Guaranteed Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Couristan Monaco Marbella Blue Mist And Ivory Indoor Area | Sacramentoduilawyers hayneedle indoor outdoor rugs. hayneedle outdoor rugs. hayneedle outdoor rug.
Big Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Doormat Lovely Mohawk Beautiful Awesome. Secrets Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Have To It Couristan Five Seasons Santa Barbara Indoor. Sensational Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Couristan Recife Checkered Field Indoor Area Rug Natural. Simple Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Have To It Mohawk Home Alexa Medallion Indoor Rug. Lifetime Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Liora Manne Import Co Terrace Texture Indoor From. Improved Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Better Homes And Gardens Furniture Replacement Cushions 2 53. Noted Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Couristan Recife Veranda Indoor Area Rug Natural Terra. Liberal Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Couristan Bar Harbor Stripe Indoor Rug Blueberry Crush. Informative Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Kathy Ireland Area Elegant Awesome. Quick Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Cool Carpet Woven Mat. Weird Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Mohawk Home Avenue Stripe Indoor Rug. Tested Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs 54 On Indoor. Quick Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Patio Furniture Seating Curtains Entrancing. Easily Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Affordable Veranda Area Rug At With. Interesting Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Safavieh NF212 Braided Natural Fiber Indoor Rug From Com. Simple Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Initial Doormats Best Of Awesome. New Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Have To It Couristan Recife Garden Cottage Indoor Area. Last Chance Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Fresh Ideas. Guaranteed Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Couristan Monaco Marbella Blue Mist And Ivory Indoor Area. The Truth About Hayneedle Outdoor Rugs Have To It Mohawk Home Avenue Stripe Indoor Rug.


Get the look of posh barn wood without setting foot in a salvage yard. Replicated rough-sawn oak of this poster headboard with storage has a vintage finish that is reminiscent of a timeworn family heirloom. Warm, rustic and naturally beautiful, it's just got that ageless appeal.


Grace aspires to be both an inspiring teacher and a virtuosic, unique performer of all genres of music. She has years of private teaching experience, and works very well with all levels of students.
Grace's philosophy in teaching and learning music is that "teaching is not about molding a student into what one desires, but it is about catering to each individual's needs to achieve his or her own potentials, may it be pursuing music professionally or for personal pleasure only". She also believes that music enriches children's souls and that the roles of music educators are beyond notes and rhythm.
Grace Tsang has had twelve years of studio and ensemble teaching and four years of Suzuki Method teaching experience instructing violin, beginner viola, Suzuki group classes and music theory. She works very well with all levels of students. Grace's philosophy in teaching and learning music is that "teaching is not about molding a student into what one desires, but it is about catering to each individual's needs to achieve his or her own potentials, may it be pursuing music professionally or for personal pleasure". She also believes that music enriches childrens' souls, and that the role of music educators are beyond notes and rhythm.
Grace was born in Taiwan and she began studying music at the Suzuki and Ju Percussion Music School at the age of three and has been mesmerized by music ever since. She started learning the piano at age six, and the violin at age seven. She then successfully auditioned for Guang-ren Private Elementary School For Musically Gifted Children in Taipei, Taiwan.
After her immigration to Canada, Grace studied under Larraine Grescoe and Mark Koenig at the Vancouver Academy of Music. She was an active player in the Vancouver Academy Orchestra and the Delta Youth Orchestra, where she also made her debut solo performance at age thirteen.
Grace graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Violin Music Performance from University of British Columbia in 2007. She received an entrance scholarship from UBC for outstanding audition. During her studies in UBC she was leading UBC Symphony, Chamber Strings, and Contemporary Player while under the guidance of Andrew Dawes and Jasper Wood.
Grace also completed her Suzuki Violin Teachers' training for Book one through four under trainer Joanne Melvin and Elyne Ras from the Suzuki American Association. She attends Suzuki teachers' training classes and seminars regularly.


West Midlands Glazing UK roofline products will give your home lasting protection ensuring you'll be free from the stress of further repairs and maintenance for years to come.
When you choose West Midlands Double Glazing guttering, gutter guard, downpipes, soffits, fascias, bargeboards or cladding, rest assured you are getting high quality products and workmanship.
More reasons to choose West Midlands Double Glazing roofline products for your home.
West Midlands Double Glazing is an experienced and accredited company, installing an unrivalled range of windows doors and conservatories to home owners across the country.
At West Midlands Double Glazing we have a team of dedicated staff who are here to assist you throughout your home improvement purchase and we take pride in providing exceptional service and attention to detail.
If you choose to have one of West Midlands Double Glazing roofline products installed, we will always conduct a complete review of your entire roofline area and advise you of any other necessary repairs.
Our roofline products are also designed to stand the test of time, which is why they all come with a full 10-year guarantee. We also offer 20-year guarantees on our cast-iron effect rainwater goods and our gutter guard.
While our white uPVC products are protected for a lifetime for even greater peace of mind.


Pinebrook motel offers reasonable rates and clean, comfortable rooms with beautiful views of Lake George. We are conveniently located in Lake George Village, directly on the trolley line. You can leave your car at the motel, and ride safely to the village center! . Enjoy a variety of attractions -- fireworks to fine dining, amusement parks and sunset cruises. Join us at the Pinebrook Motel for a truly memorable vacation in Lake George - "The Queen of American Lakes".


text:
Participation en design competition by INCASOL to create an apartment building in the community of Sant Sadurni, the proposition included a modern design that adapted to its surroundings, apartments with wide spaces and design with multiporpouse spaces that adapt to the current time changes.
The office building in Av. Diagonal 525 of Inmobiliaria Colonial has open its gates last April, as the new headquarters of Naturgy. The proyect by the laureate architect Sergio Sanz founder of Sanz Pont Architecture, in which the structural project and supervision was carried out by Campanya i Vinyeta Arquitectes. Meddled in the business central axis of Barcelona with the restauration of an existing building, resolved in what will definetly be a reference point in the city.
The enlargement of Residencial Palau project has concluded with great success. This addition is composed by 30 apartments with independet services and 18 rooms. This building was thought not just to bring upon comfortable spaces, but to improve the quality of life of the residents, whom are able to enjoy the services of the Residence.
Participation in the design competition for an apartment building made out of containers, the design of the building consisted in 2 commercial levels that provided common outdoor areas for the people of the community and 7 floors of apartments of recycled containers. The main challenge was to achieve quality spaces with all the restrictions that building with containers come with.
The Casa Ter, a project of the architectural studio Mesura, has obtained three recognitions. Winner of the AJAC 2020 award and the Ceramic Award in the architecture category (awarded by Ascer, the Spanish association of ceramic tile manufacturers), this same week has been given to know as the winner of the Simon Architecture Prize, in Europe. Campanyà Vinyeta Arquitectes has been the architecture office that has had the service of consulting for the structure. https://www.ara.cat/suplements/diumenge/Casa-Ter-Baix-Emporda-arquitectura-disseny_0_2580941899.html
The inspection visits begin to verify the current state of the Municipal Sports centre of Ripollet and draft the Basic and Executive Project of structures that will allow to carry out the remodelling of the Municipal Sports centre of Ripollet in Phase I. Campanyà Vinyeta Arquitectes is collaborating in the drafting of the Project with the application of the BIM methodology
The works of the Residencial Palau project have progressed at a good pace and are about to end. The extension of the residence will soon become a reality.
Next opening of "Stolen Memory" on June 25 at 18h (25/06/2020-26/06/2020) in the gardens of Palau Robert. The interior renovation project of the Memorial Democràtic, was made by Campanyà Vinyeta architects, where the objective was to turn the exhibition area into a warm and welcoming space. This reform aims to respond to successive temporary exposures, on lighting needs and flexible space, so the solution was chosen to place a false pine wood ceiling that incorporated the orientable spotlights. http://memoria.gencat.cat/ca/actualitat/activitats/detalls/activitatagenda/Stolen-Memory
The new market of Bon Pastor has been opened on 16 November 2019 and is one of the first equipment of neighbourhood. Located in the traditional location of the c/ San Adrián 154, the new facility has space for 12 companies and a self-service with an area of 9,348 m2 distributed on the ground floor, mezzanine and two underground floors. The project was carried out by AA25/SCP Arquitectura & instalaciones and Campanyà Vinyeta architects has been part of the team performing the Project management of the works and the consulting services of structures.
The works of the new pavilion in Figueres are already underway. The future sports equipment will have an area of 5,000m2 and 3 slopes with a capacity of 4,000 people and 300 spectators in the stands. The project has been drafted by the architect Joan Forgas Coll and the industrial engineer Eduard Bou Nadal, winners of the city council's ideas competition. Campanyà Vinyeta Architects together with the architect Carmela Torró, have been part of the technical team in charge of the consulting services of structures. Environmental and energy sustainability is one of the values of the proposal, which has developed in order to achieve the standards of a nZEB building, according to EU guidelines. Energy consumption comes from a large part of renewable sources of the building itself or its surroundings. As for the facilities, a high efficiency design has been foreseen. https://www.emporda.info/multimedia/videos/esports/2018-05-24-144227-maqueta-projecte-pavello-figueres.html
The Master Plan for remodelling the Municipal Sports Centre is presented. It is an ambitious project of the city, carried out by the AMB with the collaboration of the PAME and contributions of workers of the Sports centre and the Taula. The AMB has already begun to work the executive project, the works will be carried out in two phases and have an expected duration of 2 years and a half. Campanyà Vinyeta architects has collaborated in the drafting of the Executive Project with the application of the BIM methodology and has taken over the BIM coordination in structures. The Municipal Sports Center of Ripollet consists of a sum of buildings built at different times and with different criteria around a main building. This set has gone through different partial reform processes to adapt to new needs. This evolution has determined the fragmentary nature of the building as a whole. The project expects to assess the structural clarity of the main building as a unifying element of the whole.
The traveling exhibition 'Tenim Drets, Teixim Llibertats', promoted by the cooperation service of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (AMB) and in collaboration, with nine other municipalities arrives in Torrelles. Weekly, the Pompeu Fabra Municipal Library will host a different art installation, explaining stories and experiences about refugee rights. The Pompeu Fabra Municipal Library was inaugurated on 16 April of the year 2005, and is located in the centre of the town. The library occupies the Can Camps Estate, located in the historic centre of Torrelles. It is a unique building of modernist architecture that underwent a profound renovation to adapt it to the needs of the service. Campanyà Vinyeta architects has been part of the team performing the Project management of the works and the consulting services of structures. https://elfar.cat/art/22258/arriba-a-torrelles-lexposicio-itinerant-tenim-drets-teixim-llibertats
The proposal for the Residential Block of 76 Homes in the Hospitalet de Llobregat, was that of the architecture studio Soler Valiente Arqts, with the design of a block of housing in L with the inclusion of an island courtyard to create a space semi-exterior. Campanyà Vinyeta architects has collaborated in the drafting of the executive project with the application of the BIM methodology and has taken over the BIM coordination in structures.
The team of Laia Renalias, Carles Serrano, Leticia Soriano i Roger Such, has been selected by the FAD 2017 prize for the reform of the church of Santa Maria de Vilanova de la Barca, where Campanyà i Vinyeta arquitectes has collaborated estimating the structure.
The New Bon Pastor Market in Barcelona is already under construction. Campanyà Vinyeta arquitectes form part of the joint venture winner of the building supervision
Peratallada's Castle project, elaborated by Mesura, is under construction. Campanyà Vinyeta arquitectes form part of the team offering structural design consultancy
Sant Cugat's Ateneu new facilities opening. We have finished the reform works. We wish you enjoy the new facilities
We have finished the reform works in La Parellada Sports Pavilion. We wish you enjoy the sport facilities
The Metropolitan Area of Barcelona has a new corporate sign in its buildings. Campanyà Vinyeta arquitectes has carried out the structural calculations, project and management of the works.
We finished the works of the New Softball Field in Sant Boi de Llobregat, a project elaborated by BOPBAA, where Campanyà Vinyeta arquitectes has carried out the consultancy services of structures and management of the works. The installation is already under way and hopefully the Club will collect many prizes in the new installation
The project of 20 social housing in the street Ciutat de Granada 44 in Barcelona, has been selected to the 2015 FAD awards. The authors of the project are BB+GG Arquitectes, formed by Beth Galí Camprubí, Jaume Benavent Bosch, Andrés Rodríguez and Ruediger Wurth. Campanyà Vinyeta Arquitectes has carried out the structural consultancy services for this project. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/premsa/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Ciutat-de-Granada-220714.pdf
The new track, Antonio Amorós, in Can Zam will open on Monday, March 23, 2015. Santa Coloma will finally have a facility for the practice of athletics with technical characteristics suitable for official competitions. The sports complex occupies a space of 10,000 m2 and consists of a regulation track of 400m rope with 8 streets, a grandstand with a capacity for 500 people, a dressing room, different activity areas and a small tower for the arrival photo (Photo finish). Campanyà Vinyeta architects has been part of the technical team of the AMB, carrying out the structural consultancy services http://www.amb.cat/web/territori/espai-public/projectes-i-obres/detall/-/projecte/camp-d-atletisme-antonio-amoros/6060030/11656 http://www.amb.cat/web/territori/espai-public/projectes-i-obres/detall/-/projecte/camp-d-atletisme-antonio-amoros/6060030/11656
Our apartment building for the elderly, promoted by the town hall of Sant Adrià del Besòs, has been awarded in the 1st Catalan Architecture Exhibition
Esteban Terradas Muntañola and Roberto Terradas Muntañola win the I Ceramic Award (Hyspalyt Award, XII edition) for the Reform and Restoration of the Maritime Museum of Barcelona: Atarazanas Reales 1984-2012. Campanyà Vinyeta Arquitectes has been part of the structures consultancy team for the restoration project, carried out in different phases and with a surface of 17.000m2. http://premios.conarquitectura.org/portfolio/atarazanas/ http://www.terradasarquitectos.com/ca/proyectos/drassanes-bcn
Our primary school project in Rio de Janeiro Avenue in Barcelona has been selected for the Barcelona Direccions exposition

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Switch to Gaeilge
Apply for a Review
What we can review
How to apply for a review
Fees for a review
If we can't help
FOI legislation
Appeals to the Courts
FOI Bodies
Re-use of Public Sector Information
Ms X and An Bord Pleanala
Case 031014. Application for review of refusal of records and refusal of statement of reasons - whether applicant had material interest in relation to a planning decision in accordance with section 18(5).
Following a decision by An Bord Pleanala (the Board) the requester sought access to records related to the decision, she also sought a statement of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act. The Board refused any additional records on the grounds that a file containing all records covered by the scope of the request existed and was already publicly available (section 46(2) of the FOI Act refers). Regarding the section 18 request, the Board relied on section 18(2) on the basis that such a statement already existed as contained in two separate records which were outside the Act in accordance with section 46(2).
The Commissioner set the Board's argument in relation to the refusal of the section 18 request aside and examined whether the requester had a material interest in this case in accordance with section 18(5). The requester's submission indicated that her position was shared by other property owners in the vicinity, which comprised an estimated class size of 32 in total. It was apparent that she was not suffering any consequence or effect of the Board's decision which was not shared by others in her same position. In the circumstances of this particular case, the Commissioner found that the requester belonged to a class of persons of a significant size and was not considered to be materially affected by the decision in accordance with section 18(5). Consequently, the Commissioner found that the requester was not entitled to a statement of reasons under section 18.
Regarding the request for records other than those in the public domain, the Commissioner found that the Board was justified in refusing access to further records in this case.
Date of Decision: 16.01.2004
Our Reference: 031014
Ms X
Dear Ms X
I refer to your application to this Office under the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act, 1997 for a review of the decision of An Board Pleanála ("the Board") on your FOI request for access to records. I have been authorised by the Information Commissioner to conduct this review on her behalf.
By letter dated 28 May 2003, you submitted an FOI request to the Board for all records relating to a planning decision regarding the development of apartments in *********, other than those available on the Board's website or which had been made available to you during the consultation process. In your request, you specified that the records should include information about your own personal property and a list of those staff involved in the decision, together with the grade, qualifications and experience of each staff member.
A further aspect of your request was for a statement of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act for the Board's decision to grant planning permission and the factors taken into account in making that decision.
By letter dated 26 June 2003 the Board advised you of its decision to provide you with a list of the relevant staff and their respective grades. Any additional information concerning the particular qualifications of these individuals was refused under section 28 of the FOI Act on the grounds that it constitutes personal information about the staff members. The Board refused any additional records on the grounds that a file containing all records covered by the scope of your request existed and was already publicly available, citing section 46(2) of the FOI Act which provides that the Act does not apply to records which are in the public domain.
You sought an internal review of that decision on 3 July 2003. Your first point was that you did not accept that the public file contained all records covered by the scope of your request and therefore that section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act could not be said to apply. Secondly, you rejected the Board's decision to refuse details of the particular experience and qualifications of the staff members in question in reliance upon section 28. Finally, you noted that the Board had not addressed your request under section 18 of the FOI Act for a statement of reasons as to why the decision was made to grant planning permission.
On 24 July 2003 the Board's internal reviewer upheld the original decision to refuse the information concerning the staff members. However, at this time, details of the particular eligibility requirements for each of the posts held by those individuals were provided to you. In relation to your request for a statement of reasons, the Board stated that detailed reasons for its decision had already been recorded in the Board direction of 2 May 2003 and the Board order of 21 May 2003. The Board refused to provide any further statement. The Board also said that no records additional to those held on the file existed.
You applied to this Office on 15 September 2003 for a review of this matter.
I have conducted this review in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act, 1997 as amended by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, 2003. Unless specified otherwise, all references to the "FOI Act" in this letter are to the Act as amended. In this particular case, the amendments to the Act have no bearing on the issues arising. In the course of this review, I have had regard to the following:
to your own submissions, both as contained in your correspondence with this Office and in correspondence with the Board;
to your further submissions made in response to the preliminary views expressed by Investigator, Ms. Sarah Kember, in her letter to you dated 5 December 2003;
to the initial conclusions of the Board on this matter and to its subsequent comments in response to queries raised by this Office; and
to the provisions of the FOI Act generally.
The sole issue in this review is whether the Board's decision to refuse your request for certain records and for a statement of reasons is correct in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
Section 28(1): Personal Information
In her letter to you of 5 December 2003, Ms. Kember explained how section 28(1) applies and outlined her preliminary views on its relevance to your particular request. It is not necessary for me to repeat the general information regarding the operation of this section in this decision.
Ms. Kember noted that you sought access to the details of qualifications and experience of the ten staff members who were directly involved in your appeal and explained why, in her view, the particular information you sought constituted personal information about the individuals in question.
In responding to Ms. Kember's letter, you stated as follows:
"I do not wish to pry into personal affairs of staff members and would be satisfied to know that the staff listed all met the criteria set out for the post held and the number of years of experience in their current post".
Accordingly, the scope of this aspect of your request is narrowed to include only records concerning:
whether each member of staff in question was appropriately qualified; and
the length of time each of these individuals had held their post.
Ms. Kember asked the Board for a list of the requirements for each of the posts held by the staff members in question, together with written confirmation that each of these individuals held the requisite qualifications. You already have access to the qualifications of two of the ten individuals, being Mr Lewis Clohessy whose details are on the Board's website, and Ms Jane Dennehy who consented to the release of her qualifications to you. I am satisfied that both these two individuals and each of the remaining eight staff members held the appropriate qualifications for the position at the time of their appointment. Certain individuals also hold additional qualifications. I trust that this satisfies this particular aspect of your query and I will not be considering this matter further in my decision.
With regards to your request for the amount of time each member of staff held his or her their post within the Board, I find this to constitute personal information about those individuals and not information about the person in his or her official capacity. This goes beyond the exception to what is considered to be "personal information" for the purposes of the FOI Act where the individual in question is a member of staff or employee of a public body.
The definition of "personal information" in section 2 of the FOI Act specifically notes at (iiii) that such information is to include "information relating to the employment or the employment history of the individual".
As you know, where certain types of information concern a member of staff of a public body, this may not constitute personal information for the purposes of the FOI Act. However, such information is limited to information about the following: the office in question; the position itself; the name of the individual; the terms upon which the individual holds the position; and information recorded or written by the individual in the performance of his or her official functions. This type of information has already been provided to you, including the names of the staff members, their respective positions and the requirements for holding that position. I do not find that the length of time spent in a post constitutes information about the official role or occupation of these individuals. Accordingly, I find that it constitutes personal information and is exempt under section 28(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
I am satisfied that the details provided to you by the Board meet any public interest in the release of information relating to this particular aspect of your request and that there is no public interest in release of information regarding the length of time the staff members have held their respective positions which outweighs the interest in the protection of their privacy.
Section 18: Statement of Reasons for an Action or a Decision of a Public Body
As a preliminary observation, I would like to note that the Board's stated reason for refusing your request for a statement of reasons was that such a statement already existed as contained in two separate records. These records are held on the file which is in the public domain. As the records in question are publicly available, the Board referred to section 46(2) of the FOI Act which provides that the Act does not apply to records which are already available for inspection. The Board then referred to section 18(2) of the FOI Act which provides that a statement of reasons does not require "the giving to a person of information contained in an exempt record".
However, I have chosen to leave this argument aside, and have gone on to consider whether you are, firstly, a person who is entitled to a statement of reasons under section 18 and, if so, whether the reasons as contained in the records referred to by the Board (being the Board direction of 2 May 2003 and the Board order of 21 May 2003) can be said to be an adequate statement of reasons for the decision to grant planning permission and to deny your appeal under section 18. As you know, in order to be entitled to a statement of reasons for an action or a decision of a public body, the individual who seeks such a statement must be affected by the act or decision, and must have a "material interest" in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates.
In her letter to you, referred to above, Ms. Kember explained what is meant by a "material interest" as outlined in section 18(5) of the FOI Act.
In your letter of 18 December 2003, you responded as follows:
"In your letter you commented on my capacity in being personally affected by this decision as well as having the necessary material interest. You also commented on issues relating to joint personal information. I would like to comment on all of these issues together as follows:
Firstly my ownership of my property at ****** differs from that of the developer in that my property is my home and in my personal ownership. The developer is acting as an agent for the companies ******* construction as the attached records from the Companies Registration Office show.
Secondly, the location of my property - as you will see from the enclosed site map - is such that this development impacts directly on me and other home owners in ******* in a much more immediate and personal way from say residents in other separate developments on the estate. (******** is across the road, and houses are some distance away.) The developer is attempting to incorporate into the new development external areas which I contend are part of my property in accordance with my lease and which I have not agreed to allow the developer to do.
On the specific issue of joint personal information, there is provision in the FOI Act to release personal information in the public interest, where this would benefit those to whom the information relates. In my view there is a strong case for doing so in this instance.
There are currently two Apartment Blocks in ********, each of 32 apartments, with about half of them being occupied by owner-occupiers such as myself. Owners have signed contracts and leases dated from 1984 in relation to their apartments and the leases include a Management Company to run each Block and a holding company consisting of each Management Company to run the external areas. Each Block is each represented by a Committee, which holds a list of the owners in each block. The current situation arises from the fact that the original development of four blocks did not proceed, hence the new planning application.
The matters relating to my and other owners dispute with this developer are far from over. We contend that all along his delays in handing over our property to us in accordance with the leases signed, was to enable him to take advantage in a future planning application. It would appear that he has been successful so far in doing so. I and other owners are being seriously disadvantaged by this decision and are trying in every way that we can to assert our rights and achieve a satisfactory outcome. It means a continues struggle to monitor developments, inspect the public file at DCC to see if steps are being made to meet conditions imposed as well as ongoing issues with our solicitor and contact with the Companies Registration Office to ensure that our management company is not struck again off while the developer continues to insist he is in the process of handing over the company to us etc. etc. etc."
In relation to your comments concerning joint personal information, any reference to this was in the context of the particular portion of the Board's decision which refused certain information under section 28(1)(a). As I understand the situation, the only records refused on this basis are the records relating to the staff members, referred to above. Personal information, and whether information is joint personal information about more than one individual is not relevant to a consideration of the appropriateness or adequacy of a statement of reasons under section 18.
I have carefully considered your submissions, in particular your above comments as to why, in your view, you are personally - or in the language of the FOI Act, "materially" - affected by the Board's decision and therefore are entitled to a statement of reasons.
However, the provisions of the FOI Act are clear: no person who suffers a consequence of an action or a decision of a public body which is also experienced by a class of persons of significant size will be considered to have a "material interest" for the purposes of section 18. You have stated yourself that your position is shared by the other property owners in ********* which you estimate to be 32 in total. Clearly, you are not suffering any consequence or effect of the Board's decision which is not shared by others in your same position.
In your case, you are one of a group, a class of persons, being owners of property at *********, who have all been affected by the decision of the Board. As such, under the particular provisions of the FOI Act, you cannot be considered to be a person who is materially affected by the decision and therefore, you are not entitled to a statement of reasons under section 18 of the FOI Act.
Even if I had not formed this view, I would find that the reasons as contained in the above-mentioned records are adequate for the purposes of section 18. In earlier decisions, the former Information Commissioner, Mr. Kevin Murphy, has found that to satisfy the requirements of section 18, a statement must be clear and intelligible, identifying the criteria relevant to the action or decision in question and explain how such criteria affected the act or decision. The Commissioner has found that, to be adequate, a statement does not necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all the issues which a requester identifies as relevant.
I find that the Board's decision to refuse to provide you with a particular statement of reasons is justified in terms of the provisions of the FOI Act.
Section 10(1)(a): Additional Records
Ms. Kember outlined the application of section 10(1)(a) in her letter to you of 5 December 2003 and provided her preliminary views as to why she was of the opinion that the Board's decision to refuse any further records on the basis that none existed or could be found despite all reasonable efforts to locate such records was correct.
Ms. Kember also invited your further comments on this particular issue and I note that, in your submissions, you did not raise this matter further.
I agree with Ms. Kember's views and, in the absence of any further submissions to contradict the position as understood by this Office, do not consider it necessary to re-state the position here, save to refer to it for the purposes of my decision.
Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, as amended by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, 2003, I hereby affirm the decision of An Bord Pleanála.
A party to a review, or any other person affected by a decision of the Information Commissioner following a review, may appeal to the High Court on a point of law arising from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than eight weeks from the date of this letter.
6 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, D02 W773.
Opening Hours: 9.15 to 5.00 Monday to Friday
Make an FOI request to OIC
Make an AIE request to OIC
Re-use of OIC information
Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015
Irish Language Scheme


Anglers fish glass for a long list of reasons. At the top of the list are more easily feeling the rod load and the superior shock absorption of glass fibers. For 2019, we compiled our years of fiberglass experience in to the new River Glass series, offered in lengths to cover the widest variety of freshwater fisheries. The rods are available in either Glacier or Amber color to help add a bit more smile that wasn't there when you fished your stiffer graphite rods.


text:
Hannah Middleton
GW190425—First discovery from O3
January 6, 2020 June 26, 2021 / CPLB	/ Leave a comment
The first gravitational wave detection of LIGO and Virgo's third observing run (O3) has been announced: GW190425! [bonus note] The signal comes from the inspiral of two objects which have a combined mass of about 3.4 times the mass of our Sun. These masses are in range expected for neutron stars, this makes GW190425 the second observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral (after GW170817). While the individual masses of the two components agree with the masses of neutron stars found in binaries, the overall mass of the binary (times the mass of our Sun) is noticeably larger than any previously known binary neutron star system. GW190425 may be the first evidence for multiple ways of forming binary neutron stars.
The gravitational wave signal
On 25 April 2019 the LIGO–Virgo network observed a signal. This was promptly shared with the world as candidate event S190425z [bonus note]. The initial source classification was as a binary neutron star. This caused a flurry of excitement in the astronomical community [bonus note], as the smashing together of two neutron stars should lead to the emission of light. Unfortunately, the sky localization was HUGE (the initial 90% area wass about a quarter of the sky, and the refined localization provided the next day wasn't much improvement), and the distance was four times that of GW170817 (meaning that any counterpart would be about 16 times fainter). Covering all this area is almost impossible. No convincing counterpart has been found [bonus note].
Early sky localization for GW190425. Darker areas are more probable. This localization was circulated in GCN 24228 on 26 April and was used to guide follow-up, even though it covers a huge amount of the sky (the 90% area is about 18% of the sky).
The localization for GW19045 was so large because LIGO Hanford (LHO) was offline at the time. Only LIGO Livingston (LLO) and Virgo were online. The Livingston detector was about 2.8 times more sensitive than Virgo, so pretty much all the information came from Livingston. I'm looking forward to when we have a larger network of detectors at comparable sensitivity online (we really need three detectors observing for a good localization).
We typically search for gravitational waves by looking for coincident signals in our detectors. When looking for binaries, we have templates for what the signals look like, so we match these to the data and look for good overlaps. The overlap is quantified by the signal-to-noise ratio. Since our detectors contains all sorts of noise, you'd expect them to randomly match templates from time to time. On average, you'd expect the signal-to-noise ratio to be about 1. The higher the signal-to-noise ratio, the less likely that a random noise fluctuation could account for this.
Our search algorithms don't just rely on the signal-to-noise ratio. The complication is that there are frequently glitches in our detectors. Glitches can be extremely loud, and so can have a significant overlap with a template, even though they don't look anything like one. Therefore, our search algorithms also look at the overlap for different parts of the template, to check that these match the expected distribution (for example, there's not one bit which is really loud, while the others don't match). Each of our different search algorithms has their own way of doing this, but they are largely based around the ideas from Allen (2005), which is pleasantly readable if you like these sort of things. It's important to collect lots of data so that we know the expected distribution of signal-to-noise ratio and signal-consistency statistics (sometimes things change in our detectors and new types of noise pop up, which can confuse things).
It is extremely important to check the state of the detectors at the time of an event candidate. In O3, we have unfortunately had to retract various candidate events after we've identified that our detectors were in a disturbed state. The signal consistency checks take care of most of the instances, but they are not perfect. Fortunately, it is usually easy to identify that there is a glitch—the difficult question is whether there is a glitch on top of a signal (as was the case for GW170817). Our checks revealed nothing up with the detectors which could explain the signal (there was a small glitch in Livingston about 60 seconds before the merger time, but this doesn't overlap with the signal).
Now, the search that identified GW190425 was actually just looking for single-detector events: outliers in the distribution of signal-to-noise ratio and signal-consistency as expected for signals. This was a Good Thing™. While the signal-to-noise ratio in Livingston was 12.9 (pretty darn good), the signal-to-noise ration in Virgo was only 2.5 (pretty meh) [bonus note]. This is below the threshold (signal-to-noise ratio of 4) the search algorithms use to look for coincidences (a threshold is there to cut computational expense: the lower the threshold, the more triggers need to be checked) [bonus note]. The Bad Thing™ about GW190425 being found by the single-detector search, and being missed by the usual multiple detector search, is that it is much harder to estimate the false-alarm rate—it's much harder to rule out the possibility of some unusual noise when you don't have another detector to cross-reference against. We don't have a final estimate for the significance yet. The initial estimate was 1 in 69,000 years (which relies on significant extrapolation). What we can be certain of is that this event is a noticeable outlier: across the whole of O1, O2 and the first 50 days of O3, it comes second only to GW170817. In short, we can say that GW190425 is worth betting on, but I'm not sure (yet) how heavily you want to bet.
Detection statistics for GW190425 showing how it stands out from the background. The left plot shows the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal-consistency statistic from the GstLAL algorithm, which made the detection. The coloured density plot shows the distribution of background triggers. Right shows the detection statistic from PyCBC, which combines the SNR and their signal-consistency statistic. The lines show the background distributions. GW190425 is more significant than everything apart from GW170817. Adapted from Figures 1 and 6 of the GW190425 Discovery Paper.
I'm always cautious of single-detector candidates. If you find a high-mass binary black hole (which would be an extremely short template), or something with extremely high spins (indicating that the templates don't match unless you push to the bounds of what is physical), I would be suspicious. Here, we do have consistent Virgo data, which is good for backing up what is observed in Livingston. It may be a single-detector detection, but it is a multiple-detector observation. To further reassure ourselves about GW190425, we ran our full set of detection algorithms on the Livingston data to check that they all find similar signals, with reasonable signal-consistency test values. Indeed, they do! The best explanation for the data seems to be a gravitational wave.
Given that we have a gravitational wave, where did it come from? The best-measured property of a binary inspiral is its chirp mass—a particular combination of the two component masses. For GW190425, this is solar masses (quoting the 90% range for parameters). This is larger than GW170817's solar masses: we have a heavier binary.
Estimated masses for the two components in the binary. We show results for two different spin limits. The two-dimensional shows the 90% probability contour, which follows a line of constant chirp mass. The one-dimensional plot shows individual masses; the dotted lines mark 90% bounds away from equal mass. The masses are in the range expected for neutron stars. Figure 3 of the GW190425 Discovery Paper.
Figuring out the component masses is trickier. There is a degeneracy between the spins and the mass ratio—by increasing the spins of the components it is possible to get more extreme mass ratios to fit the signal. As we did for GW170817, we quote results with two ranges of spins. The low-spin results use a maximum spin of 0.05, which matches the range of spins we see for binary neutron stars in our Galaxy, while the high-spin results use a limit of 0.89, which safely encompasses the upper limit for neutron stars (if they spin faster than about 0.7 they'll tear themselves apart). We find that the heavier component of the binary has a mass of – solar masses with the low-spin assumption, and – solar masses with the high-spin assumption; the lighter component has a mass – solar masses with the low-spin assumption, and – solar masses with the high-spin. These are the range of masses expected for neutron stars.
Without an electromagnetic counterpart, we cannot be certain that we have two neutron stars. We could tell from the gravitational wave by measuring the imprint in the signal left by the tidal distortion of the neutron star. Black holes have a tidal deformability of 0, so measuring a nonzero tidal deformability would be the smoking gun that we have a neutron star. Unfortunately, the signal isn't loud enough to find any evidence of these effects. This isn't surprising—we couldn't say anything for GW170817, without assuming its source was a binary neutron star, and GW170817 was louder and had a lower mass source (where tidal effects are easier to measure). We did check—it's probably not the case that the components were made of marshmallow, but there's not much more we can say (although we can still make pretty simulations). It would be really odd to have black holes this small, but we can't rule out than at least one of the components was a black hole.
Two binary neutron stars is the most likely explanation for GW190425. How does it compare to other binary neutron stars? Looking at the 17 known binary neutron stars in our Galaxy, we see that GW190425's source is much heavier. This is intriguing—could there be a different, previously unknown formation mechanism for this binary? Perhaps the survey of Galactic binary neutron stars (thanks to radio observations) is incomplete? Maybe the more massive binaries form in close binaries, which are had to spot in the radio (as the neutron star moves so quickly, the radio signals gets smeared out), or maybe such heavy binaries only form from stars with low metallicity (few elements heavier than hydrogen and helium) from earlier in the Universe's history, so that they are no longer emitting in the radio today? I think it's too early to tell—but it's still fun to speculate. I expect there'll be a flurry of explanations out soon.
Comparison of the total binary mass of the 10 known binary neutron stars in our Galaxy that will merge within a Hubble time and GW190425's source (with both the high-spin and low-spin assumptions). We also show a Gaussian fit to the Galactic binaries. GW190425's source is higher mass than previously known binary neutron stars. Figure 5 of the GW190425 Discovery Paper.
Since the source seems to be an outlier in terms of mass compared to the Galactic population, I'm a little cautious about using the low-spin results—if this sample doesn't reflect the full range of masses, perhaps it doesn't reflect the full range of spins too? I think it's good to keep an open mind. The fastest spinning neutron star we know of has a spin of around 0.4, maybe binary neutron star components can spin this fast in binaries too?
One thing we can measure is the distance to the source: . That means the signal was travelling across the Universe for about half a billion years. This is as many times bigger than diameter of Earth's orbit about the Sun, as the diameter of the orbit is than the height of a LEGO brick. Space is big.
We have now observed two gravitational wave signals from binary neutron stars. What does the new observation mean for the merger rate of binary neutron stars? To go from an observed number of signals to how many binaries are out there in the Universe we need to know how sensitive our detectors are to the sources. This depends on the masses of the sources, since more massive binaries produce louder signals. We're not sure of the mass distribution for binary neutron stars yet. If we assume a uniform mass distribution for neutron stars between 0.8 and 2.3 solar masses, then at the end of O2 we estimated a merger rate of – . Now, adding in the first 50 days of O3, we estimate the rate to be – , so roughly the same (which is nice) [bonus note].
Since GW190425's source looks rather different from other neutron stars, you might be interested in breaking up the merger rates to look at different classes. Using measured masses, we can construct rates for GW170817-like (matching the usual binary neutron star population) and GW190425-like binaries (we did something similar for binary black holes after our first detection). The GW170817-like rate is – , and the GW190425-like rate is lower at – . Combining the two (Assuming that binary neutron stars are all one class or the other), gives an overall rate of – , which is not too different than assuming the uniform distribution of masses.
Given these rates, we might expect some more nice binary neutron star signals in the O3 data. There is a lot of science to come.
Future mysteries
GW190425 hints that there might be a greater variety of binary neutron stars out there than previously thought. As we collect more detections, we can start to reconstruct the mass distribution. Using this, together with the merger rate, we can start to pin down the details of how these binaries form.
As we find more signals, we should also find a few which are loud enough to measure tidal effects. With these, we can start to figure out the properties of the Stuff™ which makes up neutron stars, and potentially figure out if there are small black holes in this mass range. Discovering smaller black holes would be extremely exciting—these wouldn't be formed from collapsing stars, but potentially could be remnants left over from the early Universe.
Probability distributions for neutron star masses and radii (blue for the more massive neutron star, orange for the lighter), assuming that GW190425's source is a binary neutron star. The left plots use the high-spin assumption, the right plots use the low-spin assumptions. The top plots use equation-of-state insensitive relations, and the bottom use parametrised equation-of-state models incorporating the requirement that neutron stars can be 1.97 solar masses. Similar analyses were done in the GW170817 Equation-of-state Paper. In the one-dimensional plots, the dashed lines indicate the priors. Figure 16 of the GW190425 Discovery Paper.
With more detections (especially when we have more detectors online), we should also be lucky enough to have a few which are well localised. These are the events when we are most likely to find an electromagnetic counterpart. As our gravitational-wave detectors become more sensitive, we can detect sources further out. These are much harder to find counterparts for, so we mustn't expect every detection to have a counterpart. However, for nearby sources, we will be able to localise them better, and so increase our odds of finding a counterpart. From such multimessenger observations we can learn a lot. I'm especially interested to see how typical GW170817 really was.
O3 might see gravitational wave detection becoming routine, but that doesn't mean gravitational wave astronomy is any less exciting!
Title: GW190425: Observation of a compact binary coalescence with total mass ~ 3.4 solar masses
Journal: Astrophysical Journal Letters; 892(1):L3(24); 2020
arXiv: arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE] [bonus note]
Science summary: GW190425: The heaviest binary neutron star system ever seen?
Rating: 🥇😮🥂🥇
The plan for publishing papers in O3 is that we would write a paper for any particularly exciting detections (such as a binary neutron star), and then put out a catalogue of all our results later. The initial discovery papers wouldn't be the full picture, just the key details so that the entire community could get working on them. Our initial timeline was to get the individual papers out in four months—that's not going so well, it turns out that the most interesting events have lots of interesting properties, which take some time to understand. Who'd have guessed?
We're still working on getting papers out as soon as possible. We'll be including full analyses, including results which we can't do on these shorter timescales in our catalogue papers. The catalogue paper for the first half of O3 (O3a) is currently pencilled in for April 2020.
The name of a gravitational wave signal is set by the date it is observed. GW190425 is hence the gravitational wave (GW) observed on 2019 April 25th. Our candidates alerts don't start out with the GW prefix, as we still need to do lots of work to check if they are real. Their names start with S for superevent (not for hope) [bonus bonus note], then the date, and then a letter indicating the order it was uploaded to our database of candidates (we upload candidates with false alarm rates of around one per hour, so there are multiple database entries per day, and most are false alarms). S190425z was the 26th superevent uploaded on 2019 April 25th.
What is a superevent? We call anything flagged by our detection pipelines an event. We have multiple detection pipelines, and often multiple pipelines produce events for the same stretch of data (you'd expect this to happen for real signals). It was rather confusing having multiple events for the same signal (especially when trying to quickly check a candidate to issue an alert), so in O3 we group together events from similar times into SUPERevents.
GRB 190425?
Pozanenko et al. (2019) suggest a gamma-ray burst observed by INTEGRAL (first reported in GCN 24170). The INTEGRAL team themselves don't find anything in their data, and seem sceptical of the significance of the detection claim. The significance of the claim seems to be based on there being two peaks in the data (one about 0.5 seconds after the merger, one 5.9 seconds after the merger), but I'm not convinced why this should be the case. Nothing was observed by Fermi, which is possibly because the source was obscured by the Earth for them. I'm interested in seeing more study of this possible gamma-ray burst.
EMMA 2019
At the time of GW190425, I was attending the first day of the Enabling Multi-Messenger Astrophysics in the Big Data Era Workshop. This was a meeting bringing together many involved in the search for counterparts to gravitational wave events. The alert for S190425z cause some excitement. I don't think there was much sleep that week.
The cafeteria at @stsci is just a war room now, with people scheduling satellites and telescopes all over the world, on the phone with colleagues, running around sharing rumors and the latest info. Exciting! @LIGO #Emma2019 pic.twitter.com/2BnvOtYNcJ
— Andy Howell (@d_a_howell) April 26, 2019
Signal-to-noise ratio ratios
The signal-to-noise ratio reported from our search algorithm for LIGO Livingston is 12.9, and the same code gives 2.5 for Virgo. Virgo was about 2.8 times less sensitive that Livingston at the time, so you might be wondering why we have a signal-to-noise ratio of 2.8, instead of 4.6? The reason is that our detectors are not equally sensitive in all directions. They are most sensitive directly to sources directly above and below, and less sensitive to sources from the sides. The relative signal-to-noise ratios, together with the time or arrival at the different detectors, helps us to figure out the directions the signal comes from.
Detection thresholds
In O2, GW170818 was only detected by GstLAL because its signal-to-noise ratios in Hanford and Virgo (4.1 and 4.2 respectively) were below the threshold used by PyCBC for their analysis (in O2 it was 5.5). Subsequently, PyCBC has been rerun on the O2 data to produce the second Open Gravitational-wave Catalog (2-OGC). This is an analysis performed by PyCBC experts both inside and outside the LIGO Scientific & Virgo Collaboration. For this, a threshold of 4 was used, and consequently they found GW170818, which is nice.
I expect that if the threshold for our usual multiple-detector detection pipelines were lowered to ~2, they would find GW190425. Doing so would make the analysis much trickier, so I'm not sure if anyone will ever attempt this. Let's see. Perhaps the 3-OGC team will be feeling ambitious?
Rates calculations
In comparing rates calculated for this papers and those from our end-of-O2 paper, my student Chase Kimball (who calculated the new numbers) would like me to remember that it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. The older numbers evaluated our sensitivity to gravitational waves by doing a large number of injections: we simulated signals in our data and saw what fraction of search algorithms could pick out. The newer numbers used an approximation (using a simple signal-to-noise ratio threshold) to estimate our sensitivity. Performing injections is computationally expensive, so we're saving that for our end-of-run papers. Given that we currently have only two detections, the uncertainty on the rates is large, and so we don't need to worry too much about the details of calculating the sensitivity. We did calibrate our approximation to past injection results, so I think it's really an apples-to-pears-carved-into-the-shape-of-apples comparison.
Paper release
The original plan for GW190425 was to have the paper published before the announcement, as we did with our early detections. The timeline neatly aligned with the AAS meeting, so that seemed like an good place to make the announcement. We managed to get the the paper submitted, and referee reports back, but we didn't quite get everything done in time for the AAS announcement, so Plan B was to have the paper appear on the arXiv just after the announcement. Unfortunately, there was a problem uploading files to the arXiv (too large), and by the time that was fixed the posting deadline had passed. Therefore, we went with Plan C or sharing the paper on the LIGO DCC. Next time you're struggling to upload something online, remember that it happens to Nobel-Prize winning scientific collaborations too.
On the question of when it is best to share a paper, I'm still not decided. I like the idea of being peer-reviewed before making a big splash in the media. I think it is important to show that science works by having lots of people study a topic, before coming to a consensus. Evidence needs to be evaluated by independent experts. On the other hand, engaging the entire community can lead to greater insights than a couple of journal reviewers, and posting to arXiv gives opportunity to make adjustments before you having the finished article.
I think I am leaning towards early posting in general—the amount of internal review that our Collaboration papers receive, satisfies my requirements that scientists are seen to be careful, and I like getting a wider range of comments—I think this leads to having the best paper in the end.
The joke that S stands for super, not hope is recycled from an article I wrote for the LIGO Magazine. The editor, Hannah Middleton wasn't sure that many people would get the reference, but graciously printed it anyway. Did people get it, or do I need to fly around the world really fast?
Parameter estimation on gravitational waves from neutron-star binaries with spinning components
October 1, 2016 October 15, 2017 / CPLB	/ Leave a comment
blIn gravitation-wave astronomy, some parameters are easier to measure than others. We are sensitive to properties which change the form of the wave, but sometimes the effect of changing one parameter can be compensated by changing another. We call this a degeneracy. In signals for coalescing binaries (two black holes or neutron stars inspiralling together), there is a degeneracy between between the masses and spins. In this recently published paper, we look at what this means for observing binary neutron star systems.
This paper has been something of an albatross, and I'm extremely pleased that we finally got it published. I started working on it when I began my post-doc at Birmingham in 2013. Back then I was sharing an office with Ben Farr, and together with others in the Parameter Estimation Group, we were thinking about the prospect of observing binary neutron star signals (which we naively thought were the most likely) in LIGO's first observing run.
One reason that this work took so long is that binary neutron star signals can be computationally expensive to analyse [bonus note]. The signal slowly chirps up in frequency, and can take up to a minute to sweep through the range of frequencies LIGO is sensitive to. That gives us a lot of gravitational wave to analyse. (For comparison, GW150914 lasted 0.2 seconds). We need to calculate waveforms to match to the observed signals, and these can be especially complicated when accounting for the effects of spin.
A second reason is shortly after submitting the paper in August 2015, we got a little distracted…
This paper was the third of a trilogy look at measuring the properties of binary neutron stars. I've written about the previous instalment before. We knew that getting the final results for binary neutron stars, including all the important effects like spin, would take a long time, so we planned to follow up any detections in stages. A probable sky location can be computed quickly, then we can have a first try at estimating other parameters like masses using waveforms that don't include spin, then we go for the full results with spin. The quicker results would be useful for astronomers trying to find any explosions that coincided with the merger of the two neutron stars. The first two papers looked at results from the quicker analyses (especially at sky localization); in this one we check what effect neglecting spin has on measurements.
We analysed a population of 250 binary neutron star signals (these are the same as the ones used in the first paper of the trilogy). We used what was our best guess for the sensitivity of the two LIGO detectors in the first observing run (which was about right).
The simulated neutron stars all have small spins of less than 0.05 (where 0 is no spin, and 1 would be the maximum spin of a black hole). We expect neutron stars in these binaries to have spins of about this range. The maximum observed spin (for a neutron star not in a binary neutron star system) is around 0.4, and we think neutron stars should break apart for spins of 0.7. However, since we want to keep an open mind regarding neutron stars, when measuring spins we considered spins all the way up to 1.
Our results clearly showed the effect of the mass–spin degeneracy. The degeneracy increases the uncertainty for both the spins and the masses.
Even though the true spins are low, we find that across the 250 events, the median 90% upper limit on the spin of the more massive (primary) neutron star is 0.70, and the 90% limit on the less massive (secondary) neutron star is 0.86. We learn practically nothing about the spin of the secondary, but a little more about the spin of the primary, which is more important for the inspiral. Measuring spins is hard.
The effect of the mass–spin degeneracy for mass measurements is shown in the plot below. Here we show a random selection of events. The banana-shaped curves are the 90% probability intervals. They are narrow because we can measure a particular combination of masses, the chirp mass, really well. The mass–spin degeneracy determines how long the banana is. If we restrict the range of spins, we explore less of the banana (and potentially introduce an offset in our results).
Rough outlines for 90% credible regions for component masses for a random assortments of signals. The circles show the true values. The coloured lines indicate the extent of the distribution with different limits on the spins. The grey area is excluded from our convention on masses . Figure 5 from Farr et al. (2016).
Although you can't see it in the plot above, including spin does also increase the uncertainty in the chirp mass too. The plots below show the standard deviation (a measure width of the posterior probability distribution), divided by the mean for several mass parameters. This gives a measure of the fractional uncertainty in our measurements. We show the chirp mass , the mass ratio and the total mass , where and are the masses of the primary and secondary neutron stars respectively. The uncertainties are small for louder signals (higher signal-to-noise ratio). If we neglect the spin, the true chirp mass can lie outside the posterior distribution, the average is about 5 standard deviations from the mean, but if we include spin, the offset is just 0.7 from the mean (there's still some offset as we're allowing for spins all the way up to 1).
Fractional statistical uncertainties in chirp mass (top), mass ratio (middle) and total mass (bottom) estimates as a function of network signal-to-noise ratio for both the fully spinning analysis and the quicker non-spinning analysis. The lines indicate approximate power-law trends to guide the eye. Figure 2 of Farr et al. (2016).
We need to allow for spins when measuring binary neutron star masses in order to explore for the possible range of masses.
Sky localization and distance, however, are not affected by the spins here. This might not be the case for sources which are more rapidly spinning, but assuming that binary neutron stars do have low spin, we are safe using the easier-to-calculate results. This is good news for astronomers who need to know promptly where to look for explosions.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal; 825(2):116(10); 2016
Authorea [bonus note]: Parameter estimation on gravitational waves from neutron-star binaries with spinning components
Conference proceedings: Early Advanced LIGO binary neutron-star sky localization and parameter estimation
Favourite albatross: Wilbur
The plot below shows how long it took to analyse each of the binary neutron star signals.
Distribution of run times for binary neutron star signals. Low-latency sky localization is done with BAYESTAR; medium-latency non-spinning parameter estimation is done with LALInference and TaylorF2 waveforms, and high-latency fully spinning parameter estimation is done with LALInference and SpinTaylorT4 waveforms. The LALInference results are for 2000 posterior samples. Figure 9 from Farr et al. (2016).
BAYESTAR provides a rapid sky localization, taking less than ten seconds. This is handy for astronomers who want to catch a flash caused by the merger before it fades.
Estimates for the other parameters are computed with LALInference. How long this takes to run depends on which waveform you are using and how many samples from the posterior probability distribution you want (the more you have, the better you can map out the shape of the distribution). Here we show times for 2000 samples, which is enough to get a rough idea (we collected ten times more for GW150914 and friends). Collecting twice as many samples takes (roughly) twice as long. Prompt results can be obtained with a waveform that doesn't include spin (TaylorF2), these take about a day at most.
For this work, we considered results using a waveform which included the full effects of spin (SpinTaylorT4). These take about twenty times longer than the non-spinning analyses. The maximum time was 172 days. I have a strong suspicion that the computing time cost more than my salary.
Waiting for LALInference runs to finish gives you some time to practise hobbies. This is a globe knitted by Hannah. The two LIGO sites marked in red, and a typical gravitational-wave sky localization stitched on.
In order to get these results, we had to add check-pointing to our code, so we could stop it and restart it; we encountered a new type of error in the software which manages jobs running on our clusters, and Hannah Middleton and I got several angry emails from cluster admins (who are wonderful people) for having too many jobs running.
In comparison, analysing GW150914, LVT151012 and GW151226 was a breeze. Grudgingly, I have to admit that getting everything sorted out for this study made us reasonably well prepared for the real thing. Although, I'm not looking forward to that first binary neutron star signal…
Authorea is an online collaborative writing service. It allows people to work together on documents, editing text, adding comments, and chatting with each other. By the time we came to write up the paper, Ben was no longer in Birmingham, and many of our coauthors are scattered across the globe. Ben thought Authorea might be useful for putting together the paper.
Writing was easy, and the ability to add comments on the text was handy for getting feedback from coauthors. The chat was going for quickly sorting out issues like plots. Overall, I was quite pleased, up to the point we wanted to get the final document. Extracted a nicely formatted PDF was awkward. For this I switched to using the Github back-end. On reflection, a simple git repo, plus a couple of Skype calls might have been a smoother way of writing, at least for a standard journal article.
Authorea promises to be an open way of producing documents, and allows for others to comment on papers. I don't know if anyone's looked at our Authorea article. For astrophysics, most people use the arXiv, which is free to everyone, and I'm not sure if there's enough appetite for interaction (beyond the occasional email to authors) to motivate people to look elsewhere. At least, not yet.
In conclusion, I think Authorea is a nice idea, and I would try out similar collaborative online writing tools again, but I don't think I can give it a strong recommendation for your next paper unless you have a particular idea in mind of how to make the most of it.
BritGrav 15
May 5, 2015 July 15, 2021 / CPLB	/ Leave a comment
April was a busy month. Amongst other adventures, I organised the 15th British Gravity (BritGrav) Meeting. This is a conference for everyone involved with research connected to gravitation. I was involved in organising last year's meeting in Cambridge, and since there were very few fatalities, it was decided that I could be trusted to organise it again. Overall, I think it actually went rather well.
Before I go on to review the details of the meeting, I must thank everyone who helped put things together. Huge thanks to my organisational team who helped with every aspect of the organisation. They did wonderfully, even if Hannah seems to have developed a slight sign-making addiction. Thanks go to Classical & Quantum Gravity and the IOP Gravitational Physics Group for sponsoring the event, and to the College of Engineering & Physical Sciences' marketing team for advertising. Finally, thanks to everyone who came along!
BritGrav is a broad meeting. It turns out there's rather a lot of research connected to gravity! This has both good and bad aspects. On the plus side, you can make connections with people you wouldn't normally run across and find out about new areas you wouldn't hear about at a specialist meeting. On the negative side, there can some talks which go straight-over your head (no matter how fast your reaction are). The 10-minute talk format helps a little here. There's not enough time to delve into details (which only specialists would appreciate) so speakers should stick to giving an overview that is generally accessible. Even in the event that you do get completely lost, it's only a few minutes until the next talk, so it's not too painful. The 10-minute time slot also helps us to fit in a large number of talks, to cover all the relevant areas of research.
Slide from Teodora Oniga's BritGrav 15 talk on gauge invariant quantum gravitational decoherence. There are not enough cats featured in slides on gravitational physics.
I've collected together tweets and links from the science talks: it was a busy two days! We started with Chris Collins talking about testing the inverse-square law here at Birmingham. There were a couple more experimental talks leading into a session on gravitational waves, which I enjoyed particularly. I spoke on a soon-to-be published paper, and Birmingham PhDs Hannah Middleton and Simon Stevenson gave interesting talks on what we could learn about black holes from gravitational waves.
Slides demonstrating the difficulty of detecting gravitational-wave signals from Alex Nielsen's talk on searching for neutron star–black hole binaries with gravitational waves. Fortunately we don't do it by eye (although if you flick between the slides you can notice the difference).
In the afternoon, there were some talks on cosmology (including a nice talk from Maggie Lieu on hierarchical modelling) and on the structure of neutron stars. I was especially pleased to see a talk by Alice Harpole, as she had been one of my students at Cambridge (she was always rather good). The day concluded with some numerical relativity and the latest work generating gravitational-waveform templates (more on that later).
The second day was more theoretical, and somewhat more difficult for me. We had talks on modified gravity and on quantum theories. We had talks on the properties of various spacetimes. Brien Nolan told us that everyone should have a favourite spacetime before going into the details of his: McVittie. That's not the spacetime around a biscuit, sadly, but could describe a black hole in an expanding Universe, which is almost as cool.
The final talks of the day were from the winners of the Gravitational Physics Group's Thesis Prize. Anna Heffernan (2014 winner) spoke on the self-force problem. This is important for extreme-mass-ratio systems, such as those we'll hopefully detect with eLISA. Patricia Schmidt (2105 winner) spoke on including precession in binary black hole waveforms. In general, the spins of black holes won't be aligned with their orbital angular momentum, causing them to precess. The precession modulates the gravitational waveform, so you need to include this when analysing signals (especially if you want to measure the black holes' spins). Both talks were excellent and showed how much work had gone into the respective theses.
The meeting closed with the awarding of the best student-talk prize, kindly sponsored by Classical & Quantum Gravity. Runners up were Viraj Sanghai and Umberto Lupo. The winner was Christopher Moore from Cambridge. Chris gave a great talk on how to include uncertainty about your gravitational waveform (which is important if you don't have all the physics, like precession, accurately included) into your parameter estimation: if your waveform is wrong, you'll get the wrong answer. We're currently working on building waveform uncertainty into our parameter-estimation code. Chris showed how you can think about this theoretical uncertainty as another source of noise (in a certain limit).
There was one final talk of the day: Jim Hough gave a public lecture on gravitational-wave detection. I especially enjoyed Jim's explanation that we need to study gravitational waves to be prepared for the 24th century, and hearing how Joe Weber almost got into a fist fight arguing about his detectors (hopefully we'll avoid that with LIGO). I hope this talk enthused our audience for the first observations of Advanced LIGO later this year: there were many good questions from the audience and there was considerable interest in our table-top Michelson interferometer afterwards. We had 114 people in the audience (one of the better turn outs for recent outreach activities), which I was delighted with.
We had a fair amount of interest in the meeting. We totalled 81 (registered) participants at the meeting: a few more registered but didn't make it in the end for various reasons and I suspect a couple of Birmingham people sneaked in without registering.
Looking at the attendance in more detail, we can break down the participants by their career-level. One of the aims of BritGrav is to showcase to research of early-career researchers (PhD students and post-docs), so we ask for this information on the registration form. The proportions are shown in the pie-chart below.
Proportion of participants at BritGrav 15 by (self-reported) career level.
PhD students make up the largest chunk; there are a few keen individuals who are yet to start a PhD, and a roughly even split between post-docs and permanent staff. We do need to encourage more senior researchers to come along, even if they are not giving talks, so that they can see the research done by others.
We had a total of 50 talks across the two days (including the two thesis-prize talks); the distribution of talks by career level as shown below.
Proportion of talks at BritGrav 15 by (self-reported) career level. The majority are by PhD students.
PhDs make up an even larger proportion of talks here, and we see that there are many more talks from post-docs than permanent staff members. This is exactly what we're aiming for! For comparison, at the first BritGrav Meeting only 26% of talks were by PhD students, and 17% of talks were by post-docs. There's been a radical change in the distribution of talks, shifting from senior to junior, although the contribution by post-docs ends up about the same.
We can also consider at the proportion of participants from different institutions, which is shown below.
Proportion of participants at BritGrav 15 by institution. Birmingham, as host, comes out top.
Here, any UK/Ireland institution which has one or no speakers is lumped together under "Other", all these institutions had fewer than four participants. It's good to see that we are attracting some international participants: of those from non-UK/Ireland institutions, two are from the USA and the rest are from Europe (France, Germany, The Netherlands and Slovenia). Birmingham makes up the largest chunk, which probably reflects the convenience. The list of top institutions closely resembles the list of institutions that have hosted a BritGrav. This could show that these are THE places for gravitational research in the UK, or possibly that the best advertising for future BritGravs is having been at an institution in the past (so everyone knows how awesome they are). The distribution of talks by institution roughly traces the number of participants, as shown below.
Proportion of talks at BritGrav 15 by institution.
Again Birmingham comes top, followed by Queen Mary and Southampton. Both of the thesis-prize talks were from people currently outside the UK/Ireland, even though they studied for their PhDs locally. I think we had a good mix of participants, which is one of factors that contributed to the meeting being successful.
I'm pleased with how well everything went at BritGrav 15, and now I'm looking forward to BritGrav 16, which I will not be organising.


text:
Mundera Bazar is een nagar panchayat (plaats) in het district Gorakhpur van de Indiase staat Uttar Pradesh.

Demografie
Volgens de Indiase volkstelling van 2001 wonen er 11.226 mensen in Mundera Bazar, waarvan 52% mannelijk en 48% vrouwelijk is. De plaats heeft een alfabetiseringsgraad van 69%.

Plaats in Gorakhpur

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set property Tree of # which has only a getter I'm using Vue 3 with <script setup> and I'm getting an error when I'm trying to use a component.
In Vue 2, it worked like this:
<template>
    <Tree />
</template>

<script>
    import { Tree, Fold, Draggable } from 'he-tree-vue'

    export default {
        components: {
            Tree: Tree.mixPlugins([ Fold, Draggable ])
        },
     }
</script>

I would like to do this using Vue 3 and <script setup> but I'm getting this error:

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set property Tree of # which has only a getter

<template>
    <Tree />
</template>

<script setup>
    import { Tree, Fold, Draggable } from 'he-tree-vue'

    Tree = Tree.mixPlugins([ Fold, Draggable ]) // This is causing an error
</script>

A: The problem seems to occur with trying to re-assign an import. Instead of reassigning it, rename the Tree import, and export your own Tree constant:
<template>
  <Tree :value="treeData">
    <template v-slot="{ node, path, tree }">
      <span>
        <b @click="tree.toggleFold(node, path)">
          {{node.$folded ? '+' : '-'}}
        </b>
        {{node.text}}
      </span>
    </template>
  </Tree>
</template>

<script setup>
import { Tree as HeTree, Fold, Draggable } from 'he-tree-vue'
const Tree = HeTree.mixPlugins([ Fold, Draggable ])

const treeData = [{text: 'node 1'}, {text: 'node 2', children: [{text: 'node 2-1'}]}]
</script>

demo

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Home | News | Blog post "The monorepo. An experience report from the trenches."
The monorepo. An experience report from the trenches.
A little under two years ago we decided to merge all our separate internal product and library git repositories into one big shared monorepository. We hoped to achieve the following benefits:
Reduced dependency hell due to in-tree dependencies.
While the repo-per-library approach allowed for a more granular versioning of our libraries, in practice it often leads to release cascades: A small bug fix in an utility library would need to be released (via maven release) which in turn would mean a release for all its direct and indirect dependents. This would often create a lot of churn. With the monorepo this has been greatly reduced, since there is only a single revision to manage.
Simplified documentation and traceability.
Following on from the version hell mentioned above, documenting and tracing what versions of applications, libraries and product releases belong together or are compatible added significant. We developed some tooling to help stem the burden, but at the end of the day, it was far better to not have this issue in the first place.
Simpler forking and branch development.
Having everything in a single repository also makes it easier to branch the entire code base to develop new features, to spike out interesting ideas or to make project-specific changes. This allows for better development workflows both for experimentation as well as feature development. In addition, merges are also easier to handle when changes occur in a single repository as opposed to spread out over several.
Streamlined development and debugging experience.
Since most of our code is already checked out, it is easier to debug and edit library code. This greatly reduces barriers to improve the quality of code base. While the initial checkout may take a while, it is far easier to manage and keep up to date with a single repo than a baker's dozen.
Tighter integration loop.
Our whole monorepo is built automatically courtesy of Jenkins. This means that integration issues are far more likely to pop up sooner rather than later. That in turn means these issues can be addressed and fixed as quickly as possible.
To preserve our commit history, we ended up using some git subtree magic to create our monorepo. Each single parent repository was moved to a subdirectory in the merged monorepo. Thus, the history is available for the inevitable git blame/annotate command.
While the change has been positive overall there are some drawbacks that should be mentioned.
Everything and the kitchen sink.
The monorepo contains a whole lot of stuff, some of which is rarely used or updated. But it still gets pulled and built every time and eats up screen real estate in the IDE. To mitigate this, we're slowly trying to trim down some excess fat. Other mitigations include setting up IDE and build processes to focus only on a subset of the whole project tree.
Unrelated changes interleave.
Due to everything is happening in the same repo the commit history is sometimes a medley of unrelated changes. To combat this, we're looking at a more feature-branch oriented approach, in order to make our commit log more coherent. Another neat trick is to constrain history operations to certain subdirectories, in order to get a more focused commit history.
No semantic or finely granular versioning.
Due to having a repo that is versioned collectively we cannot version our libraries using semantic versioning or assign specific versions to subprojects or internal libraries. While this is a drawback, it is a trade-off I'm willing to make to avoid repeated visits to version hell.
In hindsight I think it has been the correct move to combine our code base into a single shared repository to optimize and simplify our development workflows. If you can live with the drawbacks, it is an approach I can highly recommend.
Your INNO-coding team.


On behalf of English Lloyd & Armenta posted in Workplace Accidents on Saturday, July 8, 2017.
Summer is not the only time when people across the country celebrate with fireworks. New Year's Eve, Chinese New Year, weddings and baseball games may incorporate fireworks displays to the surprise and delight of many. However, the personal possession and use of fireworks is carefully limited by California law and with good reason. Fireworks can be dangerous, even deadly, to untrained users, and even the most careful handlers of the explosives may end up seriously injured or worse. Those who handle fireworks for a living are constantly at risk for workplace accidents.
At an out-of-state plant that manufactures fireworks, the employees understand the risks involved in producing, packaging and presenting fireworks displays for special events. Nevertheless, one worker was critically injured when fireworks exploded in her hands. As another employee made a frantic call to 911, a second explosion occurred. Fire officials arrived to a blaze in the building and found the injured woman, who has been a part-time employee for four years.
The owner of the company believes an electric match, which is attached to each firework so the user can safely light the device, may have malfunctioned. That appears to be what caused the explosion. The man told reporters that the injured woman was well-liked in the company and that her father is also an employee. He recalls no other accidents or injuries since his business opened in 2001. Authorities say the woman may not survive her injuries.
When handling a product that is inherently dangerous, workplace accidents are always a possibility. Injuries resulting from an explosion are certainly life-changing, and those who suffer those injuries may find it difficult, if not impossible, to return to work. Workers' compensation covers medical costs and other expenses related to such accidents, and a California attorney with experience in seeking such damages can assist in maximizing the benefits one deserves.


text:
Мелихово — деревня в Дмитровском районе Московской области, в составе Сельского поселения Костинское. Население —  чел. (). До 2006 года Мелихово входило в состав Гришинского сельского округа.

Расположение
Деревня расположена в юго-восточной части района, примерно в 15 км на юго-восток от Дмитрова, у истоков безымянного запруженного ручья бассейна реки Яхромы, высота центра над уровнем моря 188 м. Ближайшие населённые пункты — примыкающий на юго-востоке посёлок Новое Гришино и Лотосово в 0,5 км на юг.

Население

Примечания

Ссылки
 Городские и сельские поселения Дмитровского муниципального района.
 Карта Дмитровского района.

Населённые пункты Дмитровского городского округа


text:
Home Actresses Srinidhi Shetty tops Times 50 Most Desirable Women of 2016 – See...
Srinidhi Shetty tops Times 50 Most Desirable Women of 2016 – See full list!
Srinidhi Ramesh Shetty had won two international pageant titles in 2016.
Times 50 Most Desirable Women of 2016
Srinidhi Shetty is an Indian model who won two international pageant titles in 2016. She competed with 80 participants and was crowned as Miss Supranational 2016 and Miss Asia and Oceania 2016. Recently, after receiving votes from India for Most Desirable Women, Times titled Srinidhi as number 1 in Most Desirable Women of 2016. She is a complete mixture of beauty, brains, and style.Recently, she was also one of the presenters at The International Emmy Kids Awards at Cannes Film Festival 2017.
Times had conducted online votes for Times 50 Most Desirable Women of 2016 on their official website and the results came out on June 29, 2017.
Here's the complete list of Times 50 Most Desirable Women of 2016 –
#1 Srinidhi Shetty
Srinidhi Ramesh Shetty is set to make her debut in Kannada Film Industry with Yash, who is one of the biggest stars in the industry. Srinidhi says that acting was never her choice as a career option and now when she has got an opportunity she hopes that she does well.
#2 Jacqueline Fernandes
Jacqueline Fernandes' hot body and confident look make her the second most desirable woman. Her upcoming flicks are A Gentleman and Judwaa 2.
#3 Priyanka Chopra
Priyanka's attitude and style attract people the most. With her Hollywood debut movie, Baywatch, she is now a global star. She also won the People's Choice Award 2016 for her performance in the Quantico series. Next, she will be seen in Quantico season 3 and a few more Hollywood movies. She has singed Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Gustakhiyan opposite Irrfan Khan.
#4 Deepika Padukone
Deepika's attraction is her dimpled smile and those long killer legs. She made her debut in Bollywood through Om Shanti Om, in which she was starred opposite Shah Rukh Khan. She also made her Hollywood debut through XXX: Return of Xander Cage, which gained her a lot of fans globally. He latest stint at Cannes Film Festival 2017 had the world talking about her! She also topped the Maxim India's Hot 100 2017 List! This Hollywood debutant has also been nominated under Teen Choice Awards 2017's Action Movie Actress category.
#5 Katrina Kaif
Katrina's personality and her hot body make her the desirable one. Her next upcoming Bollywood movie is Tiger Zinda Hai opposite Salman Khan. She recently made heads turn with her photoshoot with international photographer, Mario Testino for his famous Towel Series.
#6 Sunny Leone
Sunny is the bold and sexy one. Her boldness and confidence in her attitude seek attention from her fans. She was last seen in a item number in Shah Rukh Khan's Raees and has a few projects lined up for 2017. Watch Laila Main Laila starring Sunny Leone.
#7 Lopramudra Raut
Lopramudra is known for her confidence and sexy figure. She is a model who won the title of Miss United Continents, 2016 2nd Runner-Up. Lopamudra Raut was also one of the Contestants on Bigg Boss Season 8. She was last seen as a showstopper at India Beach Fashion Week 2017.
#8 Amy Jackson
The British model is mostly seen in Tamil movies. Her next upcoming is Rajinikanth's 2.0. Her sizzling looks and killer attitudes add up to her amazing personality. She was last seen at Cannes Film Festival 2017 as she attended a Charity luncheon.
#9 Priyadarshini Chatterjee
Priyadarshini is the beauty of Assam. Her eyes and dimples are captivating. She has got her own style and talent. Priya was the first girl from the northeast who was crowned FBB Femina India Miss World 2016 and even represented India at Miss World 2016.
#10 Vartika Singh
Vartika is a combination of beauty, brains, and style. Her style and talent make her different from others. Vartika was seen in a sizzling look in the Kingfisher Calendar. She also gained the appreciation for her music video, Saware.
Hit next to see who else made it to the Times 50 Most Desirable Women of 2016!
Aditi Arya
Aradhana Buragohin
Ileana D'Cruz
Jacqueline fernandes
Manasvi
Most Desriable Women Srinidhi Shetty
Pankhuri Gidwani
Priyadarshini Chatterjee
Rikee Chatterjee
Roshmitha Harimurthy
Ruhi Singh
Srinidhi Shetty
Times Most Desirable Women 2016
Vartika Singh
Previous articleIshaan Khattar and Jhanvi Kapoor catch special screening of Baby Driver together
Next articleB'Town divas set temperatures soaring at the Femina Women Awards 2017


text:
More info on Top religious leaders in 1911
Top religious leaders in 1911: Trending topics
The following are the current most viewed articles on Wikipedia within Wikipedia's Top religious leaders in 1911 category. Think of it as a What's Hot list for Top religious leaders in 1911. More info »
Top religious leaders in 1911: All
1 Constantinople – Joachim III, Ecumenical Patriarch (1901–1912) 9608
2 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) – Joseph F. Smith, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1901–1918) 8971
3 Church of England: Archbishop of Canterbury – Randall Thomas Davidson (1903–1928) 6620
4 Tibetan Buddhism – Thubten Gyatso, 13th Dalai Lama (1876–1933) 2595
5 Philippine Independent Church – Gregorio Aglipay(1902–1939, founder) 393
6 New Apostolic Church – Hermann Niehaus, Chief Apostle of the New Apostolic Church (1906–1930) 332
7 Supreme Patriarch of Thailand-Vajirananavarorasa(1900–1921) 40
8 Salvation Army – General William Booth – from 1878–1912(Founder who died on August 20, 1912) < 5
9 Coptic Christianity-Pope Cyril V of Alexandria(November 1, 1874 – August 7, 1927) < 5
10 Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod < 5