text:
Archive for June, 2010
Food Fight Your Way Through CancerPosted by: | Comments
Prevention is better than cure. There are many ways in which we can make our bodies stronger and decrease the likelihood of getting cancer. One of the most direct methods is to simply change our diet.
What goes into our body plays a very important role in equipping it to be prepared for any viruses and diseases. Always make it a daily affair to be cautious and conscience of what you eat. Studies have shown that there are certain types of food that can help fight against cancer and you should start including in your meals today! Here are some of them.
Women And Their HairPosted by: | Comments
Hair loss is normally seen as a 'guy's issue' as it is quite a common sight to see bald men or men with receding hairline. However, what many people don't realize (or rather, what many women manage to hide) is that hair loss in women is just as common. Moreover, it is more devastating for the woman when it does happen. This is because women see their hair as the main part of their beauty, it is something that most women take pride in and thus, the psychological impact of hair loss in women is much greater than in men. The good thing about hair loss in women is that it normally does not result in total hair loss unlike the male counterparts.
Pets For LifePosted by: | Comments
When you are trying to relieve some stress in your life, activities like exercising, yoga, and writing in your diary would come to your mind. However, have you ever thought about keeping a pet to reduce stress in your life? Humans indeed can offer support and comfort but one should not rule out keeping pets at home as they are also another source of social support. Added to the fact that keeping pets have will bring about certain health benefits to your life, you should definitely consider keeping one (that is IF you like having pets around AND that you have the time to raise one).
Healthy Sleep For The SoulPosted by: | Comments
Do you find yourself constantly yawning while working, having trouble concentrating with the task at hand, or even having difficulty remembering certain things? This may be a signal to show that you are sleep deprived and it's time to make some changes to your life.
An average person spends 1/3 of his life sleeping and this is estimated to be around 25 years in a life span of 75 years. The amount of sleep needed for humans differs at different stages of our life. For example, a newborn baby needs at least 18 hours of sleep per day, whereas an adult needs only 7-8 hours.
Find Your FreedomPosted by: | Comments
Better to starve free than be a fat slave.-Aesop
The quote from Aesop, the legendary Greek fables writer, rightly depicts the attitudes of most people today. It is easier to say that, especially in societies and countries which are highly affluence. Each of us yearns for our rights, our freedom to do the things that we want to. We believe that that is the right way and the only way in which we can find true happiness.
The Art Of Finding Treasures In Our LivesPosted by: | Comments
"We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures." — Thornton Wilder
If you're reading this, you may or may not have come across articles or books about this topic before. If you have, this article will not be a waste of your time. The fact is, gratitude is something that we often forget to exercise. And hence, it often becomes the root cause of unhappiness, greed, envy or even physical illnesses. All these will trap and plague us, blinding our eyes to the treasures in our lives laid before us everyday.
Break The Fast, Have A Blast!Posted by: | Comments
I'm sure many of you have heard your mum have said at one point of time to "Eat your breakfast!" And for all that its worth, her naggings held a very valid point—breakfast IS the most important meal of the day.
Glucose is the main source of energy for the brain and thus, it goes without saying that a continuous supply of glucose is needed to enhance the brain's performance which includes improving one's concentration, mental performance and memory.
Simple Tips to Help You Achieve Your GoalsPosted by: | Comments
You should always equip yourself with the appropriate tools to assist you in attaining your goals.
Just like one would need weapons, battle strategies and a whole load of soldiers to be able to engage in a war, you would need to have the right skill sets and information if you wanted to achieve your goal.
So plan out precisely what is going to be required to make your dreams come true, and that you meet these criteria and are capable of the sustained effort necessary.


text:
Long product name IBM Accessories :
Modular Elevator Link
The short editorial description of IBM Accessories
Modular Elevator Link
Short summary description IBM Accessories:
This short summary of the IBM Accessories data-sheet is auto-generated and uses the product title and the first six key specs.
IBM Accessories
Long summary description IBM Accessories:
This is an auto-generated long summary of IBM Accessories based on the first three specs of the first five spec groups.
IBM Accessories

subset: commoncrawl


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.
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 78-6029, LaRocca v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
Upon their joint trial in Federal District Court, petitioners were convicted of, inter alia, armed assault on federal officers - petitioner LaRocca as the actual triggerman and petitioner Busic as an aider and abettor and thus derivatively a principal under 18 U.S.C. 2 - in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it unlawful to assault a federal officer and which provides for enhanced punishment when the assaulter "uses" a deadly weapon. In addition, LaRocca was convicted of using, and Busic of carrying, a firearm in the commission of the armed assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924 (c), which authorizes the imposition of enhanced penalties on a defendant who "uses" ( 924 (c) (1)) or "carries" ( 924 (c) (2)) a firearm while committing a federal felony. Each petitioner's sentence included 5 years on possession of firearms and the assault charges, and 20 years for the 924 (c) violations. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that, while LaRocca's sentence could not be enhanced under both 111 and 924 (c) (1) for "using" a firearm, he could be sentenced under either at the Government's election, but that, since the 924 (c) charge against Busic alleged not that he "used" a firearm but rather that he "carried" one, his sentence was valid.
Section 924 (c) may not be applied to a defendant who uses a firearm in the course of a felony that is proscribed by a statute which itself authorizes enhancement if a dangerous weapon is used. The sentence received by such a defendant may be enhanced only under the enhancement provision in the statute defining the felony he committed. Pp. 403-411.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., joined, post, p. 412. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined, post, p. 413. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 417.
Samuel J. Reich, by appointment of the Court, 444 U.S. 820 , argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner in No. 78-6020. Gerald Goldman, by appointment of the Court, 444 U.S. 1030 , argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner in No. 78-6029.
Mark I. Levy argued the cause for the United States in both cases. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Heymann, and Deputy Solicitor General Frey.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) authorizes the imposition of enhanced penalties on a defendant who uses or carries a firearm while committing a federal felony. The question for decision in these cases is whether that section may be applied to a defendant who uses a firearm in the course of a felony that is proscribed by a statute which itself authorizes enhancement if a dangerous weapon is used. We hold that the sentence received by such a defendant may be enhanced [446 U.S. 398, 400] only under the enhancement provision in the statute defining the felony he committed and that 924 (c) does not apply in such a case.
Petitioners Anthony LaRocca, Jr., and Michael Busic were tried together on a multicount indictment charging drug, firearms, and assault offenses flowing from a narcotics conspiracy and an attempt to rob an undercover agent. The evidence showed that in May 1976 the two arranged a drug buy with an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration who was to supply $30,000 in cash. When the agent arrived with the money, LaRocca attempted to rob him at gunpoint. The agent signalled for reinforcements, and as other officers began to close in LaRocca fired several shots at them. No one was hit and the agents succeeded in disarming and arresting LaRocca. Busic was also arrested and the officers seized a gun he was carrying in his belt but had not drawn. Additional weapons were found in the pair's automobile. 1
A jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania convicted petitioners of narcotics and possession-of-firearms counts, 2 and of two counts of armed assault on federal officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111 - LaRocca as the actual triggerman and Busic as an aider and abettor, and thus derivatively a principal under 18 U.S.C. 2. In addition, LaRocca was convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a federal felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) (1), and Busic was convicted of carrying a firearm in [446 U.S. 398, 401] the commission of a federal felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) (2). 3 Each petitioner was sentenced to a total of 30 years, of which 5 resulted from concurrent sentences on the narcotics charges, 5 were a product of concurrent terms on the firearms and assault charges, and 20 were imposed for the 924 (c) violations.
The defendants appealed, contending, among other things, that they could not be sentenced consecutively for assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C. 111 4 and for the use of a firearm in connection with that crime as provided in 924 (c). 5 In an opinion announced [446 U.S. 398, 402] before Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 (1978), was decided, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that the imposition in LaRocca's case of enhanced sentences under both 924 (c) and 111 for a single assault with a firearm violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the two statutes required proof of identical elements. 587 F.2d 577, 583-584 (1978). Accordingly, LaRocca's case was remanded to the District Court for resentencing under either 111 or 924 (c), at the Government's election. Since the 924 (c) charge against Busic alleged not that he used a firearm ( 924 (c) (1)), but rather that he carried one ( 924 (c) (2), the Court of Appeals held that no like infirmity invalidated his conviction and sentence. In its view, the 111 and 924 (c) charges against him did not require proof of the same elements and hence did not merge because the former could be established merely by showing that Busic had aided and abetted LaRocca's use of a gun to assault the federal officers, while the latter required proof of the additional fact that Busic had unlawfully carried a gun. 587 F.2d, at 584.
Following this Court's decision in Simpson v. United States, supra, the Court of Appeals granted a petition for rehearing and vacated its double jeopardy holding with regard to LaRocca on grounds there was no reason to reach the constitutional question. 587 F.2d, at 587-589. Thereafter, it proceeded as a matter of statutory construction to arrive at a nearly identical conclusion - namely, that LaRocca's sentence [446 U.S. 398, 403] could not be enhanced under both 111 and 924 (c) but that he could be sentenced under either at the Government's election. The Court of Appeals did not alter its holding with regard to Busic. We granted certiorari, 442 U.S. 916 (1979), and now reverse the enhanced sentences that were imposed on both petitioners under 924 (c).
We turn first to the case of petitioner LaRocca because it poses most directly the key question of legislative intent. Our starting point, like that of the parties, is Simpson, supra. There we considered the relationship between 924 (c) and the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. 2113, which, like the assault provision at issue here, 18 U.S.C. 111, predates 924 (c) and provides by its own terms for enhanced punishment where the felony is committed with a dangerous weapon. 6 Relying upon the legislative history and applicable canons of statutory construction, Simpson held that the Congress cannot be understood to have intended that a defendant who has been convicted of robbing a bank with a firearm may be sentenced under both 924 (c) and 2113 (d). The parties to the instant cases agree that Simpson clearly prohibits the imposition on these petitioners of similarly enhanced sentences under both 924 (c) and 111. But the Government contends that Simpson resolved only the double enhancement question - that the Court's holding and opinion should not be read to find 924 (c) inapplicable where the prosecution proceeds under that provision rather than the enhancement provision of a predicate felony statute like 111. Such a reading, the Government asserts, is supported by the facts presented in Simpson, 7 the language used to describe the [446 U.S. 398, 404] actual "holding," 8 the most likely inferences that may be drawn as to what Congress would have wanted had it focussed on the precise problem, 9 and the asserted irrationality of some of the consequences that would flow from a holding that 924 (c) is inapplicable in cases like the present cases. 10
We disagree. In our view, Simpson's language and reasoning support one conclusion alone - that prosecution and enhanced sentencing under 924 (c) is simply not permissible where the predicate felony statute contains its own enhancement provision. This result is supported not only by the general principles underlying the doctrine of stare decisis - principles particularly apposite in cases of statutory construction - but also by the legislative history and relevant canons of statutory construction. The Government has not persuaded us that this result is irrational or depends upon implausible inferences as to congressional intent. And to the [446 U.S. 398, 405] extent that cases can be hypothesized in which this holding may support curious or seemingly unreasonable comparative sentences, it suffices to say that the asserted unreasonableness flows not from Simpson and this decision, but rather from the statutes as Congress wrote them. If corrective action is needed, it is the Congress that must provide it. "It is not for us to speculate, much less act, on whether Congress would have altered its stance had the specific events of this case been anticipated." TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 185 (1978).
Our reasoning has several strands. It begins, as indeed it must, with the text and legislative history of 924 (c). By its terms, that provision tells us nothing about the way Congress intended to mesh the new enhancement scheme with analogous provisions in pre-existing statutes defining federal crimes. Moreover, as Simpson noted, 435 U.S., at 13 , and n. 7, 924 (c) was offered as an amendment on the House floor by Representative Poff, 114 Cong. Rec. 22231 (1968), and passed on the same day. Id., at 22248. Accordingly, the committee reports and congressional hearings to which we normally turn for aid in these situations simply do not exist, and we are forced in consequence to search for clues to congressional intent in the sparse pages of floor debate that make up the relevant legislative history. The crucial material for present purposes is the following observation by Representative Poff:
Reliance on Representative Poff's statement of legislative intent is consistent with the position taken by the Department of Justice in 1971 when it advised prosecutors not to proceed under 924 (c) (1) if the predicate felony statute provided for "`increased penalties where a firearm is used in the commission of the offense.'" Simpson, supra, at 16, quoting 19 U.S. Attys. Bull. No. 3, p. 63 (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1971). Moreover, this view is fully consistent with two tools of statutory construction relied upon in Simpson. The first is the oft-cited rule that "`ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.'" United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971), quoting Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 (1971). And the second is the principle that a more specific statute will be given precedence over a more general one, regardless of their temporal sequence. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 -490 (1973). In Simpson, these principles counseled against double enhancement. They served as "an outgrowth of our reluctance to increase or multiply punishments absent [446 U.S. 398, 407] a clear and definite legislative directive." 435 U.S., at 15 -16. Here they play a similar role, and thus help confirm the conclusion that 924 (c) may not be applied at all in the present situation.
The Government seeks to minimize the force of these principles of statutory construction by urging (1) that there is no ambiguity in 924 (c) and thus that the rule of lenity is not properly called into play and (2) that in fact it is 924 (c) that is the more specific statute because it relates only to firearms while 111 would permit enhancement for any dangerous weapon. We find each contention flawed. As to the first, the claim that there exists no ambiguity does not stand up. Plainly the text of the statute fails to address the issue pertinent to decision of these cases - whether Congress intended (1) to provide for enhanced penalties only for crimes not containing their own enhancement provisions, (2) to provide an alternative enhancement provision applicable to all felonies, or (3) to provide a duplicative enhancement provision which would permit double enhancement where the underlying felony was proscribed by a statute like 111. Our task here, as in Simpson, is to ascertain as best we can which approach Congress had in mind. The rule of lenity, like reference to appropriate legislative materials, is one of the tools we use to do so.
The Government's second contention - that 924 (c) rather than 111 should be viewed as the more specific statute - is both facially unpersuasive 12 and likely to lead to curious consequences. Indeed, were the Government correct we would be forced to conclude that with regard to firearms cases 924 (c) impliedly repealed all pre-existing enhancement provisions. Yet there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is what Congress intended. Moreover, such a result [446 U.S. 398, 408] would be inconsistent with Simpson 13 and in any event would not give the Government what it wants because it would not permit the prosecutor to choose between 924 (c) and 111.
In addition to contesting the rule of lenity and specific-versus-general arguments, the Government contends that our reading of the legislative materials is unreasonable because those who supported the Poff amendment - including Representative Poff himself - were clearly committed to meting out stiff penalties for use of a firearm in the course of a felony and would not have followed any course inconsistent with that commitment. The argument is overdrawn. In the first place, we do not think our construction is inconsistent with a congressional desire to deal severely with firearm abuses. As we understand it, the Government's argument is not that our construction reads Congress to have diminished the penalty for firearm use, but only that our construction fails to enhance that penalty to the hilt. Yet it is patently clear that Congress too has failed to enhance that penalty to the hilt - it set maximum sentences as well as a variety of other limits on the available punishment. Thus, while Congress had a general desire to deter firearm abuses, that desire was not unbounded. Our task here is to locate one of the boundaries, and the inquiry is not advanced by the assertion that Congress wanted no boundaries.
More specifically, some accommodation between 924 (c) and statutes like 111 is obviously necessary. And since some pre-existing statutes provided for sentences less severe than 924 (c) and others for penalties more severe, 14 any rule [446 U.S. 398, 409] of priority would lead in certain circumstances to a punishment less severe than might have been achieved under another rule of priority. The Government in effect argues that had Representative Poff and his colleagues foreseen this problem they would have eschewed any priority rule and instead rested complete discretion in the prosecutor. We do not dispute that a rule permitting prosecutors freedom of choice might give greater effect to a legislative desire to increase the penalties for firearm use, but the same could be said of any number of constructions of the statute, including the one rejected in Simpson. Indeed, by rejecting double enhancement Simpson exposes the stark and unidimensional quality of any calculus which attempts to construe the statute on the basis of an assumption that in enacting 924 (c) Congress' sole objective was to increase the penalties for firearm use to the maximum extent possible.
The fact that the enhanced sentences authorized in some predicate felony statutes are greater than those set forth in 924 (c) while those in others are less provides a partial response to the Government's contention that our construction would lead to irrational sentencing patterns in which some less severe crimes are punished more than other more severe ones. 15 The fact is that any interpretation might have led [446 U.S. 398, 410] to differences in treatment that are not intuitively reasonable. In consequence, the presence of differences here fails to shake our confidence in our construction. More broadly, it is simply not for this Court to substitute its accommodation between old and new enhancement provisions for the one apparently chosen by Congress. On the contrary, "in our constitutional system the commitment to the separation of powers is too fundamental for us to pre-empt congressional action by judicially decreeing what accords with `common sense and the public weal.'" TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S., at 195 .
What we have said thus far disposes of LaRocca's case by making it clear that he may not be sentenced under 924 (c) for using his gun to assault the federal officers. This holding also applies in Busic's case. But in that case the Government has a fallback position. Even if a person who uses a gun to violate 111 may not be sentenced for doing so under 924 (c) (1), the argument goes, a person who carries a gun in the commission of a 111 violation may be sentenced under 924 (c) (2) because the enhancement provision of 111 does not apply to those who carry but do not use their weapons. Thus, the Government urges, whatever our holding with regard to LaRocca, Busic may be sentenced under 924 (c) (2) for carrying his gun while committing the crime of aiding and abetting LaRocca's violation of 111.
The central flaw in this argument as applied here is that Busic is being punished for using a weapon. Through the combination of 111 and 18 U.S.C. 2, he was found guilty as a principal of using a firearm to assault the undercover agents. 16 LaRocca's gun, in other words, became Busic's as [446 U.S. 398, 411] a matter of law. And the Government's argument thus amounts to the contention that had Busic shot one gun at the officers and carried another in his belt he could have been punished under 111 for the one he fired and under 924 (c) (2) for the one he did not fire. Similarly, this argument would suggest, Busic might be punished for carrying a gun in his belt and also for shooting that same gun. Yet such results are wholly implausible. They would stand both Simpson and our holding in Part II, supra, on their heads, impute to Congress the unlikely intention to punish each weapon as a separate offense, and create a situation in which aiders and abettors would often be more culpable and more severely punished than those whom they aid and abet. 17 We decline to read the statutes to produce such an ungainly result. It seems to us that our holding of Part II is equally applicable here - Busic's vicarious assault and use of a dangerous weapon are subject to prosecution and punishment under 111 and he has been duly prosecuted and punished pursuant to that provision. In such a case, Simpson, the legislative history, and applicable canons of statutory construction make it clear that neither subsection of 924 (c) is available. 18 [446 U.S. 398, 412]
These cases are reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 19
[ Footnote 2 ] The five narcotics counts alleged violations of 21 U.S.C. 841 (a) (1), 843 (b), and 846. The firearms counts involving both petitioners charged violations of 26 U.S.C. 5861 (c), 5861 (d), and 5871, and 18 U.S.C. 922 (h) and 924 (a). LaRocca was named in six of these counts and Busic in five. In addition, Busic was convicted on three counts of unlawful firearms possession in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. 1202 (a) (1). The indictment is reproduced at App. 5-15.
[ Footnote 3 ] The 924 (c) counts on which the two were convicted recited as predicate felonies both the narcotics violations and the assaults on federal officers. In the courts below the Government attempted to support the 924 (c) convictions in part by arguing that whatever their validity when superimposed on the assault charges, they could validly be grounded on the drug counts. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention, concluding that the jury might have found the drug conspiracy to have come to an end before the robbery and assault. 587 F.2d, at 584, n. 5, and 588, n. 3. The Government does not press this argument in this Court, and we accordingly treat the cases as though the 924 (c) charges recited only the assaults on federal officers as predicate felonies.
[ Footnote 4 ] Title 18 U.S.C. 111 provides as follows:
[ Footnote 5 ] Title 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) provides:
[ Footnote 6 ] For present purposes, 2113 and 111 are fully analogous. Therefore, what Simpson held of the relationship between 924 (c) and the one applies to that section's relationship with the other as well.
[ Footnote 7 ] Petitioners in Simpson had been sentenced under both enhancement provisions. 435 U.S., at 9 .
[ Footnote 8 ] Simpson's final paragraph stated in part: "Accordingly, we hold that in a prosecution growing out of a single transaction of bank robbery with firearms, a defendant may not be sentenced under both 2113 (d) and 924 (c)." Id., at 16.
[ Footnote 9 ] Section 924 (c) was enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the wake of the assassinations of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. It clearly was an attempt to take major steps to prevent firearm abuses. Thus, it is argued, it is unlikely that Congress would have wanted the severe penalties of 924 (c) to be pre-empted by less stringent penalties provided in pre-existing enhancement provisions.
[ Footnote 10 ] For example, the Government notes that under such a holding a person who breaks into a Post Office in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2115, which contains no enhancement provision, could receive an extra 10 years under 924 (c) for using a gun to shoot the lock off. In contrast, the sentence of a person who draws a gun and fires a number of shots while robbing a bank could not be enhanced under that provision because the bank robbery statute's enhancement clause would take precedence. That clause, 2113 (d), permits a sentence of up to 25 years, but even if he had not used a weapon this person could have received 20 years under 2113 (a). Accordingly, the incremental penalty the bank robber can receive for using the firearm is only 5 years as opposed to 10 for the Post Office robber.
[ Footnote 11 ] This interpretation receives additional support from the fact that the Conference Committee chose the Poff version over a Senate proposal which, according to its sponsor, 114 Cong. Rec. 27142 (1968), would have permitted enhancement for the use of a firearm even where the predicate offense contained its own enhancement clause. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1956, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 31-32 (1968). We recognize, as the Government points out, that the Senate version differed in other respects as well; but insofar as it points in any direction this chain of events supports reliance on the Poff statement.
[ Footnote 12 ] Indeed, 924 (c) is itself fairly broad. It refers to "firearms," a term defined in 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (3) and (4) to include bombs, grenades, rockets, mines, and similar devices in addition to guns.
[ Footnote 13 ] The disposition in Simpson was to remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court. On remand, the Court of Appeals vacated the 924 (c) sentences and approved and affirmed those under 2113 (d) - a disposition that would have been improper were the Government correct in its specificity argument.
[ Footnote 14 ] Section 924 (c) provides for maximum incremental penalties for use of a firearm of 10 years for a first offender and 25 years for a second offender. Under 2113, the incremental penalty available for use of a dangerous weapon in the course of an otherwise forceful bank robbery is 5 [446 U.S. 398, 409] years (25 years under 2113 (d) less 20 years under 2113 (a)), while the incremental penalty for using a weapon in the course of an otherwise nonviolent robbery is 15 years (25 years less 10 years under 2113 (b) if the goods taken are worth more than $100 and 24 years (25 years less 1 year) if the goods taken are worth less. And under 18 U.S.C. 2114, another statute referred to by Representative Poff, the incremental cost to the defendant of using a gun to assault a person having custody of the mail or property of the United States is 15 years. Thus, a ruling making 924 (c) pre-emptive would increase some incremental penalties while actually decreasing others. In contrast, the Poff rule merely leaves these penalties where they were set by Congress in the first place - it makes no existing firearm penalty smaller or larger.
[ Footnote 15 ] One of the Government's examples is described in n. 10, supra. The unlikeliness of the hypothetical and the fact that it compares only [446 U.S. 398, 410] incremental and not total penalties suggest that the possibility of genuinely troubling comparative sentences may be exaggerated.
[ Footnote 16 ] Title 18 U.S.C. 2 provides in relevant part that "[w]hoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."
[ Footnote 17 ] On these facts, for example, the Government's view would permit Busic - the aider and abettor - to be sentenced under both 924 (c) and 111 - while LaRocca - the triggerman - could be sentenced only under the latter. That this is so is a product not of our holding in Part II, but of the Government's theory itself. This is quite clear if one assumes for purposes of argument that LaRocca could have been punished under 924 (c) (1) for using his gun. Were that the case, Busic, too would have been guilty of that crime as an aider and abettor. And the Government's argument here would lead to the conclusion that he could also be guilty of violating 924 (c) (2) by carrying his own gun. In short, while he neither shot nor drew his gun, he would have been subject to fully twice the penalties that would have faced his more culpable comrade.
[ Footnote 18 ] Our result with regard to Busic flows as much from the logic and language of 18 U.S.C. 2 as from anything peculiar to 924 (c). Section 2 makes Busic punishable "as a principal," and those words mean [446 U.S. 398, 412] what they say. One consequence is that aiders and abettors may be held vicariously liable "regardless of the fact that they may be incapable of committing the specific violation which they are charged to have aided and abetted." S. Rep. No. 1020, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1951). Another is that there will inevitably exist cases in which a decision to treat an aider and abettor as a principal may be inconsistent with prosecuting and punishing him as well for some of his individual acts of aiding and abetting. Phrased differently, once he has been treated as a principal some of his lesser acts in furtherance of the central violation may merge into it. On these facts, 2 appears to require that we treat Busic as though he used LaRocca's gun to commit this assault. It would be incongruous to treat him at the same time as a separate individual punishable as though he had carried a different gun in the course of a different crime.
[ Footnote 19 ] The Government makes a conditional plea that should we find 924 (c) to be inapplicable to these petitioners we vacate not only the 924 (c) sentences, but also those imposed by the District Court under 111. This, the Government urges, would permit that court to resentence petitioners under the enhancement provision of the latter statute. The argument is that the District Court intended to deal severely with the assaults in question and should not be prevented from doing so by its choice of the incorrect enhancement provision. The Court of Appeals has not considered this contention in this context and we are reluctant to do so without the benefit of that court's views. Accordingly, we express no opinion as to whether in the particular circumstances of these cases such a disposition would be permissible.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion, holding that the decision in Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 (1978), leads to the conclusion that 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) is inapplicable where a defendant is charged with committing a substantive federal offense violative of a statute that already provides for enhanced punishment for the use of a firearm. [446 U.S. 398, 413]
It should be made clear, however, that the Court of Appeals' initial opinion in these cases, discussed by the Court, ante, at 401-402, reflects the confusion that has existed among lower courts about the meaning of this Court's recent pronouncements respecting the multiple punishments aspect of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 697 -698 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment). The Court of Appeals there rejected the view that Congress did not intend the enhancement provisions of 924 (c) to apply when the substantive offense charged was 18 U.S.C. 111. See 587 F.2d 577, 581-582, and n. 3. The decision in Simpson, of course, revealed the error of that holding. But the Court of Appeals went on to hold that regardless of Congress' intent to provide for enhanced punishment in this context, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevented it from doing so, at least in certain cases. See id., at 582-584. I do not subscribe to that view, and write separately only to state, once again, that it is my belief that when defendants are sentenced in a single proceeding, "the question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishments the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed." Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S., at 698 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment).
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEVENS joins, dissenting.
Under 18 U.S.C. 924 (c), "[w]hoever - (1) uses a firearm to commit any [federal] felony . . ., or (2) carries a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any [federal] felony," is subject to a term of imprisonment in addition to that provided for the felony in question. In Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 , which involved both 924 (c) (1) and a felony proscribed by a statute that itself authorizes an enhanced penalty if a dangerous weapon is used, the Court held that Congress did not intend to authorize the imposition [446 U.S. 398, 414] of enhanced punishments for a single criminal transaction under both 924 (c) (1) and the enhancement provision for the predicate felony. The Court today concludes that Congress not only did not intend to authorize the imposition of double enhancement, but also did not intend 924 (c) (1) to apply at all to a felony proscribed by a statute with its own enhancement provision. I disagree. It is my view that 924 (c) (1) was intended to apply to all federal felonies, though subject to the limitation in Simpson against double enhancement.
Congress enacted 924 (c) as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213. That legislation, enacted the year in which both Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., were assassinated, was addressed largely to the "increasing rate of crime and lawlessness and the growing use of firearms in violent crime." H. R. Rep. No. 1577, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1968). A primary objective of 924 (c), as explained by its sponsor, Representative Poff, was to "persuade the man who is tempted to commit a Federal felony to leave his gun at home." 114 Cong. Rec. 22231 (1968). Towards that end, 924 (c) provides for a prison term, in addition to that provided for the underlying felony, of not less than 1 year nor more than 10 in the case of a first offender, and of not less than 2 years nor more than 25 in the case of a second or subsequent offender. It further provides that a sentence imposed under 924 (c) is not to run concurrently with the sentence for the predicate felony and that, in cases of repeat offenders, the defendant cannot receive probation or a suspended sentence.
Before the enactment of 924 (c), earlier Congresses had already authorized enhanced penalties for using a dangerous weapon in the commission of certain especially serious federal felonies, including assault on a federal officer, 18 U.S.C. 111, and bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a), (d). Those enhancement provisions authorize terms of imprisonment of [446 U.S. 398, 415] (1) not more than an additional seven years under 111, and (2) not more than an additional five years under 2113 (a), (d). Neither provision requires a mandatory minimum additional sentence or authorizes increased additional sentences for recidivists.
In Simpson, the Court held that Congress did not intend the imposition of enhanced punishments under both 924 (c) (1) and the enhancement provision for a predicate felony. That conclusion found substantial support in the statement of Representative Poff on the House floor that "[f]or the sake of legislative history, it should be noted that my [bill] is not intended to apply to title 18, sections 111, 112, or 113 which already define the penalties for the use of a firearm in assaulting officials, with sections 2113 or 2114 concerning armed robberies of the mail or banks, with section 2231 concerning armed assaults upon process servers or with chapter 44 which defines other firearm felonies." 114 Cong., Rec. 22232 (1968).
The issue here is not that of double punishment, but instead whether the Government may obtain enhancement of punishment under 924 (c) (1), rather than under the enhancement provision for the predicate felony. The Court today concludes that Congress did not intend 924 (c) (1) to apply at all to a predicate felony proscribed by a statute with its own enhancement provision. It is thus the Court's view that the Government may obtain an enhanced sentence only under the enhancement provision for the underlying felony itself.
Although this conclusion finds support in certain passages in Simpson and in the literal terms of Representative Poff's statement on the House floor, it is not supported by the actual holding in Simpson, the language of the statute itself, or a fair appraisal of the intent of Congress in enacting 924 (c). In Simpson, the Court decided only that "in a prosecution growing out of a single transaction of bank robbery with firearms, a defendant may not be sentenced [to enhanced punishments] under both 2113 (d) and 924 (c)." 435 U.S., at 16 (emphasis [446 U.S. 398, 416] added). The Court did not decide whether 924 (c) (1) is available as an alternative enhancement provision. On this latter question, the statutory language is unambiguous, for 924 (c) (1) provides, by its terms, for an enhanced penalty for "[w]hoever . . . uses a firearm to commit any [federal] felony." (Emphasis added.)
To be sure, Representative Poff stated that his bill"[was] not intended to apply" to certain felonies proscribed by statutes that contain their own enhancement provisions. But that statement could as easily have been directed to the question in Simpson - whether 924 (c) (1) can be invoked in addition to a previously enacted enhancement provision - as to the question in this case - whether 924 (c) (1) can be invoked in lieu of such a provision.
I agree with the holding in Simpson that Congress did not intend to "pyramid" punishments for the use of a firearm in a single criminal transaction. Yet I find quite implausible the proposition that Congress, in enacting 924 (c) (1), did not intend this general enhancement provision - with its stiff sanctions for first offenders and even stiffer sanctions for recidivists - to serve as an alternative source of enhanced punishment for those who commit felonies, such as bank robbery and assaulting a federal officer, that had been previously singled out by Congress as warranting special enhancement, but for which a lesser enhancement sanction than that imposed by 924 (c) had been authorized. In the light of the expressed concerns of Congress in enacting the Gun Control Act of 1968 in general and 924 (c) (1) in particular, it is far more reasonable to conclude that Congress intended 924 (c) (1) to mean precisely what it says, namely, that it applies to any federal felony.
It is my view, in sum, that 924 (c) (1) applies to all federal felonies, though subject to the limitation in Simpson against double punishment. Under this reading of the statute, the Government may obtain an enhanced sentence under either [446 U.S. 398, 417] 924 (c) (1) or the enhancement provision for the predicate felony, but not under both.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent. *
[ Footnote * ] I do not agree with the Court of Appeals that Busic could be given enhanced punishments both for aiding and abetting LaRocca's armed assault on a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 111, and for unlawfully carrying his own gun while doing so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) (2). Since Busic was convicted of armed assault "as a principal" under the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. 2, he must be viewed as having used LaRocca's gun as well as carried his own in the course of committing the offense; and, like the Court, ante, at 410-411, I am unpersuaded that 924 (c) authorizes cumulative punishments for the use of one gun and the unlawful carrying of another in a single criminal transaction. It is my view, therefore, that Busic could have been given an enhanced sentence under either 924 (c) (2) or 2, 111, but not under both.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
I dissented from this Court's decision in Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 (1978), and continue to believe that case was wrongly decided. Now, as then, I am quite amazed at this Court's ability to say that 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) "tells us nothing about the way Congress intended to mesh the new enhancement scheme with analogous provisions in pre-existing statutes defining federal crimes," ante, at 405, even though that section provides quite clearly that the use of a firearm in the commission of "any felony" shall be punished by up to 10 years' imprisonment "in addition to the punishment provided for the commission of such felony. . . ." Nor do I find any more persuasive the Court's rehash of the legislative history of 924 (c), including Simpson's unwarranted reliance upon the remark of Representative Poff, a remark that the Court today labels "the Poff rule", see ante, at 409, n. 14, and that might more properly be labeled "the Poff amendment" (albeit not intended as such by its proponent).
Were Simpson demonstrably a case of statutory construction, I could acquiesce to the Court's reading of 924 (c) in [446 U.S. 398, 418] the interest of stare decisis. Simpson, however, was based to an unstated degree on this Court's assumption that 924 (c) raised "the prospect of double jeopardy" because it provided for additional punishment on "precisely the same factual showing" as would be necessary for conviction of the underlying felony involved in that case. See 435 U.S., at 11 . In Simpson the Court treated the question of the constitutionality of 924 (c) as if it were separate from the question whether Congress intended to allow cumulative punishment, insisting at one point that "[b]efore an examination is made to determine whether cumulative punishments for the two offenses are constitutionally permissible, it is necessary . . . to determine whether Congress intended to subject the defendant to multiple penalties for the single criminal transaction in which he engaged." 435 U.S., at 11 -12. In dissent, I noted the constitutional undercurrents of the Court's opinion and suggested its concerns were "gauzy" and "metaphysic[al]." Id., at 18.
Recently, this Court unanimously rejected Simpson's constitutional premise. In Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), six Members of this Court held that Congress' intent to impose cumulative punishments at a single criminal proceeding completely controlled the question of double jeopardy. See id., at 688-689; id., at 697-698 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment). See also ante, at 413, (BLACKMUN, J., concurring). Three other Members of this Court, including myself, argued that the permissibility of cumulative punishments in the same criminal proceeding presented no double jeopardy question whatsoever. See Whalen v. United States, supra, at 696 (WHITE, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); at 701-707 (REHNQUIST, J., joined by BURGER, C. J., dissenting). I believe that this Court, having thus disposed of Simpson's constitutional underpinnings, should reconsider its holding that 924 (c) does not, in fact, apply to "any felony." [446 U.S. 398, 419]
I know of no cases besides Simpson and the present decision where this Court has taken a criminal statute absolutely clear on its face, has looked to the legislative history to create an "ambiguity," and then has resolved that ambiguity in a manner totally at odds with the statute's plain wording. Because I believe Simpson was wrongly decided, and because this Court has now repudiated Simpson's constitutional premise, I would overrule Simpson, vacate the judgments below, and remand for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. [446 U.S. 398, 420]
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:
7 Loans You Should Never Cosign
Here's why you need to think twice before signing on the dotted line
Jordan and Diane/Photonica/Getty Images
Private student loans
En español | Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York show a shocking trend: Americans 60 and older are now the fastest-growing owers of college debt. Student loan debt for this group has skyrocketed to $43 billion, more than fivefold since 2005, mainly because parents are cosigning for their children's college loans. Private student loans are the worst. They have higher interest rates and, unlike federal student loans, there are no provisions for forgiveness. Neither private nor federal student loans can be written off in bankruptcy court, so the debt absolutely must be repaid. Some seniors are paying student loans with their Social Security checks. Others are forced to cut expenses or live with their kids in old age.1 of 8
Cultura RF/Getty Images
Most mortgages in the United States are 30-year financial obligations. Even though the average homeowner sells or refinances a mortgage every seven years, a mortgage is still a long economic commitment. Cosigning for someone else's home can be a risky economic move. Imagine how lousy it would be if you worked hard to pay off your own home but had to repay someone else's house note because that person couldn't pay it and you'd cosigned the mortgage.2 of 8
Cristian Baitg/Photographer's Choice/Getty Images
Business loans
Everyone knows it's tough to get a bank loan these days. And that's especially true for current and would-be small-business owners seeking capital. So if your son, daughter or another relative comes asking you to cosign a loan to help launch, continue or grow a business, you might be inclined to help. But business loans often require a personal guarantee and some lenders even require real estate as collateral. Thus, cosigning a business loan may not just put you on the hook for repayment, it could also mean you're putting your home at risk if that business loan goes sour.3 of 8
Blend Images/Getty Images
Car loans
In 2012, six out of 10 car buyers who purchased new vehicles took out loans to do so, according to research firm J.D. Power. New-vehicle loans are getting longer than ever, with terms of five years or more for a record 32 percent of retail sales. J.D. Power says the average monthly car loan payment for a new car in 2012 was $462, and the average price of a new automobile has risen to $32,384. What all these statistics show is that a car is one of the most expensive items that many Americans will ever finance. Don't take the risk of having to pay for someone else's.4 of 8
Peter Chigmaroff/Wave/Corbis
Construction loans
A construction loan is taken out to finance the building of some kind of structure. It could be a home, vacation property, business or office, even an entire shopping center. Construction loans have a variety of risks, including cost overruns, project delays, contractor issues and difficulties securing required permits. So these projects are notorious for having unforeseen expenses and unanticipated problems. Cosigning construction loans risks putting your credit and finances on the line for a project that could spiral out of control — or at least wind up being far more complicated or different than what you and the coborrower initially planned.5 of 8
Matthieu Spohn/PhotoAlto/Corbis
Balloon loans
By definition, balloon loans don't fully amortize over time. When a borrower makes monthly payments, he or she is mainly paying interest on the loan. The entire remaining principal balance is due in full at the end of the loan term. But other things may also trigger the "pay right now" provision, such as a missed payment, a change in the borrower's financial standing or even a change in interest rates. The coborrower would have to pay — or you, if you cosigned the loan. Balloon loans are typically used in commercial real estate transactions, as opposed to residential housing deals. While most people get into balloon loans thinking they'll sell or refinance before the end date, that's not always possible. People with balloon loans, as well as cosigners, need to be aware of refinancing risk and the possibility that a balloon loan could reset at a much higher interest rate.6 of 8
Flickr RF/Getty Images
Payday loans
Payday loans are another obligation you should never cosign. For starters, you would technically be the only person on the hook to repay this debt — not the person you're trying to help. That's because payday lenders make loans to one individual at a time. So as long as you have a bank account and a paycheck (or a Social Security check or other regular benefits), it's relatively easy to get a payday loan. Payday loans can carry annualized interest rates of 400 percent or more. If your family member or friend doesn't repay on time, a payday lender can instantly tap into your checking account, snatching away funds you likely need to pay other bills.7 of 8
8 of 8


text:
Lead screw nut
The figure is for illustration only, measurements are not taken into account.
Standard pin cannot be changed.
Machining: all machined edges are broken/deburred.
The graphic is used to illustrate the position and direction of the configuration elements and is not to scale. In the figure, the mounting surface of the shaft end support is always at the bottom, the carriage has an offset upwards.
Display without accessories
Please send us your questions or suggestions for improvement.We are constantly striving to improve our offer.
The data you have entered will be automatically transferred. If you have any further remarks, please use the "Comments" field.
* Required fields


text:
Department 56 Heritage Village Disney Parks Series "Disney Parks Family" 5354-6 EUC w/Box
We have over 1,000 items from Department 56, most from multiple retired series. Please check back often. If the item contains lights or other electronics, they will be tested before listing. Many of our listings are new and never used or in EUC and that will be specified in the listing.


text:
Cloverfield writer Drew Goddard gives a sequel update. The costume designer for The Dark Knight Rises talks about the looks of Bane and Batman. Prepare yourself for another Journey movie. Plus Doctor Who is definitely headed abroad again!
Spoilers from here on out!
Top image from The Dark Knight Rises.
The Avengers
Director Joss Whedon explains what makes Mark Ruffalo's version of the Hulk different, starting with what he and Ruffalo tried to get right about the character in this movie:
So much. A Bruce Banner who's not obsessed with his own problems. A Hulk who not only feels flesh and blood, but is clearly an extension of Banner himself and not just a CGI thing that roars. A Hulk who feels dangerous, who might actually hurt someone we care about, who belongs in a classic horror film. And much more. He's the hardest character by far, and ended up being the most fun."
What does Mark Ruffalo bring to the role of Bruce Banner?
Mark is such a delightful mensch it's stupid. His Banner is a bunch of contradictions: graceful and awkward, meek and confident, erudite and working class, funny and sad. And contradictions are what the Banner/Hulk dynamic are all about. Also, Mark kinda looks like the Hulk. So we got to build our Hulk from him."
Here are some trading cards listing the various characters' strengths and weaknesses. If I understand the premise of these cards correctly, it would seem that highly trained S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Coulson and Maria Hill are roughly on par in a fight with an aging physicist. No matter how smart Dr. Selvig is, and nothing against Stellan Skarsgård, but that seems like just a bit of a stretch. [Comic Book Movie]
The Dark Knight Rises
Costume designer Lindy Hemming discussed the look of Bane:
"Bane was meant to look like a cross between a dictator and a revolutionary. I designed the coat myself - it took a year. We took inspiration from a Swedish army jacket and a French Revolution frock coat and amalgamated the two. It was a pain to have made, because in LA shearling is not their sort of thing: there weren't the tailors who could work with the fabric."
She also discussed Bruce Wayne's suits — both of them:
"Christian Bale was in Armani in the last film and I used Armani again for character reasons. Bruce Wayne is himself playing a part: that of a wealthy man who owns an enormous company and so a luxury brand like Armani seemed the right choice. There's very few changes [to the Batsuit]. The only modifications are to do with the story. But I can't tell you what they are..."
Sony Pictures has reportedly signed on to help MGM distribute Jose Padilha's remake, which recently cast Joel Kinnaman in the starring role. [Deadline]
John Carter
Lynn Collins discusses the particular challenges of playing Martian princess Dejah Thoris:
"Honestly, I'll tell you, just before the take - it was the first take and my first scene - I was like, 'Holy shit, I don't know what I'm going to do!' I just had this moment where I said, 'Universe, higher self, whatever you are, channel through me this archetypal woman.' That's what I drew on. I wouldn't dare to say I know enough to know exactly what the movie needed from her, nor what the world needs from a character like this, so I was like, 'Do it for me!'
"It was [director] Andrew [Stanton] who was like, make her a stronger woman, and then we made her too strong and we had to go back and open up some of the vulnerabilities and accessibility. It's tricky! Being a strong, intelligent woman, it's tricky because sometimes people don't like that and you have to temper it to different ways. Hopefully there's so many of these role models coming in of women of strength that we don't have to deal with this crap forever."
There's more at the link. [Spinoff Online]
Transformers 4
We probably won't know for a little while yet who the stars of Michael Bay's next Transformers movie will be, but we do know the identity at least one cast member, if only vaguely. A walk-on part in the next film was recently auctioned off for charity, and winning bidders Sandy and Fred Studley say they will likely be giving the part to their teenage granddaughter. [TFLAMB]
Journey 3
Journey 2: The Mysterious Island director Brad Peyton and writers Brian and Mark Gunn have signed on to make their next family friendly homage — and believe me, I have never used a term more loosely than I did right there — to the works of Jules Verne. Peyton had this to say on the matter:
"I grew up a fan of Verne, so I know a lot about the mythologies. Mysterious Island was one of eight or nine really seminal works. I know we've just scratched the surface of what we can do. This one's going to be a lot bigger. We're going to go to a completely different world. It's just going to be a bigger experience, and we're going to grow the mythology. Journey 2 was about rebooting a franchise; now it's about making the seminal work in the franchise."
I'm going to go ahead and hope the next movie will involve shooting The Rock out of a giant cannon all the way to the Moon. Just because, you know, that would be amazing. [Heat Vision]
Cloverfield 2
Cloverfield writer Drew Goddard discusses where plans for the sequel stand with director Matt Reeves and producer J.J. Abrams:
"I'm in, I'm ready to do it. Someone call J.J. and tell him to get moving, but because Matt and J.J. and I have been fortunate enough to be busy, it's hard syncing our schedules up. We're all very passionate about returning to that world. If you asked each of us what we wanted to do, you'll get three different answers, which is how the first film was. The aesthetic of Cloverfield benefits from that. Three voices pulling it. Look, nothing would make me happier than to get the three of us in the room to get started. But you've got this Star Trek thing..."
Dark Shadows
Here's a promo image of Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman. The photo was released with this accompanying photo:
"Quentin, this house is a house of lies. The only way to bring these people back to the truth is to smile and lie as much as they do."
Men in Black 3
Here's the first batch of promo photos. [SpoilerTV]
IMAX and Disney have announced that the movie will be digitally remastered for IMAX 3D. [ShockTillYouDrop]
Doctor Who
The casting directory Spotlight has revealed that Adrian Scarborough, whose previous credits include Gavin & Stacey and Upstairs Downstairs, has been cast as a character named Kahler Jex in one of the episodes directed by Saul Metzstein. The site also reveals which character will be played by Mark Williams, best known as Arthur Weasley in the Harry Potter movies. The character's name is Brian Williams, which means he's most likely either playing the NBC newscaster or Rory's dad, as has been rumored. Pretty much a coin flip on that one. [Blogtor Who]
Stars Matt Smith, Karen Gillan, and Arthur Darvill were all spotted flying out to Madrid, confirming the recent rumors of filming in Spain. There reportedly will be more information on this in the upcoming issue of Doctor Who Magazine. [Doctor Who News Page]
The Walking Dead
Here's a new promo.
Here are two promo photos from this Sunday's episode, "Better Angels." [Multiple Verses]
Executive producer Gale Anne Hurd offers some more thoughts on how Dale's death will affect Carl's development:
"The opportunity we have with Carl's character," Hurd told us, "is to see what it's like with someone growing up in which this is the new normal. You can't get too attached, but you don't want to lose your humanity at the same time. As a child you don't know the difference, but as the parents you do, and that's why I think Rick is who he is and does what he does in many instances because he is always trying to think, 'What kind of example am I setting for Carl?'"
Hurd also said the next two episodes will be way more shocking than anything before, claiming that when mixing the episodes "even my jaw dropped-and I was there when we shot it." [E! Online]
Here are some spoilers for this Sunday's episode:
- There are some gnarly kills made using a *i****o*k
- Lori has a talk with Shane that she might wish she could take back
- Someone goes missing
- Shane pulls a Tyler Barrol
- A major piece of mythology is revealed (though the eagle-eyed may have first caught wind of it two weeks ago, at the school)
[TV Line]
Here's another tidbit:
Sunday's episode features not one, but two very significant deaths - both of which may finally help explain what Dr. Jenner whispered to Rick in the Season 1 finale - and it will also ring the bell on Round 2 of the epic Rick vs. Shane fight that began a couple weeks back.
If I'm remembering my leaked synopses correctly, those two significant deaths would be Shane and, I guess, Randall, or possibly Shane twice, considering his supposed unexpected return as a zombie. [TV Guide]
Here are some promo photos for episode eleven, "Webb Porter", which is set to air March 19. [KSiteTV]
And here are some set photos from the filming of the season finale. [SpoilerTV]
Once Upon a Time
Here are some set photos. [SpoilerTV]
Costar Robert Carlyle teases what's ahead for Mr. Gold and Regina:
"Certain things happen toward the last five or six episodes that shake our relationship. You realize that maybe Rumplestiltskin [didn't create the curse] for her at all; maybe he was doing it for himself. Maybe the curse was created for him."
[TV Line]
The eighteenth episode, "The Stable Boy", which is due to air April 1, will feature some major revelations according to costar Lana Parilla:
"You'll meet young Regina. I look totally different — fresh-faced, doe-eyed, young, fun, excited about life, in love, and then it just gets really dark. It's way before she becomes the Evil Queen."
[TV Guide]
An upcoming episode will introduce the show's version on Cinderella, described as having "a half-tragic, half-magical life with her mean stepmother and stepsisters, and a 'Prince Charming' whose company has just sunk the family fortune." In case it seems like Cinderella isn't really the right kind of fairy tale character for this show, it's worth pointing out that apparently she's nocturnal and has giant wings. So yeah, that ought to do just fine. [TV Guide]
Episode twenty-one has reportedly changed its title from "In Case of Emergency" to "Reading Is Fundamental." That episode will also reportedly introduce a character called K. Tran who will recur through episode twenty-three, the season finale. [SpoilerTV]
That K. Tran character most likely ties into a part currently being cast, which is described as a male or female - which might explain the use of the initial - Asian teenager who is "a brilliant overachiever" who is revealed as some sort of unwitting prophet. [TV Line]
Falling Skies
Here are some promo photos for the second season's first two episodes - the first of which is reportedly titled "Worlds Apart" - which are set to air this June. [Multiple Verses]
Here are the casting calls for three new main characters to be introduced in the next season:
Jess (Female)
Jess is a kind of female version of Larry David – smart and articulate, She's the person who will say the un-sayable, the person who'll question social norms and etiquette. Jess hates people who bullshit and lie to her.
Finn (Male)
Finn has a childlike naively optimistic view of life, he's always eager to please and enthusiastic about life.
Finn talks a lot and often uses this to try and talk himself out of difficult or awkward situations. He is very funny.
Alex (Male)
Alex is the sexiest guy on the estate. He is super good looking, all the girls fancy him but for some reason he is very standoffish, he doesn't seem interested in girls. Everyone reads this as being extremely suspicious and suspect it's power related.
Being Human (US)
Here are the promo photos for next Monday's episode nine, "When I Think About You I Shred Myself." [Multiple Verses]
The Vampire Diaries
Here's a new photo of star Nina Dobrev. [SpoilerTV]
Additional reporting by Jennifer Griffith-Delgado and Charlie Jane Anders.


text:
Learn to like reading, conversation, music.
Learn to like plain food, plain service, plain cooking.
Learn to like fields, trees, brooks, hiking, rowing, climbing hills.
Learn to like people, even though some of them may be different…different from you.
Learn to like to work and enjoy the satisfaction doing your job as well as it can be done.
Learn to like the song of birds, the companionship of dogs.
Learn to like gardening, puttering around the house, and fixing things.
Learn to like the sunrise and sunset, the beating of rain on the roof and windows, and the gentle fall of snow on a winter day.
Learn to keep your wants simple and refuse to be controlled by the likes and dislikes of others.
~Lowell C. Benin
(via Elisa...thank you so much...i just had to bring this out into the open!) :)


text:
Sunday, 20 September 2009
A History of Programming Games 1961-1989
6 comments:
I played OMEGA incessantly on the Mac. After learning BASIC on the Apple II, OMEGA's "Event-driven" basic-like syntax was the next language I mastered. The manual should still be in the possession of a Yahoo employee I gifted it to. It was a documentaiton of a language, in a game. Revolutionary at the time.ReplyDelete
I played Omega quite a bit on the Commodore 64, but it was hard to rid yourself of the temptation to just wire up the joystick controls to the tank's directional output and targeting systems. It was also quite a black art to figure out how to write rules that let your tanks cooperate effectively. I spent weeks trying to outscript my friends. The manual was huge!ReplyDelete
- Anonymous22 June 2011 at 15:40
Core wars by far the best reminded me of planet wars google ai challengeReplyDelete
- Anonymous24 February 2012 at 18:02
i played Muses robot war in 1981 and was looking for info about itReplyDelete
It wasn't strictly "programming" so much as it was "arranging logic" but "Carnage Heart" on the Playstation is an often overlooked, but excellent "programming" game.ReplyDelete
- Anonymous13 January 2014 at 08:25
ChipWits is missing.ReplyDelete


text:
tiny party invitations
and, tiny party favors
July 8, 2010
So, so, so cute!
The party idea is brilliant and your daughter … scrumptious!
i love everything about this tiny party.
you never fail to amaze me! thanks for the inspiration 🙂
and love the picture of your girl and you–so beautiful.
I rarely comment on blogs, but I have to tell you, you just put together the cutest things. This party was so thought out and adorable. Great job!
seriously, everything you do is perrrrfect.
As always, I adore this party and everything else you create.
So Cute i love it!!
Where did you find the little hotdogs?
ps I'm Jade's little sister
i had a local grocery store bake the mini hot dog buns. i had a hard time finding mini hot dogs, so i just bought the longer nathan's kosher hotdogs and cut them in half to fit the buns.
hope this helps!
SO cute…your baby and the party. My little girl turns 1 on Sunday and I don't have anything nearly as fancy as this planned! Inspirational post, as always.
:O wow this party is so cute and pretty and such an inspiration! Your little girl is so lucky and I'm sure she'll have many more beautiful birthday parties over the years! xx
Sweet idea! And your little girl is SO cute! I love the pictures of the two of you together!
Wow, you have outdone yourself. Love the LOL items!
Oh my goodness – that is adorable. I'll have to show my 18 year old daughter. She adores babies and will love the 'tiny' party. Happy Birthday to the tiny girl.
I'm always amazed by your creativity. What a cute party!
every 'tiny' thing turned out adorable.
and your daughter is beautiful.
Fabulous party Caroline. I love all of your little details…very inspiring. And p.s. your family is so beautiful!!
adorable! you've inspired me to do a tiny party for my sister's baby shower next month.
did you bring your tiny balloons to the craft store and have them filled up with helium?
and where did you find the tiny magnifying glasses?
I'm loving the Liberty of London accents. 🙂
It looks great! Would you mind telling me where you got the striped tablecloth?
seriously. she is perfect. where did you get her bow? I love it!
Adorable, great idea!
Where did you find the cake stand(s)? I have been looking all over for something like that!
what a beautiful party! I too would love to know where you got your cake stands and actually the serving whiteware – trays and bowls. I am looking for similar basic pieces and LOOVE the unique look of yours!
hello all!
thanks for the nice comments.
here are some answers to your questions.
ariel- i bought the tiny 5" balloons at the party store zurchers. i actually bought a helium tank and filled them at home. you can buy small helium tanks at walmart or target for around $20-$30.
the tiny magnifying glasses are also from the party store, zurchers
Reagan- the striped table cloth is actually a vintage sheet i picked up at a thrift store.
carly- her bow is from my friend ann's cute shop louandlee.etsy.com
joslyn- the cake stands are martha stewart cake stands found at macy's department store.
ruth- all the white serving plates are from wal-mart of all places. the salad bowl was found there too. the floral bowls are liberty of london for target, and some of the smaller pedestal bowls are from my milk glass collection i've been collecting from thrift stores for a while.
hope i've answered all your questions!
I love love love Your idea!!! As many people have said, I might just have to steal this idea for our little girl who will be one soon!
I do want to know if her dress is from the Target collection? I am a beloved shopper of Target and have not seen it there.
Love your blog 🙂
hi cherith.
yes, norah's dress was from the liberty of london line for target. they went pretty fast, but may still be available online.
such cute details! i wish i was that talented at putting together a birthday party. my attempts are pretty lame 🙂
You do such a great job with everything! Hope you are doing well. Norah is so cute!
what a beautiful family you have! darling tiny party…i love!
Awesome job! Wondering where you got the scoops for the goldfish and gummi bears. Thanks!
Such a clever theme! I love it!
the scoops are from the store sur la table.
Ack!!! SO cute!!! Everything about this is so darling. Also, you guys are like the cutest family in the world! Adorable!
awww! What a sweet and darling party. What a lucky cutie pie!
SO adorable! How much fun is that to plan!? I could think of mini/tiny foods all day long!
Great job! Beautiful party.
those cupcakes look delicioussss!!!
You throw the cutest birthday parties and always cover every small detail! Looks like it was a blast!
leave it to caroline to create the cutest of parties. happy birthday to your darling, i can't believe she's already one!! everything looks absolutely charming. i would love to know where you got the tiny snacks; goldfish and gummi bears! the 'tiny' theme is so unique and personal to your little one. you're so creative, i love it. xo.
What a gorgeous party for a gorgeous little girl! Your family photos came out amazing too.
you have TOTALLY inspired me:) you're brilliant! i have no idea how i even found your blog, but i'm such a fan. my little girl, elle, will be one in a few weeks and i'm stealing this idea! she'll probably be wearing a lou & lee headband, too! you and ann both have insanely awesome taste!
Really liked your party idea and I will use it in my kids 1st birthday party.
THis is so darling. My daughter's first birthday is in April and I've been thinking about a sweet little party that will be a celebration that she deserves without being over the top. I think something like this will be just the thing. Thanks for the ideas!
Norah looks so adorable in that picture. Even the foods that were served in the party look so yummy and great.
how very Martha!!!
how do you come up with these cute ideas?
wow!! this is such a cute party!! I think I might have to copy your ideas!! What size card and envelope did you use for the invitation?
P.S. I know this post was over a year ago but for some reason I google tiny parties and your popped up. Hopefully you still remember your resources and are willing to share:) Thanks!
email : firstname.lastname@example.com
google martha stewart tiny party .. get all your inspiration there
nice and good looking couple with a pretty baby doll..
this blog is really fantastic..
Have a nice memorable birthday party.


text:
NEW YORK — There is a scene in the documentary "Chasing Ice" that shows the edge of the massive Ilulissat glacier in Greenland collapsing — or "calving" — and violently crashing into the sea below. The piece of ice that breaks away is compared to the size of lower Manhattan, and appears taller than any building there.
The video of the glacier, also called by its Danish name, Jakobshavn, is what photographer James Balog calls "irrefutable" evidence of climate change. Balog is the subject of "Chasing Ice," which won the Excellence in Cinematography Award at this year's Sundance Film Festival.
Filmmaker Jeff Orlowski followed Balog as he set up more than 20 time-lapse cameras in remote locations around Alaska, Montana, Nepal, Iceland and Greenland to capture images of Arctic glaciers as they change. Balog designed each camera to withstand extreme conditions, including sub-zero temperatures and 150 mph winds, and to snap about 8,000 frames a year, some of which have been featured in National Geographic magazine.
The film opens Friday in New York City and the following week in select cities.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Orlowski and Balog talked about the film and their experiences making it.
AP: Climate change did not come up during any of the three presidential debates. Do you regret not releasing the film earlier?
Orlwoski: I don't think that this is a political issue. It's been turned into a political issue but it shouldn't be. We were considering releasing it before the election but that would have associated the film with a very specific political agenda and we're trying to stay a little bit more neutral in that regard.
AP: Talk about the technical challenges you faced.
Balog: I had a number of electronic engineers that were advising and consulting on this thing and these are guys who have been involved with sending equipment to Mars, sending things to the bottom of the ocean, sending remote equipment across Antarctica on these little wheeled contraptions going across the ice, and in the end they said, 'We can't calculate what you need. We can't figure it out just by bench-testing and mathematical formulas. All you can really do is build something and put it out there and see if it works.'
AP: There's a scene when you completely break down. What happened?
Balog: That's in May of 2007. … I felt incredibly, intensely the pressure of man, this stuff has to work. I'm not here to be a scientist doing a field experiment. Nothing is of any value, any meaning, any purpose unless I can be sure that I come home with pictures. … I'm not just there with my head on the camera crying because I'm upset that the camera is malfunctioning. I'm upset because I'm thinking the entire commitment, the entire obligation is going to fail. We're going to put out 12 cameras in Greenland and come back with garbage, so that was terribly stressful and upsetting.
Orlowski: It's gut-wrenching. It's hard for me to watch James in that scene, personally.
Balog: He loves to see me come apart, I know he does, really. (Laughs)
Orlowski: It was really powerful.
AP: What was the absolute worst moment?
Balog: Probably the worst moment in the entire project … that scene is in the film, when the helicopter pilot turns to my collaborator Jason Box and says 'Ah, we're losing oil pressure."… So you look out the window and you realize, 'Well, I hope that other engine just keeps working fine because it's really cold down there and there's icebergs and if we go in that we'll die really, really fast.' And as we were going back and this unfortunately wasn't caught on videotape, he came on the radio again. He said, 'I'm losing oil pressure in engine number two' and we were still a ways out from the landing field and then you're really starting to think 'OK, where's the life raft; where's the life jackets; what happens if we go down? What will this be like?' … That's what really keeps me awake at night. That's what gets me upset when I'm saying goodbye to my daughters at home.
AP: What was it like watching the Ilulissat glacier in Greenland come apart?
Orlowski: It was just the two of us (Orlowski and Extreme Ice Survey field coordinator Adam LeWinter) watching this monumental event happen and nobody else was there to observe it or to see it. We felt very fortunate that we were at the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment. … There's a juxtaposition of emotions that you feel. When you're out there with the camera, you're really excited to capture that and you want that to happen so you can record it and document it, but when you look back at the footage you realize how horrific the story is and what it's actually telling.
AP: James, you were once a climate change skeptic. Were you as skeptical as Sean Hannity?
Balog: Nooo, no no no. Let's not overstate that. No. Look, 25 years ago I thought that maybe there was a lot of hyperbole around this. I thought that the science was based on computer models which I knew at the time were relatively sketchy. Computer models are quite good now. Also like almost everybody else on this planet back then, it never occurred to me that humans were capable of altering the basic physics and chemistry of the planet.
AP: Why do you think this film might have a different impact than other climate change documentaries like "An Inconvenient Truth"?
Orlowski: What James has been able to accomplish is taking this invisible subject matter of climate change and making it visual, making it emotional and so people can see it for the first time and when you can see it, you understand it in a different way.Photo/Extreme Ice Survey)


text:
I looked at the post titles in this regular expressions topic and did not see an answer so I will ask:
Suppose a feller wanted to search for a filename including the characters U.F.O. including the periods.
I tried U[.]F[.]O[.] and also U\.F\.O\. and found nothing. What is the proper syntax?


text:
Hometown Happenings articles are a community service for non-profit agencies only. Due to popular demand for placement in this section, we can no longer run all articles. Deadline for articles is Monday at 5 p.m. This is not guaranteed space. Articles will run as space allows. Guaranteed placement is $10, certain restrictions may apply. You now can email your Hometown Happenings to firstname.lastname@example.com please include name and phone number for any questions we may have.
American Legion Holiday Bazaar
Nov. 4: The American Legion Auxiliary is having their annual Holiday Bazaar on November 4th from 9 am to 3 pm at the Cedar Springs Legion, 80 S. Main Street in Cedar Springs. Along with garage sale items and arts and crafts, we will also have a bake sale. #44
Sand Lake Lions Club Variety Sale
Nov. 4: The Sand Lake Lions Club will host a Variety Sale on Saturday, November 4th from 9 am – 3 pm at the Sand Lake United Methodist Church ED building. Located on the corner of 6th and Maple Streets. Antiques/Vintage collectibles and crafts, quality used clothing, miscellaneous items. #44
Dinner at the Legion
Nov. 6: American Legion, 80 S. Main St. Cedar Springs, is hosting a Pork Chop dinner on Monday, November 6th, from 5 – 7 pm. Included will be mashed potatoes & gravy, veggies, stuffing, salad, roll, dessert and drink. The cost is $9 for adults, children (15 and younger) $4.00. Come and enjoy home cooking. Take out is available. 616-696-9160. #44p
TOPS weight loss support group
Nov. 7: Need help getting through the holiday season? Take off pounds sensibly (TOPS), a non-profit weight loss support group for men and women, meets every Tuesday at the Resurrection Lutheran Church in Sand Lake. Your first visit is free so come check out what TOPS can do to help you reach your weigh loss goals! Weigh-ins 8:15-9am, meeting starts at 9:15am. In case of inclement weather, meetings are cancelled if Tri-County or Cedar Springs schools are closed. Call Martha at 696-1039 for more information. #44
God's Kitchen in Cedar Springs
Nov. 7,14,21,28: Join us for dinner every Tuesday. God's Kitchen – Cedar Springs welcomes families from Northern Kent County and the surrounding area to a Tuesday Evening Meal. No charge – no registration required! Served from 5:30 – 6:30 pm at the St. John Paul II Parish, 3110 – 17 Mile Rd., Cedar Springs. For more information, call the Church office at 616-696-3904. #44
Help Promote Literacy
Nov. 8,17,21: The need is urgent at this time! The Literacy Center of West Michigan has scheduled information sessions for prospective volunteer tutors. These sessions last one hour. It allows persons interested in becoming volunteer tutors to find out more about the Literacy Center and its programs. At the end of the session there will be a chance to sign up for tutor training. Sessions are Wednesday, November 8th at 6 pm, Friday, November 17th at 10 am and Tuesday, November 21st at 2 pm. By training people to be tutors, the Center can offer one-on-one reading help to adults asking for assistance in reading or English as a Second Language (ESL). You do not need to speak another language to tutor ESL. The Literacy Center of West Michigan is located at 1120 Monroe Ave., NW, Suite 240, Grand Rapids. Please call 616-459-5151 (ext. 10) or email us at email@example.com to register. #44
Voters Not Politicians Educational Town Hall
Nov. 9: Voters Not Politicians Town Hall with an educational presentation to explain what is gerrymandering and the Voters Not Politicians proposal to end it plus an opportunity for registered voters to sign the petition to get the proposal on the ballot. The event will be held on November 9th from 6 to 7 pm at the Cedar Springs Public Library, 107 Main St., Cedar Springs. Hosted by Voters Not Politicians, a non-partisan ballot committee seeking to put before voters a proposal to end gerrymandering in Michigan. The proposal would ask voters to amend the Michigan State Constitution to deny partisan politicians the ability to manipulate voting district boundaries to secure their own hold on power. It would instead give the authority for drawing those boundaries to an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. This event will help educate and gather signatures to support the petition drive to gather nearly 316,000 valid signatures needed to put the anti-gerrymander proposal on the 2018 ballot. #44
Library Book Sale
Nov. 9-11: The Friends of the Nelson Twp./Sand Lake Library is hosting a book sale on Thursday, November 9 and Friday, November 10th from 10 to 6 pm and on Saturday, November 11th from 10 am to 2 pm at the Resurrection Lutheran Church, 180 Northland Drive in Sand Lake. #44,45p
Solon Center Wesleyan Church Holiday Bazaar
Nov. 11:Do your Christmas shopping! Saturday, November 11th from 9 am–2 pm, delicious fresh baked goods, 100's of hand crafted items, jewelry, and many other vendors. There's definitely something for everyone! Rolls & coffee and a lunch counter are also available. The church is located @ 15671 Algoma Avenue, just north of 19 Mile Road. Come early, stay late! #43,44p
Cookie Walk at Holy Spirit Episcopal
Nov. 11: Holy Spirit Episcopal Church is holding its annual Cookie Walk and Christmas Delites sale on Saturday, November 11th from 9 am to 3 pm. The church is located at 1200 Post Drive NE in Belmont (corner of Post and Pine Island drives, just off Exit 95 of US 131). Featuring our "world-famous" Cookie Walk – Come early for the best selection. There will also be baked goods, crafts, Santa's Attic and a silent auction. The Christmas Delites sale is sponsored by the Holy Spirit's Episcopal Women group and funds their support for various church activities, such as kitchen supplies, funeral refreshments, the Loaves & Fishes Food Pantry, the Explore & Soar Reading Club, and more. More information can be found on the church's website: www.holyspiritbelmont.org. #44
Free Veterans Event in Sparta
Nov. 11: Join in the Sparta Community Celebration to Honor our Veterans! On November 11th at the Sparta High School Auditorium, there will be a documentary film "The Unknowns" about the unique perspective to the rigorous and intricate training of the Sentinel Training Program soldiers must endure to be assigned duty at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery. Sparta's Specialist 3rd Class Don Bradford will narrate and share his story as Sparta's only guard to have served at the Tomb. The event is at 2 to 4:30 pm (doors open at 1pm). The event is free. Present will also be Sparta's Robert Shangle, LiveStatue. A color guard of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corp recruiters will present the colors. There will be displays inside and out including about the Sparta POW camp in 1944 For more information please see our website at: www.spartahistory.org. The Sparta Township Historical Commission. Following the event these Sparta restaurants are serving a Free dinner to all Veterans after 5 pm! – Cellar Brewery – Downtown Trini's – Garden Patch – Big Joe's. #44p


text:
Filters: Author is Chapron, Bertrand [Clear All Filters]
All-weather satellite observations of marine thermal fronts in the Baltic and Barents Seas. The International Conference of Young Scientists "Land-Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the Changing World (2011).
The Arctic Amplification and Its Impact: A Synthesis through Satellite Observations. Remote Sensing 15:1354, (2023). Abstract
ASAR imaging for coastal upwelling in the Baltic Sea. Advances in Space Research 50, (2012). Abstract
DOPSCAT - Feasibility Investigation of Global Ocean Surface Current Mapping using ERS, MetOp and QuickScat Wind Scatterometer. NERSC Special Report 16 (2013). Download: DOPSCAT.pdf (766.14 KB)
E-GEM-European GNSS-R environmental monitoring. ESA SP SP-740, (2016).
Envisat ASAR imaging of coastal upwelling in the Baltic Sea: case study with modeling. Advances in Space Research 50, (2012). Abstract
Evaluation of GlobCurrent surface ocean current products: A case study in Australia. Remote Sensing of Environment 220, (2019).
Exploitation of error correlation in a large analysis validation: GlobCurrent case study. Remote Sensing of Environment 217, (2018).
GEROS-ISS: GNSS REflectometry, Radio Occultation, and Scatterometry Onboard the International Space Station. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 9, (2016).
Globcurrent: Multisensor synergy for surface current estimation. ESA SP SP-740, (2016).
Imaging mesoscale upper ocean dynamics using synthetic aperture radar and optical data. Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR): Oceans 117, (2012).
INCUSAR—A Method to Retrieve Temporal Averages of 2D Ocean Surface Currents from Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Shift. Remote Sensing Advances for Earth System Science (2013).doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32521-2_7
Polar low climatology over the Nordic and Barents seas based on satellite passive microwave data. Geophysical Research Letters 42, (2015). Download: smirnova_et_al-2015-geophysical_research_letters_polar_low_climatology_over_the_nordic_and_barents_seas.pdf (693.64 KB)
Progress in Earth observation for studying physical oceanography: surface currents, storm surges, sea-ice, atmosphere-ocean gas exchange and surface heat fluxes. Progress in physical geography 40, (2016).
Quad-polarization SAR features of ocean currents. Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR): Oceans 119, (2014).
SEASTAR: A Mission to Study Ocean Submesoscale Dynamics and Small-Scale Atmosphere-Ocean Processes in Coastal, Shelf and Polar Seas. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, (2019).
Simulation of radar backscatter and Doppler shifts of wave–current interaction in the presence of strong tidal current. Remote Sensing of Environment 120, (2012). Abstract
SKIM, a Candidate Satellite Mission Exploring Global Ocean Currents and Waves. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, (2019).
On the use of Doppler shift for sea surface wind retrieval from SAR. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 50, (2012).
On the Use of Dual Co-Polarized Radar Data to Derive a Sea Surface Doppler Model - Part 2: Simulation and Validation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 61, (2023).
On the use of dual co-polarized radar data to derive a sea surface Doppler model-part 1: Approach. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 61:4201013, (2023).
Wave Breaking in Slicks: Impacts on C-Band Quad-Polarized SAR Measurements. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 9, (2016).


text:
I mince no words in a post I wrote for the Guardian on Murdoch's announcement that the pay wall is finally going up around the Times and Sunday Times of London. The discussion at the Guardian is already lively; please go there to join in.*
Rupert Murdoch has declared surrender. The future defeated him.
By building his paywall around Times Newspapers, he has said that he has no new ideas to build advertising. He has no new ideas to build deeper and more valuable relationships with readers and will send them away if they do not pay. Even he has no new ideas to find the efficiencies the internet can bring in content creation, marketing, and delivery.
Instead, Murdoch will milk his cash cow a pound at a time, leaving his children with a dry, dead beast, the remains of his once proud if not great newspaper empire.
I used to work for Murdoch at his American magazine TV Guide. I respected his balls. It is a pity to see them gone.
According to his biographer, Michael Wolff, Murdoch has not used the internet, let alone Google (he only recently discovered email) and so he cannot possibly understand the dynamics, demands, and opportunities of our post-industrial, now-digital media economy. I use the internet and teach it and write about it and I still can't grasp the complete implication of the change. I don't think even Google can.
So to try to transpose old business models to this new business reality is simply insane. Just because people used to pay in print they should pay now—when the half-life of a scoop's value is a click, when good-enough news that's free is also a click away, when the new newsstand of Google and Twitter demands that you stay in the open, searchable and linkable? This argument I hear about pay walls comes from emotional entitlement (readers should pay—when did you ever see a business plan built on the verb should?), not hard economics.
The hard truth is that news organizations will shrink or die. No longer monopolies or oligopolies, the barrier to entry to their kingdom and business reduced to an inch, they simply cannot maintain their old scale, the size and margins that the City demanded. A new ecosystem of news, made up of countless smaller players operating under varying means, motives, and business models, will undercut the big, old institutions. The hard iron that once was their advantage—the presses and trucks—now become a killing weight around their craggy necks.
But in Murdoch's folly, I see opportunity. As a Guardian writer, I should rejoice at the added readers and influence we will get (though all these challenges are ours, too). As a teacher of entrepreneurial journalism at the City University of New York, I see openings for my students to compete with the dying relics by starting highly targeted, ruthlessly relevant new news businesses at incredibly low cost and low risk. My students understand the new media reality that has scared the once-indomitable Murdoch. They are, as he himself put it, digital natives.
Murdoch is a stranger in a strange land. All he has left to do is build a wall around himself and shrink away, a vestige of his old, bold self. Who would have thought that we'd end up feeling pity for the man? It's almost enough to make me want to throw him a few quid. On second thoughts….
*[Didn't mean to have comments also turned off here; they're on now.]


text:
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Wild Sockeye Salmon with Lemon-Butter Sauce
Posted by lisa is cooking at Wednesday, July 18, 2012
30 comments:
oh gosh does that lemon butter sauce sound incredible with the salmon! looks like a fantastic meal!ReplyDelete
Scrumptious! That sauce is wonderful and pairs beautifully with salmon.ReplyDelete
I had no idea Canal House was coming out with a new cookbook, I have all of their volumes (I think 5?), I will have to check it out!ReplyDelete
I should try making salmon this way.. looks deliciousReplyDelete
Fabulous post, Lisa! First I've been seeking out a good source for Salmon and second, and more importantly at the moment, simply delectable!ReplyDelete
Thank you so much for sharing this post with us, I've bookmarked it for the recipe and the source:)
Wow Lisa, your salmon looks perfect...love the simplicity and how delicate this dish looks.ReplyDelete
Hope you are having an enjoyable week and thanks for the recipe :)
Oh wow, the salmon cooked up is beautiful, and for me, it gets even better with that salmon salad. Yum!ReplyDelete
This is heavenly!ReplyDelete
That sauce just does it my friend - gorgeous :DReplyDelete
Choc Chip Uru
I think salmon and lemon work wonderfully together. That first image is very inviting and stunning xxReplyDelete
Fresh salmon is so succulent, a simple sauce is a perfect foundation for an exceptional meal. As I am an unabashed lemon lover this recipe is one I will try soon with local Monterey Bay salmon.ReplyDelete
We are VERY fond of sockeye salmon, and your preparation takes it over the top for sure...ReplyDelete
I've never poached salmon before, gotta try it
I love salmon, but I've never tried wild. I just tried steelhead trout and loved it.ReplyDelete
What can I say about this perfect dish, perfectly photographed, Lisa? I adore sockeye salmon and love the way you've served it. All you need is my rhubarb crisp to follow, and a lovely mellow wine.ReplyDelete
My mouth is watering. I've been enjoying the fresh wild-caught salmon that we're getting here too.ReplyDelete
Mouth watering.. that lemon butter looks so decadently delicious :)ReplyDelete
Another beautiful dish! I like the idea of a lighter hollandaise- it sounds deliciously simple and so nice for summer. I can't imagine eating a regular, tick, rich hollandaise in this heat. And brilliant idea for using up the leftovers- that tartine looks scrumptious!ReplyDelete
Wonderful, and I love the light butter sauce. I know what will be on the menu this weekend! Great photos,too!ReplyDelete
What a wonderful sauce for salmon and I'd imagine that it would work on so many other items too! I love the flavour of hollandaise but sometimes, it's too rich. Did I really say that? :PReplyDelete
I don't even like salmon and I want to try that.ReplyDelete
That looks amazing.
Like beyond amazing.
Absolutely delicious. The salmon looks great quality and I'm sure the citrus flavour is quite intense. Beautiful cooking.ReplyDelete
Not a frequent fish eater but with Salmon it becomes a whole new story. This is exactly how I want my salmon done. Butter and lemon? Wow! I am heading out to make sure I am ready to have this for dinner, definitely nothing else. Your pictures are wonderful!ReplyDelete
Myfudo here...Normally we'd never put a shameless plug back to us, but we just launched our new site and we would love for you to be a part of it. I'd love to share our newest launch with you, I hope you don't mind? Now that we are getting a new look...Myfudo is moving to a new domain http://www.yumgoggle.com This has been a project we have been working on for almost a year now. We just launched our new gallery submission site, and we are just thrilled. We'd be proud to have your work as part of our growing collection to continue to have a larger reach and further inspire all fellow food lovers out there! Please sign up and check us out (it's free) http://www.yumgoggle.com/gallery
We look forward to seeing your wonderful pictures, as always.
p.s. We are hosting a Kitchen Aid Mixer Giveaway to celebrate our new Yumgoggle site, we hope you'll participate =)
i like the look of that sauce! hollandaise has always turned me off a little bit, and you've made this sauce sound like a vast improvement!ReplyDelete
A creamy lemon sauce definitely does sound like the perfect pairing for this lovely salmon!ReplyDelete
Always looking for a variety of ways to cook salmon and sauces to go with it. That first photo is just fantastic. And...I can't seem to get my hands on Kerrygold butter. I've heard that it is so good because the cows are all grass fed in the fields. I'll keep looking!ReplyDelete
Wow beautiful and the sauce sounds a perfect match.ReplyDelete
Gorgeous looking dish. Wild salmon is the best - the only kind I'll eat now. Sauce looks terrific. Good stuff - thanks.ReplyDelete
I have salmon at least once a week if I can and this salmon with lemon butter sauce looks really delicious.ReplyDelete
Wow! I made these last night for dinner, and I've finally found a recipe to keep. I did the trick and these cooked up nicely. Even my husband said the flavor of these were awesome.ReplyDelete
Amazing! We're all licking our plates! Thank you so much!ReplyDelete