital item would add $20,000 to the taxpayer's basis in the mineral deposit, for purposes of 57(a)(8), the first year it was placed in service.
[ Footnote 12 ] The taxpayers also cite Internal Revenue Service Technical Advice Memorandum 8314011 (Dec. 22, 1982), which holds that unamortized deferred development expenditures under 616 of the Code are included in the basis of a mineral deposit for purposes of 57(a)(8). As respondents acknowledge, the Code specifically provides that such memoranda "may not be used or cited as precedent." 26 U.S.C. 6110(j)(3) (1976 ed.). In any case, 616 sets up a system for the treatment of development expenditures entirely different from the system at issue here; in particular, 616(c) specifically mandates that expenses deferred under 616(b) "shall be taken into account in computing the adjusted basis of the mine or deposit." Thus, Technical Advice Memorandum 8314011 simply is not relevant to the question presented in this case.
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
I'm Steve Ember.
And I'm Barbara Klein with People in America in VOA Special English. Today we tell about Aaron Copland, one of America's best modern music composers.
Aaron Copland wrote many kinds of music. He wrote music for the orchestra, piano, and voice. He wrote music for plays, movies and dance. Copland also was a conductor, pianist, speaker, teacher and author.
Music critics say Copland taught Americans about themselves through his music. He used parts of many old traditional American folk songs in his work. He was influenced to do this after studying music in France. He said that composers there had a very French way of writing music. He said Americans had nothing like that in this country. So he decided to compose music that was truly American.
Aaron Copland was born in nineteen hundred in Brooklyn, New York. He was the youngest of five children. His parents had come to the United States from eastern Europe. They owned a store in Brooklyn. Aaron began playing the piano when he was a young child. He wrote his first song for his mother when he was eight years old. His dreams of becoming a composer began when he was young.
When he was sixteen, he urged his parents to let him study composing with Rubin Goldmark. Goldmark had taught the composer George Gershwin.
When he was in his early twenties, Copland went to Paris where he studied music with Nadia Boulanger. She was one of the most important music teachers of the time. He returned to New York in nineteen twenty-four.
The famous conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Serge Koussevitzky, learned about Copland's music. Koussevitzky led the orchestra for the first performance of Copland's early work, "Music for the Theater," in nineteen twenty-five. Koussevitzky also conducted Copland's "Concerto for Piano and Orchestra" in nineteen twenty-seven. This work was unusual because Copland used ideas from jazz music in his concerto.
Copland later wrote the music for two ballets about the American West. One was about the life of a famous gunfighter called Billy the Kid. Copland used music from American cowboy songs in this work. This piece from "Billy the Kid: Ballet Suite" is called "Street in a Frontier Town."
In nineteen forty-two, the conductor Andre Kostelanetz asked Copland to write music about a great American, Abraham Lincoln. Copland wrote "Lincoln Portrait" to honor America's sixteenth president. Copland's music included parts of American folk songs and songs popular during the American Civil War. He added words from President Lincoln's speeches and letters.
"Lincoln Portrait" has been performed many times in America. Many famous people have done the speaking part. Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of President Franklin Roosevelt, was one of them. Here, actor James Earl Jones performs in Copland's "Lincoln Portrait."
Also in nineteen forty-two, the music director of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra asked eighteen composers to write music expressing love for America. For the competition, Copland composed "Fanfare for the Common Man." This music is played in America during many national events, including some presidential inaugurations.
Experts say "Fanfare for the Common Man" was an example of Copland's change in direction during the nineteen forties. He began writing music that was more easily understood and more popular. Copland wrote about this in nineteen forty-one in his book, "Our New Music." He wrote that a whole new public for music had developed as a result of the popularity of the radio and record player. He said that there was no reason to continue writing music as if these devices did not exist. So he decided to write music in a simpler way.
Copland spread his ideas about music in other ways. He taught at the New School for Social Research in New York City and at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. One of the many awards he received was the Pulitzer Prize. He won it in nineteen forty-five for his famous music for a ballet called "Appalachian Spring." It is one of his most popular works. The last part of the ballet is based on a traditional song, "A Gift to be Simple."
Copland also wrote music for several major motion pictures. He won an Academy Award in nineteen fifty for composing the music for the film, "The Heiress." Then, he began experimenting with what is called a twelve-tone system of composing. His music no longer was as easy to understand, or as popular.
Copland stopped composing at the end of the nineteen sixties. Yet he continued to be active as a conductor and speaker. In nineteen eighty-two, Queens College of the City University of New York established the Aaron Copland School of Music.
Copland was a strong supporter of liberal ideas. In the early nineteen fifties, he and other famous writers, actors and intellectuals were accused of supporting communism. Public opinion changed, though. In nineteen sixty-four, President Lyndon Johnson presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It is America's highest award to civilians. Aaron Copland died in nineteen ninety at the age of ninety. But his music lives on.
This Special English program was written by Shelley Gollust. It was produced by Lawan Davis. I'm Steve Ember.
And I'm Barbara Klein. Join us again next week for another People in America program in VOA Special English.


text:
Lacroix! Zanini! Schiaparelli!
Oh the suspense! As rumours continue to bounce around about exactly who will be wielding the golden shears at Schiaparelli, I'm happy about the latest nugget of info: Christian Lacroix will design a one-off couture collection of 15 pieces to be unveiled at Place Vendôme in July.
Genius move!
Other than designing delicious posh stationery and working with Camilla Morton on a fairy story, I'm not really sure what Mr Lacroix has been busying himself with since his house went into administration in 2009. But I'm totally ready to see what ravishing beauty will emerge from his imagination in homage to Elsa Schiaparelli. Coincidentally (or not?), the latest name in the frame for the main Schiaparelli creative director gig is one Marco Zanini of Rochas. Zanini is another favourite of mine with an eye for the historical who also embraces modernity. I love the story Zanini told Lula magazine, that at the age of 16, he started sending letters and sketches to Lacroix who wrote back with encouraging words. How sweet is that? And how spooky!


text:
Samsung Electronics and Motorola Mobility don't infringe on an Apple patent that describes technology that prevents smartphone users from pushing two buttons at the same time on a touch screen, the lower regional court in Mannheim ruled on Friday according to a court spokesman.
Apple sued both Samsung and Google-owned Motorola Mobility over its " touch event model" patent. According to Apple, Android-based smartphones and tablets infringe on the patent, which describes a technology that makes it easier for developers to disable touch input in certain areas of a screen to avoid undesirable input.
Both iOS and Android devices are able to do this, but use slightly different approaches. Apple prevents unwanted touches by giving each "view," an element of the user interface, exclusivity. Android uses a system that is more hierarchical and doesn't only apply to one "view" but more at the same time.
The court spokesman could not go into specifics about the two cases in Mannheim, but Apple and Samsung discussed the same multitouch patent in a court in The Hague on Sept. 7. There, Apple's lawyer argued that Samsung does infringe on the patent because the technique used in Android is so similar to Apple's that it is essentially the same. Samsung's lawyer disagreed at the time and argued that Apple's technology, in fact, is better than Android's because it is less complex for developers to use.
Apple has the right to appeal the ruling, although spokesman Alan Hely declined to comment on the Mannheim verdicts or the company's plans.
Samsung spokeswoman Anne ter Braak said via email: "We welcome today's ruling, which affirms our position that our products do not infringe Apple's intellectual property."
Apple has lost lawsuits about the same patents in Europe before. It was denied an injunction on Samsung's products in the Netherlands in preliminary proceedings by the Court of The Hague last year. Apple, however, chose to continue the litigation against Samsung in the Netherlands and the Court of The Hague plans to rule in this case on Oct. 24. The Dutch judge Peter Blok has said he will read the Mannheim verdicts closely, to see if they are relevant to the Dutch case.
Apple also issued claims about the same patent against HTC in the U.K., where the court denied Apple's claims and ruled that HTC does not infringe on this multitouch patent.


text:
Scooter Design Wallpaper
Rs. 799.00 Regular price Rs. 3,899.00
Wallpapers can definitely change the whole vibe of the room. Our exclusive Scooter Design Wallpaper can make your room look chic, stylish, and elegant at the same time. The best part about the wallpapers is they can easily be changed, unlike paints. We have the highest quality of wallpapers made with durable material that does not fade off or peel away.
- High-Quality material
- Versatile designs
- Bundle of colors
- Variety of textures
Shipping also plays a major role while ordering online. So we especially care about this department. We provide-
- Safe Delivery
- Zero contact to sunlight
- Crease free


text:
Image Name: CLAAS maize shredding head
File Size:
Hi-Res (print) = 8688 x 5792 px || 144.0Mb || 63.05 x 42.03 cm (300dpi)
Low-Res (web) = 2383 x 1589 px || 10.8Mb || (96dpi)
Releases: Model - no || Property - yes
Usage Definitions are as follows: (For our full terms and conditions please click here)
- Presentations & Newsletters: Use in a presentation (eg: Powerpoint) or in a newsletter.
- Website: Websites, Apps, Social Media and Blogs (excludes advertising). Worldwide for 5 years.
- Magazine: Use in a Magazine (print and/or digital), 15,000 circulation, worldwide for 5 years (excludes advertising).
- Royalty Free: Pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions for as long as you wish.
- Where "no" Model or Propety release is shown the image can be used for Editorial Use only.
- However, if you think you need a release for your intended use, but there isn't one available for the image:
- If it is a recognisable location or trademark - You can contact the owner, agent or estate directly to see if you can secure permission.
- If you need further assistance read our FAQ or contact us before purchasing the image.


text:
Dealer / Rep LogIn
Dealers, Distributors and Factory Rep Log-In
( Note: Enter your email address along with your
password for access to your account information.)
Forgot your password? Click Here
Want to become a new dealer? Complete the dealer inquiry form here.
In order to gain access to this
section of our website, you must meet the following criteria:
You must have an account with
John Boos & Co.
You must be in good credit
standing with our company.
You must have made a purchase
sometime within the last 12 months.
You must have supplied us with
a valid e-mail address through which we can conduct business
(without a valid e-mail address we can not send you
your password).
If you fail to meet any of the
above criteria, you will not be able to advance beyond this point.


text:
The storms that blew into West Michigan about 8:00 a.m. Monday, July 11, caused at least one fatality, and left several areas with heavy property damage.
The National Weather Service, in Grand Rapids, said that their storm survey team confirmed straight line wind damage in Kentwood, Holland, and Portage. In Kentwood, there were maximum wind speeds of 85-90 mph, about the same magnitude as en EF-0 or low EF-1 tornado. The winds uprooted and snapped numerous large trees, several homes were damaged, and many power lines were brought down by fallen trees. A man was killed in Kentwood when a tree fell on the garage he was in at the time.
Cedar Springs and the surrounding area had some damage, including a tree down on 16 Mile and the White Pine Trail that brought down a power line. Power was out in several pockets across the area.