On March 31, 2019, the healthcare industry kicked off Patient Access Week 2019, a celebration of the people and technology platforms healthcare delivery organizations rely on to ensure the seamless registration, scheduling, and overall access to care that ensures a positive patient experience. After all, the first interaction a patient has with a healthcare organization sets the tone for the entire patient journey, and often determines whether the end-to-end experience succeeds or fails for each healthcare customer.
This year, the timing of Patient Access Week could not be more significant. The healthcare industry's full-blown pivot to consumerism is underway, with some embracing the challenge faster than others…but most realizing that sticking the proverbial ostrich head in the sand is not viable.
Research points to radical changes in consumer preferences and the ways they research and coordinate their own care. Technology adoption has raised expectations for what changes consumers expect to see in care coordination and, in some cases, care delivery. Convenience is now a top factor influencing care choices, for example, with many patients favoring providers that are located nearby and has short wait times. What's more, today's consumers are increasingly likely to choose a medical provider who offers digital capabilities.
Health systems must begin to understand today's "on-demand" consumers and their heightened expectations for personalized attention, convenient access, and immediate delivery of services.
To succeed in this new marketplace, health systems need to digitally reposition themselves. They are competing with other health systems for patients, as well as competing for consumers against multiple newly emerging convenience-based care options now available. In this new competitive setting, health systems must innovate to stay ahead of the competition. Where does the "patient experience" rate among innovation priorities in healthcare? According to the chart below, it's now up there among all other areas of importance.
This is all very new. Which begs the key question: How should health systems deliver customer service in this new digital world?
It starts with adopting technologies that support patient access and an "Amazon-like" customer experience – one that spans the in-person and the digital. Health systems must empower consumers by offering them new and more convenient ways to access services in a personalized manner that meets their individual needs.
How can health systems be personalized in their response to individual patients? We advocate that each health system needs to think holistically about how they can personalize complexity. It starts with how they organize and 'go to market' with their care delivery assets – digitally.
What are a health system's care delivery assets?
Consumers expect the same kind of personalized experience in healthcare that they get when ordering online. To meet this expectation, Phynd believes that creating a single digital footprint of these assets is an essential first step to delivering the right customer experience. More on this digital footprint to come.
These all start, of course, with good consumer-facing digital resources and resulting interaction, including patient access. So before we get too far down the path, let's pause here and take a moment to recognize the invaluable Patient Access teams at our health delivery organizations. We thank you, and we appreciate your help in making healthcare a positive experience that is truly empowering for consumers.
Keith oversees Phynd's marketing programs. He previously headed the Dragon Medical line of business at Nuance Communications (NASDAQ: NUAN) and was VP of Marketing for Eclipsys (now part of Allscripts – NASDAQ: MDRX). He also ran product management for IDEXX's EHR software business (NASDAQ: IDXX). Keith is a graduate of Haverford College.


text:
From Spiral Nebulae to Galaxies Galore - The Great Debate of 1920 Content from the guide to life, the universe and everything
From Spiral Nebulae to Galaxies Galore - The Great Debate of 1920
Created Oct 21, 2012 | Updated Mar 21, 2015
This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the Universe, and the observer is always at the centre of things.
– Giordano Bruno: De la Causa, Principio, et Uno (On Cause, Principle, and Unity), 1584
Spiral Nebulae
Mankind has gazed at the night sky since time immemorial. Early civilisations watched the phases of the moon, the gradual procession of planets and the seasonal changes of the stars. Some cultures, like the ancient Egyptians, set calendars by these movements. Others built monuments aligned with celestial bodies. This was all happening long before optical aids like the telescope were invented, and people had to depend on naked-eye viewing. If you were alive then, the farthest thing you could see would have been what we now call the Andromeda Galaxy. Historically it was first mentioned in 965 AD as 'Little Cloud' by Arabic astronomer Al Sufi. It was designated a 'diffuse nebula' by French astronomer Charles Messier (1730 - 1817) and listed as number 31 in his famous catalogue of non-comets. Dubbed the 'Great Andromeda Nebula', it was given the designation NGC 224 by John Louis Emil Dreyer who was compiling the New General Catalogue in the late 19th Century. Even then it was thought that the Great Andromeda Nebula was a part of the Milky Way Galaxy, which filled the entire universe.
Other Galaxies?
In more recent history, and with the progress of technology, more people began to believe that certain astronomical objects must be a lot further away than had previously been thought, and some even dared suggest that they were extragalactic. This opened up the possibility of there being other galaxies like our own. Although the thought of an enormous, perhaps infinite universe containing lots of galaxies was exciting and mind-boggling to some scientists and astronomers, there were still people who refused to believe such a notion. The vastness of the cosmos would equal further shrinkage in the importance of the Earth (ergo, humankind). It had already shrunk in status from what was once thought to be the centre of everything, Ptolemy's geocentrism, around which even the stars revolved. Now accepted as a mere third planet of eight in the Solar System with only its moon in attendance, to suggest that even our galaxy was just a veritable drop in the cosmic ocean was a step too far for some. To settle the verbal sparring, the astronomical community prepared to hold a debate and suitable candidates were sought.
Heber Curtis
Astronomer Heber Doust Curtis (1872 - 1942), working at Lick Observatory on the summit of Mount Hamilton near San José, California in the early 20th Century, observed novae (exploding stars) in the Great Andromeda Nebula. Checking data of previous novae, Curtis found that their magnitudes were vastly dimmer than they should have been, had they occurred within our own galaxy. He concluded that these novae must be much further away, and estimated a distance of half-a-million light years1 to this 'island universe' – another galaxy.
Harlow Shapley
In the opposing camp were those who thought that what was being proposed – that the Milky Way was not the only galaxy – was preposterous. This included eminent scientists as well as religious communities. One of the astronomers who supported the 'single-galaxy universe' was Harlow Shapley (1885 - 1972) so he agreed to take part in a 'Great Debate' in 1920 to determine the matter once and for all. Shapley, however, had an ulterior motive for raising his profile: in attendance at the debate were representatives of the Harvard College Observatory. The post of director of the Observatory had been vacant since the death of Prof EC Pickering in 1919, and Shapley was hoping to be appointed Pickering's successor.
The Shapley-Curtis Debate took place on 26 April, 1920, at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Supporting Curtis' side of the argument was Edwin Hubble (1889 - 1953). Around the time of the Great Debate, Hubble had been working on redshift and 'standard candle' stars – the Cepheid variables2 – in spiral nebulae. Hubble's observations lent weight to the theory of other galaxies. In the Shapley camp was Dutch astronomer Adriaan van Maanen, whose claim to fame was the discovery of the first solo white dwarf star which was eventually named after him. Van Maanen was convinced he had seen movement in Messier 101, the 'spiral nebula' in Ursa Major (now known as the Pinwheel Galaxy), and, as such, it must be part of the Milky Way.
Both camps provided 'evidence' to support their cause but neither Shapley nor Curtis would defer to the other. Shapley maintained that spiral nebulae were part of our own galaxy, and the Sun was not located anywhere important within it. Curtis maintained that the Milky Way was just one of many 'island universes' (galaxies), the same size as, if not bigger than, our own galaxy. He did, however, claim that the Sun was situated near the centre of our galaxy. The argument over who was right was not resolved until further work was undertaken – specifically the studies of Cepheid variable stars by Hubble.
Post Debate
Shapley was eventually proved correct in his theory about the size of the Milky Way and the Sun's position within it, but he was wrong about the single-galaxy universe. Curtis, on the other hand, was incorrect about where we are within the Milky Way and the distance to the Great Andromeda Nebula3, but he was spot on about the 'island universes'. Following the debate of 1920, Shapley was indeed appointed director of Harvard College Observatory, where he remained for 30 years. In retirement he wrote Liquid Water Belt, the precursor for what we know today as the Habitable Zone. Curtis took the post of director of the Astronomical Observatories of the University of Michigan, where he and his family lived in the Observatory residence at Ann Arbor. He died there in 1942, aged 69 years.
Galaxies Galore
The renamed Andromeda Galaxy was first resolved into stars in 1944; we now know that it is much bigger than the Milky Way and about 2.5 million light years distant. M101, the Pinwheel Galaxy, also larger than our own galaxy, is over 20 million light years away. What would Edwin Hubble, after whom the Hubble Space Telescope has been named, have thought of such images? Or, indeed, what would any of the participants in the Great Debate of 1920 have made of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, which shows galaxies from the dawn of time?
Image credit: European Space Agency and NASA
1A light year is the distance light travels in one year, roughly 5.88 trillion miles or 9.46 trillion km.2Delta Cephei, discovered to be variable by John Goodricke in 1784, is a prototype for what are now called Cepheid variable stars. The study of stars such as these helps astronomers determine distance.3By two million light years.
Bagpuss
Messier Objects
Giordano Bruno - Philosopher
Universal Redshift
The Mysteries of Stonehenge
An Introduction to Pharaonic Egypt
The Calendar and Astronomy of Ancient Egypt
The Habitable Zone
Delta Cephei and the Size of the Universe
The Andromeda Galaxy (Messier 31)
APOD: M31: The Andromeda Galaxy
HubbleSite: Postcards from Andromeda
APOD: M101: The Pinwheel Galaxy
APOD: The Hubble Ultra Deep Field

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


sourcejapan.me 9 out of 10 based on 1000 ratings. 1000 user reviews.
JENSEN VX7010 INSTALLATION MANUAL Pdf Download.
7" single din multimedia receiver dvd nav siriusxm ready built in bluetooth pandora link compatible with iphone compatible with ipod usb aux in.
View and Download Jensen VX7022 installation & quick start manual online. VX7022 Car Receiver pdf manual download. Also for: Vx4022, Dmx5022, Vx7012, Vx4012, Vx4025.


Born 1988 in Greece, Georgia Tsazi started illustrating at an early age. After winning many illustration awards she became an architect. She graduated from the National Technical University of Athens in 2014 and she continued her studies in the field of Cultural Management. During her studies, she lived in Marseille, France, where she focused on the Sociology of Urban Space. In parallel, she ventured into a wide variety of art forms, including graphic and web design, animation, video installations and writing.
Georgia has worked as an architect in archaeological sites such as Amfiareio Oropos and Neossikoi Zeas. In the meantime, she entered competitions with most significant honors and awards, including the Clinton-Angelopoulos Fellowship in 2013, The Ministry of Education's National Design Award, The National Caricature Award in 2015. Today, she's working as an architect and researcher in new technologies and culture.
Touch the Past project is an educational and cultural plug-in for creative and educational industry aiming to empower cultural consciousness in order to enhance cultural heritage management in Greece using 3D printing. The main goal of this project is forming a new generation respectful to archaeological inventory using the rules of educational gaming, use of 3D printing in monuments' restoration and the inclusion of disabled people in art and culture.
In collaboration with Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and their ongoing enhancement plan, the team delivered workshops to 6 secondary and high schools of Piraeus that will also participate in excavation, restoration and cultural promotion process using 3D scanning and printing and their methodology as has been developed so far targeting pupils & teenagers, disabled people, cultural & educational institutions.
Touch the Past is a project about participation, cultural heritage and green ecological awareness. It addresses local communities, especially the new generation, in order to strengthen cultural and ecological consciousness. It aims to improve cultural heritage management methods and techniques via technological improvement and eco green perspective.
During our project, Touch the Past, a team of experts designs 3D models of ancient artifacts found in local communities around Greece. We design precise models of special findings that have not been presented to the public until now and have been kept as exhibits in museum showcases for safety reasons. In addition to this, we construct two innovative shredders for recycling plastic and turning it into 3D printer wire filament.
We use open-source developed technology which we improve in order to satisfy the needs of the local communities. More specifically, members of our community use open-source software to construct innovative shredders in order to recycle their personal waste. Secondly, we design machinery equipment to turn the recycled plastic flakes into a 3D wire filament which we use for our 3D printers. Finally, we deliver workshops in schools among others for children with disabilities such as visual impairments. They use 3D printed molds of ancient artifacts to reproduce the original artifact they can touch and thereby understand. Our goal is to include everyone in recycling activities and to encourage cultural understanding at the same time.
The educational methods are innovative aiming to empower creativity, environmental awareness and decrease social and physical discrimination. Visitors recycle plastic from their own homes, create 3D print molds from the recycled waste as well as copies of the ancient artifacts. Thus, they can realize the importance of creating something new out of waste but also of being a member of a cultural community.
In collaboration with Kulturhaus Osterfeld in Pforzheim, we developed a project in which we tested different technical char- acteristics of 3D printing methods and equipment. The goal was to create a network of diverse institutions and companies who would all work together for a common cause: the production of 3D printed models from Greek, German and European history.
The output was a video by those involved from the Kulturhaus team, explaining their feelings and impressions during the project, and touching and feeling the printed results.
The key partners were the Museum of Jewelry, the Archaeo- logical Museum, the Goldsmiths Design School, the University of Pforzheim, the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (State Office for the Preservation of Historical Monuments), Forestadent and EG3D.


Teesing is moving to a new office!
After months of searching for a larger office, Teesing signed one week ago. It took longer than expected, but it is official now; Teesing will be moving to Verrijn Stuartlaan 7! The new building is located in the same street as the current building.
The new office offers us the opportunity and space to support and help our customers in assemblies, cleanroom activities and the questions of the future. Moreover, the new office provides us with more warehouse space, a state-of-the-art cleanroom (>100 m2), the expansion of the engineering assembly facilities and more than doubled office space. Because there is still much to be designed and constructed, we expect to move in the autumn of 2019. This new office building will support our plans and goals and show the world that Teesing is ready for the future!


SEO is something that every new blog needs to think about. In order to make a blog successful within the respects of the number of visitors that visits the page you need to know the basics of SEO. I wanted to create this post because I work in marketing and I manage the company website so over the years I have learnt and gone on many expensive courses to get learn everything there is to know about SEO.
Let's start off by breaking down what SEO is… make your website appear higher up the ranking on search engines. For example, if you google "MAC foundation review" many posts will appear. But if you have great, readable and SEO rich content your blog will appear close to the top of the rankings, the goal is always page one on browsers such as Google and Bing.
The first point that I want to reiterate the importance of is keywords. When it comes to organically moving up the ranking on search engines keywords are your best friends. For example, if you have a blog post on 'MAC foundation review', you want that post to be visible on the first page of google or other browsers. By making sure that your post has them certain keywords in regularly Google will recognise that your post matches the keywords being Googled and will display your page.
Do not overdo it with the keywords through. If you put the keywords in too many times Google will think your page is spam and that you are basically trying to cheat the system. If this is the case and you just keep bunging the page in search engines will just write off your page and it won't show at all. This is just a way to keep search engines as clean as possible and full of good content.
Another thing to do in order to get a consistent number of visitors is to maintain the use of keywords throughout your social media platforms. For my blog I use Instagram, Pinterest and Tumblr as my social media marketing. I use these three because they are highly visible and they are the best channels for advertising posts and photography. When I post on these channels I will make sure that I accurately name the image. For example, if a post has gone up on my channel with a review on a MAC foundation, I will post my images from the blog post to my social media channels. This way when people search either in search engine images or on the social media outlets themselves my image linking to my post will appear.
A good tip is to make sure that your domain name and URL's have your keywords in. For example, my site is called fashionbeautyblog.co.uk, so when people search for a fashion blog I have that keyword right in the domain name without having to do any work. I see many blogs and website named like Kelly's Blog (made that up), but that doesn't show any signs of what it will be about. Fun names are good or self-titled ones are great but that doesn't help a search engine define what your website is about. Then with individual posts make sure that the URL that links to the post has the keywords in there such as fashionbeautyblog.co.uk/mac-foundation-review. This again will just help search engines to find your page from the first thing that they filter through.
When writing a post just have this in the forefront of your mind. One technique that I like to do in order to create SEO rich content I will write my post completely without thinking about SEO, and the I will read back through and see where I can insert a few keywords. Then once they are in place I will just read back through it to make sure it still reads well to stop Google from thinking it is spam!
I hope these tips helped you're out and help to get some good and consistent visitors to your blog/website. Make sure to leave me a comment below if you enjoyed this post, also if you have any other tips and tricks make sure to let me know!


Analytical separations are important methods of identifying and quantifying molecular compounds present in complex sample mixtures. These approaches are popular in biochemistry, medical diagnostics, quality control, and numerous other applications. In these techniques, constituent analytes are separated according to their characteristic physical and chemical properties. Planar chromatography analytical separations leverage the effects of these properties on competing interactions between the compounds, moving liquids, and stationary flat porous solids. Engineered solid-liquid interfaces can improve performance since these interactions occur at the nanoscale. Ultrathin-layer chromatography (UTLC) is a miniature form of planar chromatography in which sample analytes are carried by solvents that wick through < 10 um thick solids with extraordinarily fine pores. The technique achieves fast separations (minutes) over short distances (millimetres to centimetres) with high sensitivity. The strong dependence of UTLC performance on layer microstructure motivates pursuit of new chromatographic media. This dissertation studies UTLC layers produced using glancing angle deposition (GLAD). GLAD is an excellent platform for engineering nanostructured thin films of varied material, porosity, and architecture. It can achieve ~ 5 um thick columnar morphologies well-suited for UTLC that are unattainable or impractical using other techniques. Unique anisotropic media exhibited channel features that strongly influenced analyte migration direction and velocity. Further control of chromatographic behaviours was achieved using post-deposition enhancements. Fluorocarbon reactive ion etching (RIE) selectively modifies film microstructure, increases porosity, and decreases the surface area over which analytes may interact. Atomic layer deposition (ALD) applies extremely thin < 10 nm conformal coatings that produce alternative chromatographic surface chemistries over GLAD UTLC film scaffolds. These investigations required invention of new instrumentation and analysis techniques since conventional planar chromatography equipment is unoptimized for miniaturized GLAD UTLC plates. Approaches to fabricating, utilizing, characterizing, and enhancing nanoengineered GLAD UTLC media are considered in this thesis. The intriguing behaviours described within provide insight into the manner in which the microscopic features of GLAD films impact macroscopic development phenomena. These investigations simultaneously advanced both the capabilities of the UTLC planar chromatography technique and the understanding of GLAD nanostructured thin film materials.


text:
And That Happened: Sunday's Scores and Highlights
By Craig CalcaterraApr 9, 2018, 6:22 AM EDT
Everyone was excited about Shohei Ohtani's performance, but relatively few people praised me publicly for just how amazing the carrot-ginger soup I made last truly was. Politics, man.
Here are the scores. Here are the highlights:
Orioles 8, Yankees 7: Hoo boy. The Yankees had an early 5-0 lead in this one, blew it and then some, tied it back in the seventh and then lost it when Craig Gentry singled in a run in the top of the 12th. Brad Brach ran into trouble in the bottom half, but wriggled out of it as the O's take three of four from the Yankees in the Bronx.
The Yankees have dropped five of eight and Giancarlo Stanton is getting the most heat for this so far, but unlike a lot of big stars who catch such heat when things go bad, he's kind of earned it. Stanton was 0-for-7 with five strikeouts in this game, dropping his batting average to .167 on the season. He's now up to 20 strikeouts in 48 plate appearances and has the dubious distinction of being the first player in the live ball era to have two games with zero hits and five strikeouts in the same season. The season is 11 days old.
In other news, because the season is just 11 days old, it sort of doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. The Yankees are 5-5. They started out 5-5 in 2009, too, and all they did was win the World Series that year. Indeed, they started out 9-10 in their first 19 games that year. Either way, rest assured the New York press is keeping this all in the proper perspective:
Angels 6, Athletics 1: You've read about the basics of this already. I watched the game and Ohtani was ridiculously good. His splitter was freakin' unhittable. He painted the corners at 99 and 100 m.p.h. and broke off the occasional 68 m.p.h. curveball which somehow didn't cause someone to kill themselves while trying in vain to stop their swing. Simply unfair. In other news, there are various calculations out there in baseball's analytical corners about how much a win costs a team. I don't really know what to think about those things, but I am comfortable saying that the Angels have already gotten more than their money's worth out of the mere $545K they're paying Ohtani this year.
Red Sox 8, Rays 7: The Rays had a 7-2 lead heading into the bottom of the eighth when the Sox put up a six-spot thanks in part to RBI doubles from Mitch Moreland, Rafael Devers, and Andrew Benintendi. All six runs came with two out, and it gave Boston its eighth win in a row. I was gonna make a bunch of jokes about the Rays doing this on a bullpen game, but the guy who got beat up the most was Matt Andriese, who we folks criticizing this bullpen day plan the Rays are pursuing tend to think should be starting, so what the hell do we know? After the game, my friend Kevin Kiermaier said "that's about as deflating of a loss as you can have right there." I guess he didn't see that Padres loss on Saturday night. Bad news for the Sox: Xander Bogaerts left with an ankle injury. There should be further updates later today.
Indians 3, Royals 1: Yan Gomes hit a walkoff homer. The Royals had a 1-0 lead until late, thanks to six shutout innings from Jason Hammel. It should've been a bigger lead given that Indians starter Mike Clevinger gave up ten hits and walked two, but somehow the Royals only scored one run off of all of that, setting the stage for Gomes' heroism. This was the coldest game in Progressive Field history, with a game time temperature of 32 degrees. Which I suppose is typical for the 98th day of January, which is what it feels like here in the Midwest.
Pirates 5, Reds 0: Jameson Taillon tossed a one-hitter, shutting out the Redlegs with 110 pithes. The only hit: a single from the Reds' pitcher, Tyler Mahle in the third. Gregory Polanco and Corey Dickerson homered for the Pirates. Even worse for the Reds than getting their butts shut down like this was losing Eugenio Suarez to a broken thumb. Shoulda just slept in.
Marlins 6, Phillies 3: Jake Arrieta's debut as a Philly didn't go too well, as he gave up three runs on three hits and two walks with five strikeouts in four innings. All three runs came in the first inning. Of course he didn't really have a spring training, so I suppose he's still getting stretched out. Miguel Rojas hit a solo home run and Braxton Lee hit a two-run single in that first inning. The Marlins' other three runs came in the eighth on a two-run double by Brian Anderson and an RBI single from Bryan Holaday, who I had no idea was still playing until I saw this box score. We'll probably experience a lot of that with Miami this year.
Tigers 1, White Sox 0: Miguel Cabrera hit a sac fly in the first and, I'll be damned, that held up. It did so because Mike Fiers tossed six shutout innings and the Tigers pen carried it the rest of the way. Hard luck for Sox' starter Reynaldo Lopez. Usually a first inning sac fly and nothing else — hell, only two hits, and thanks to a passed ball that sac fly wasn't even an earned run — over seven innings of work is not enough to hand you the L.
Cubs 3, Brewers 0: Effin' Quinatana. That creep can roll, man. Jose shut the Brewers down for six innings and got enough support thanks to an Ben Zobrist homer and an Alberto Almora RBI double and an unearned insurance run. The Cubs finish up a nine-game road trip to start the season. It was the longest season-opening road trip for them since 1899.
Astros 4, Padres 1: Max Stassi hit a three-run homer and Josh Reddick added a solo shot while Charlie Morton allowed only an unearned run over six. Morton has begun the season by allowing no earned runs over 12 innings while striking out 13. He's the Astros' fifth starter. Houston is freakin' scary, my dudes.
Diamondbacks 4, Cardinals 1: Drama here between Yadi Molina and Dbacks' manager Torey Lovullo. Lovullo was trying to argue a bad call by home plate ump Tim Timmons, it seemed anyway, by telling Timmons he got fooled by Molina's framing. That's fine as far as it goes, but the way Lovullo did it — by pointing at Molina and saying "this motherf***er right here" or words to that effect, did not sit will with Yadi, causing Molina to lunge at Lovullo. It's dicey business using that phrase. For some folks, "MF'er" may just be a mild interjection or a placeholder. Others, however, take that way more literally and personally. Good rule of thumb, I think, is that if you're talking about people who aren't currently present, the occasional "MF'er" is pretty harmless. If the guy is RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU, however, maybe go with a different pronoun. Just my opinion. Anyway:
As for the game, David Peralta hit a two-run homer in the eighth, which broke up what had been a pretty spiffy pitcher's duel between Taijuan Walker and Luke Weaver. A.J. Pollock hit an insurance solo shot a couple of batters later.
Blue Jays 7, Rangers 4: Steve Pearce and Kendrys Morales hit homers in the Jays' four-run first and Toronto had a 5-1 lead after three that would hold up.
Braves 4, Rockies 0: Sean Newcomb shut down the Colorado bats for six innings and the pen completed the shutout. On offense, Atlanta got homers from Nick Markakis, Dansby Swanson and the red-hot Ozzie Albies as they take two of three from the Rockies. The Braves lead all of baseball in runs scored and have the best run differential in baseball too. We totally predicted that, right?
Dodgers 2, Giants 1: Some tough luck from Clayton Kershaw who once again pitched brilliantly while getting very little run support but this time got picked up, barely, by his offense. The Dodgers ace allowed one run over seven, with reliever JT Chargois allowing that run to score after inheriting it. Ty Blach pitched well for San Francisco and this one went to extras tied at one. Kyle Farmer won it for Los Angeles with an RBI double in the tenth. The runner he plated: Cody Bellinger, who didn't start the game because he had food poisoning. Guess he got better. More import for the Dodgers, though, was that Kenley Jansen, who had been shaky as hell in the early going, closed it out by striking out the side in the bottom half to close out the win.
Mets 6, Nationals 5: Yoenis Cespedes singled in the go-ahead run in the top of the 12th to give the Mets a three-game sweep over the Nats and their fifth straight win overall. Cespedes had been 0-for-5 with three strikeouts before that trip to the plate, and the single was of the broken bat variety, but it all looked good in the box score. Adrian Gonzalez hit a grand slam early in the game. Bryce Harper hit his sixth home run, singled twice and walked twice, but Washington still lost its fifth straight. He can't do it alone.
Mariners vs. Twins — POSTPONED:
Tracy died soon after a long fought civil war
Just after I'd wiped away his last tear
I guess he's better off than he was before
A whole lot better off than the fools he left here
I used to cry for Tracy 'cause he was my only friend
Those kind of cars don't pass you every day
I used to cry for Tracy 'cause I wanted to see him again
But sometimes, sometimes life ain't always the way
Sometimes it snows in April
Sometimes I feel so bad, so bad
Sometimes I wish life was never ending
And all good things, they say, never last
Tags: A.J. Pollock, Adrian Gonzalez, Alberto Almora, Ben Zobrist, Brad Brach, Braxton Lee, Brian Anderson, Charlie Morton, Clayton Kershaw, Cody Bellinger, Corey Dickerson, Craig Gentry, Dansby Swanson, David Peralta, Eugenio Suarez, Giancarlo Stanton, Gregory Polanco, Jake Arrieta, Jameson Taillon, Jason Hammel, Josh Reddick, JT Chargois, Kendrys Morales, Kenley Jansen, Kevin Kiermaier, Kyle Farmer, Luke Weaver, Matt Andriese, Miguel Cabrera, Miguel Rojas, Mike Clevinger, Mike Fiers, Mitch Moreland, Nick Markakis, Ozzie Albies, Reynaldo Lopez, Sean Newcomb, Shohei Ohtani, Taijuan Walker, Ty Blach, Tyler Mahle, Xander Bogaerts, Yan Gomes, Yoenis Cespedes


text:
Iraqi oil and global power
January 8, 2012 — Chris
The oil is flowing again in Iraq. Iraq's oil ministry hopes 4.5m barrels per day will be extracted by 2013. Even if production falls short of this goal, it will bring in considerable revenue to those who own it. Where will that money go?
First, it will go to oil companies, executives and shareholders in particular. Not only do large oil firms, which function largely as the right-arm of the modern state, benefit directly from the forced opening up of the resources of weaker states; they also benefit from the higher prices that result from the instability in the newly-"liberated" nation. Let us see which firms have acquired the largest stakes.
The usual suspects, such as Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil and BP, have won the usual concessions. Mixed in with them, though, are the China National Petroleum Corporation, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., the Korea Gas Corp, Malaysia's Petronas, Turkish Petroleum International and Russia's Lukoil and Gazprom. Iraq's oil is being auctioned off to the powerful people who might otherwise have had the power to block future war. Now that they profit from it, they are likely to support it more willingly in future.
Some Iraqis will make money from it as well. Those in the government, plus the rich and powerful connected to the government, will likely profit heavily. Corruption and inequality will increase. Some of the people who do not benefit from oil revenues will demand some of it. Rather than give it up, the new rulers of Iraq will spend it to repress the Iraqi people. If history is any guide, that repression will lead to protests, religious extremism and terrorism.
Iraq is not very democratic, as a mere glance at the violence of Iraqi politics makes clear. Democracy does not, in any case, mean justice or equality. It does not guarantee that voters will have any control over the oil or see any revenue from it "trickle down". One might say it would be fair to give that oil to the Iraqi people, particularly the millions that lost loved ones over the past twenty years due to sanctions and invasions. Those having babies with birth defects could probably use the cash, too. But then, fairness is not something the powerful tend to bestow on the world.
The spreading around of Iraq's oil to the global power elite will have the effect of making similar aggression against weak but resource-rich states worldwide easier. When Russian and Chinese oil firms profit from the newly-acquired oil fields, they will support more such interventions. Of course, they will protest, but only in public. We have seen the uprising against Gaddafi turned into an excuse to invade another OPEC member. The multilateral nature of the intervention grants it the veneer of legitimacy while the plunderers make off with the booty.
Taxpayers from powerful countries are paying for invasions of weak countries and the killing and torture of resisters so that the world's power elite can become more powerful. Expect less democracy, more terrorism and more "humanitarian intervention" everywhere as a result.
Posted in Causes of War, Foreign Policy. Tags: intervention, invasion, Iraq, oil. 3 Comments »
The demonisation of Iran
On Thursday, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a public address that he believed Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon. Iran's possessing the bomb would be "potentially a very, very destabilizing outcome. On the other hand," he said, "when asked about striking Iran, specifically, that also has a very, very destabilizing outcome…. I think it so important is that we continue internationally, diplomatically, politically — not just we, the United States, but the international community — continue to focus on this to prevent those two outcomes."
Some people might say that the obvious course is to strike now while the iron is hot. They are wrong. The US should not be pushing for regime change in Iran, which at any rate is unlikely at this time. The answer is to engage with Iran and, over time, make it an ally.
The Islamic Republic has not always been anti-American. Those with good memories will remember that, before Ahmadinejad, Iran had two moderate, "reformist" presidents in power: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Seyed Mohammad Khatami. They urged cooperation with the West, reconciliation with the US and domestic freedoms. Rafsanjani spoke last July in support of the pro-democracy activists, and Khatami won the 2009 Global Dialogue Prize, and officially repudiated the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.
During the 1990s, Iran's governments were interested in improving relations with the US, but the Clinton administration pushed Iran away. Iran offered the American oil firm Conoco a contract, chosen over other foreign oil companies in order to improve ties with the US, and the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Iran in 1995.
Oil producers do not control the US government in the way most people imagine. War and sanctions are not in many oilmen's interest. Sanctions prevent the development of oil fields by American companies and award them to rival companies from rival countries that do not participate in the sanctions regime. While security and stability are necessary to pump and transport oil, war produces instability. Whenever the US imposes sanctions on countries such as Iran, Iraq and Libya, or goes to war with countries like Iraq, it does so counter to US oil interests, not in line with them. As could have been expected, Conoco's parent company, DuPont, lobbied against hurting its business.
But the sanctions came along anyway. In fact, the sanctions on Iran came at the behest of the Israel Lobby, the collection of hardline, right wing, Zionist pressure groups in the US whose actions have led to numerous strategic blunders for the US, including the subject at hand. In 1994, the US's second most powerful lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), circulated a paper called "Comprehensive US sanctions against Iran: a plan for action". It sought to close all of the loopholes American companies squeezed through to do business with Iran. Bill Clinton, under pressure from the Israel Lobby, scuttled the Conoco deal, and banned all American oil companies from helping Iran develop its oil fields.
In Autumn 2001, Iran helped facilitate the toppling of the Taliban regime and its replacement with the friendly government of Hamid Karzai. Iranians even held candlelight vigils to commemorate those who died on 9/11. President Khatami took these moves to mean relations with the US would improve. Instead, in 2002, George Bush placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, indicating he was keen on regime change there as well.
In 2003, after the US invaded Iraq, Bush publicly pressured Syria and Iran. Neocons and the Israel Lobby, apparently under the delusion that they could rearrange the entire Middle East, began pushing for a zero tolerance policy against Iran. Neocons accused Tehran of harbouring al-Qaeda operatives, though the CIA and the State Department thought it unlikely. Norman Podhoretz, part of the Israel Lobby, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in 2007 entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and pray that President Bush will do it." John Hagee of Christians United for Israel told AIPAC "it is 1938; Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler."Retired general Wesley Clark, when asked why he was worried the US would go to war with Iran, said "[y]ou just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." He was, predictably, lambasted as an anti-Semite. But as Matthew Yglesias wrote at the time, "everyone knows [what Clark said was] true."
George Bush said his administration was willing to go to war with Iran to protect Israel. (The Israel Lobby's leaders were quick to distance themselves from Bush's statements, as they did not want to seem like the cause of the US's unilateral belligerence.) All the 2008 presidential candidates echoed Bush's remarks. While campaigning, Barack Obama said
"There is no greater threat to Israel, or to the peace and stability of the region, than Iran…. Let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel…. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon… everything."
Now, perhaps having seen the folly of this position, or perhaps because he had been speaking to AIPAC when he said it, Barack has since softened his position and extended a hand to Iran.
I believe it is unlikely that the Iranian government will be easily induced to give up its development of nuclear weapons (assuming, which we should, it is indeed attempting to produce them). Nukes are good for regimes who face an existential threat. It is understandable to prepare for war with a country like the US, which has started two wars with Iran's immediate neighbours, and Israel, which publishes daily headlines that scream of the colossal threat posed by Tehran's nuclear bomb and the necessity of preventing them from acquiring one. President Barack wants to eliminate them but doing so would require extremely costly incentives (eg. lots of money and security guarantees for countries like North Korea) or disincentives (eg. war). And if possessing the bomb is the best way to win a prize, what is to stop everyone from having them?
Therefore, relevant questions include the following: Will Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel or the US? I doubt it. If an Iranian missile landed on the US or Israel, those two countries together would walk all over Iran. Let them have a nuclear weapon. They will not use it.
Will it give them to terrorists who will use them on everyone? This is an unrealistic prospect. First, Iran wants to keep its foes on their toes, but does not want to destroy the world. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is just posturing. Men love to strut and posture and look tough. Men build big guns and missiles and hold military parades to feel good about themselves. Some men will always talk tough, even if, behind the scenes, they are actually hoping they will not have to carry through.
Second, most terrorists have no ability to detonate a nuclear weapon. As John Mueller explains, a nuclear bomb is not a toy. It is very hard to assemble and use, and will not simply blow up the world if tapped with a hammer. Moreover, if Iran supplied terrorists with weapons, intelligence agencies would find out and governments would fiercely punish Iran.
It is time for the US to engage with Iran. Doing so would lead Iran's government to assist in stabilising Afghanistan and Iraq, two unstable zones that could produce anti-Western terrorism and contribute to radicalising the Middle East and Central Asia. Indian foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said in 2008, "Frankly, from our point of view, the more engagement there is, the more Iran becomes a factor of stability in the region, the better is is for us all." The fact is, we need all the help we can get, and we do not need another intractable conflict. The State Department, the CIA and the US military all favour direct discussion with Iran's leaders, as does a majority of Americans. In 2006, the Iraq Study Group urged talks with Iran and Syria, which was initially rejected by the Bush administration who thought it was doing just fine in Iraq without them.
So they continued to refer to Iran as the most dangerous country in the world. Gallup polls indicate that the percentage of Americans who believe Iran is their greatest enemy has increased every year since 2001. The reason might be that rhetoric on Iran has gone up concurrently. US and Israeli warmongerers want us to believe it to buoy support for military action. They believe that, by eliminating all enemies, they can be secure. But when we attempt to destroy all enemies, we imperil our own security most, because everyone will mistrust us, and most will defend themselves.
Talk of war tends to push the potential victims of that war into the hands of tough-talking governments. To both decry Ahmadinejad's election and threaten Iran is to defeat one's purpose. There are wiser solutions.
Another Gallup poll of Americans taken in 2007 showed a clear majority in favour of economic and diplomatic efforts to induce Iran to give up its nuclear program. The survey then asked those who were in favour of economic and diplomatic efforts, if such efforts failed, would you support a military strike? 55% said no. Even despite the rhetoric, even though most of them believe Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, Americans are largely not in favour of further military action against the US's latest "enemy".
They have probably not yet forgotten how we were all duped into supporting the war against Saddam. All the same transparent words are being used: evil, irrational, radical, WMDs and so on. Yet, aside from interfering with American wars on its borders, a rational act given that tying down the US in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it less able to attack Iran, Iran has never attacked the US or Israel. Why would it do so now?
Are we afraid because Iran's government is a pack of religious fanatics with an apocalyptic worldview that puts them on a collision course with civilisation? People who take this view tend also to see everyone an American newspaper might call "jihadists" in the same light: ready to kill themselves and everyone else to bring on the end of the world. The differences among these groups are significant and often ignored. Iran's Islamic revolution was a nationalist one, and though it supports other Shia groups in the Middle East against Western interests, this has been largely in reaction to isolation and demonisation by America and Israel, not to spread holy war. It does not support groups like al-Qaeda, though I am sure that if they get desperate, the Israel Lobby and Neocons will fabricate evidence that they do.
Being religious does not mean being stupid. Everyone responds to carrots and sticks. Iran's leaders have shown they can be reasonable and even friendly to foreign interests, including those of the Great Satan, and may be again. Besides, if religious fanatics could not be negotiated with, no one would ever have approached the Bush White House.
Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett recommend Barack give up his "half-hearted" approach to diplomacy with Iran and look to Richard Nixon's example. Nixon flew to China during the Cultural Revolution and the Vietnam War. Since then, the US has been committed to engagement with the Chinese government. Barack could be the president that flies to Tehran.
Power no longer comes from wars of words or wars of bullets. It comes from close, lasting relationships with other people and governments. The benefits to engaging Iran are a new ally, a more stable Middle East and Central Asia, and a more trustworthy nuclear partner. The benefits to castigating Iran serve only the warmongering elite. It is time to reconcile American and Iranian interests and end the demonisation of the US's chosen enemy.
Posted in Causes of War, Foreign Policy, Politics, Terrorism, Insurgency and Guerrilla War. Tags: Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Iran, Israel, Israel Lobby, Khatami, nuclear weapons, Obama, oil, Rafsanjani, sanctions, United States. 10 Comments »
A Short History of the Six Day War, part 3
November 21, 2009 — Chris
Finally, we come to the question, how did the war start? It is fair to say that the seeds for this war were planted in 1949, when the Arab armies trying to destroy the nascent Israel were routed, and that the Suez Crisis of 1956 raised tensions in the region even more. But to call those things causes of the Six Day War is like saying World War One caused World War Two; and since the Franco-Prussian War caused World War One, and the Napoleonic Wars caused the Franco Prussian War, we can say that the French Revolution caused World War Two. This is too much of a stretch. Without going back to far, the buildup to the Six Day War started three years earlier, in 1964.
In that year, Levi Eshkol, Israel's prime minister, and Yitzhak Rabin, its chief of staff agreed on the aims of Israel's defence policy for the first five year plan for the military. The plan said that the State of Israel did not wish for more territory. Israel would not initiate conflict with an Arab state but if war were imposed on it, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would move swiftly into the enemy's territory and destroy its war infrastructure.
More significantly, it was the year border clashes with Syria got deadlier. There were three sources of tension on the border: the demilitarised zones, water and Palestinian guerrillas. Moshe Dayan, Defence Minister during the Six Day War, said that in at least 80% of the clashes with Syria, "We would send a tractor to plow someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarised area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot." The Israelis were provoking the Syrians.
In addition, the water issue began in 1964. Israel began withdrawing water from the Jordan River. At a conference, the Arab League approved a $17.5m plan to divert the Jordan river at its sources, drastically reducing the quantity and quality of Israel's water. Knowing that Israelis would not sit back while their country dried up, the same conference also created a United Arab Command to protect the project and prepare for an offensive campaign. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation, or PLO, was yet another outcome of the conference. The Arab League began construction on its diversion plan the next year. The IDF attacked the diversion works in Syria in 1965, exacerbating the border tensions that led to the war.
In February 1966, an extreme left wing, anti-Zionist Baath regime took power in Damascus. It called for a popular war to liberate Palestine and sponsored Palestinian guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets. These guerrilla attacks were not about to wipe Israel off the map, but they fanned the flames of mutual hostility between Israel and Syria.
Palestinian guerrillas, mainly Arafat's Fatah, carried out 122 raids between January 1965 and June 1967. They were mostly staged from Lebanon and Jordan, but the guerrillas were largely armed, trained and run by Syrian general staff. In response to one such attack, the Israeli Defense Forces attacked the village of Samu on the West Bank. Dozens of Jordanian soldiers were killed. The attack shocked King Hussein and exposed his military weakness. On April 7, 1967, following a border skirmish, the Israeli Air Force shot down six Soviet-made Syrian MiGs in an air battle. The Syrian government was in a rage. The countdown to the Six Day War had begun.
Because the survival of the Baath regime was important to the USSR, the Soviets sent a report to Nasser that Israel was concentrating its forces on its northern front and was planning to attack Syria. The report was false. Some who were observing at the time said that, although the Soviet warning about Israel's amassing troops on its northern border was wrong, the Israeli cabinet was planning to attack Syria and the Soviets had gotten wind. Nasser knew the report was untrue but he felt that, as the Arab world's leadership was in question, he could not fail to act. Syria already had a defense pact with Egypt. There is general agreement among historians that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. What he did was brinkmanship: pushing Israel to the brink and hoping war would not be necessary.
He did so for several reasons. First, he could not afford to look weak in front of his restive public. A major share of his army was already in the Sinai, and it would have been humiliating to pull them back. Second, the other side of the coin, continuing the troop buildup would enhance his status at home and in the Arab world. Indeed, reactions to the move were, in Michael Oren's words, "enthusiastic, even ecstatic". Finally, if there was no imminent threat to Syria, Nasser could take credit for increasing Egypt's troop presence in the Sinai without fear Israel would attack. After all, he had already been assured it would not.
Nasser sent a large number of troops into the Sinai, removing the UN troops already there, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The Straits were important because, although few Israeli vessels actually transversed the Straits, it was where Iranian oil tankers exporting to Israel sailed. But more importantly, according to Aharon Yariv, Israel's chief of intelligence, failure to act to end the blockade of the Straits would make Israel lose its credibility and deterrent capacity. These tools have been essential for Israel ever since.
In all countries, the masses were whipped into a war frenzy. They heard about the hourly radio reports from Arab countries about Israel's impending doom, and the general feeling was of a noose tightening around the nation's neck. Israel's Holocaust survivors were particularly scared when Israeli newspapers likened Nasser to Hitler. According to Charles Krauthammer, "It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks [before the war]. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight. With troops and armor massing on Israel's every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel. 'We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants,' declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, 'and as for the survivors–if there are any–the boats are ready to deport them.'"
Everyone predicted a war. Eshkol was expecting a war; Cairo Radio said "our forces are in a complete state of readiness for war"; Syria's government said "The war of liberation will not end except by Israel's abolition." Israel's preemptive strike on its enemies was justified to end the tension and the fear–to stop waiting to die and start fighting to survive.
On May 12, in a newspaper interview, Rabin said "the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government". On May 19, Rabin told his generals, "[t]he politicians are convinced they can solve the problems through diplomacy. We have to enable them to exhaust every alternative to war, even though I see no way of returning to things the way they were. If the Egyptians blockade the Straits, there will be no alternative to war." Nonetheless, Rabin also did not think Nasser wanted war.
On May 30, King Hussein flew to Cairo to sign the mutual defense pact with Nasser. An Egyptian general was appointed commander of Jordan's army. On June 3, two Egyptian commando battalions were flown to Jordan, and on the following morning an Iraqi mechanised brigade crossed into Jordan and moved to the Jordan River. Egypt and Iraq, traditional enemies, signed a mutual defense pact.
Israel attacked when it did because it obtained approval from the US. Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defence, gave Israel a green light to attack Egypt. However, Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, said he was outraged that Israel attacked at all.
What was the most important factor in starting the Six Day War? At a glance, it would appear to have been Nasser and Egypt's amassing of troops in the Sinai and closing of the Straits of Tiran and Gulf of Eliat. The closing of the Straits was an act of war in itself. But historians disagree with this explanation. First, there is evidence that Nasser did not want war. His public was highly belligerent but he knew Egypt could not simply defeat and occupy Israel. He had learned from the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Second, there are alternative explanations. Avi Shlaim says that border skirmishes with Syria were the main cause of the war. "Israel's strategy of escalation on the Syrian front was probably the single most important factor in dragging the Middle East to war in June 1967". Israel had been forced to abandon its plan to divert water from the Jordan in the central demilitarised zone to the Negev desert (southern Israel) in 1953. The Arab states, led by Syria, poked and prodded Israel by diverting the Jordan River. Israeli and Syrian troops clashed and Israel gained the upper hand. "Having been defeated in the water war," says Shlaim, "the frustrated Syrians began to sponsor attacks on Israel from their territory by Palestinian guerrilla organisations." The violence escalated.
Michael Oren believes that, because (arguably) water politics led to fighting on Israel's northern border, more than anything else, "the war would revolve around water." The Arab League's plans to take most of Israel's water was provocation bigger than its threats, and the dry noose was the catalyst for Israel's decision to strike.
Diplomacy came to naught. Tempers were not defused, the noose was not given any slack, and the push to war continued. At 07:45 on June 5, Israel attacked Egypt, beginning the Six Day War and setting in motion all the conflicts and killings Israel has suffered or delivered since.
Oren, Michael: Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Finkelstein, Norman: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Shlaim, Avi: The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
Morris, Benny: Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001
Charles Krauthammer: Prelude to the Six Days: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701976.html
The complete Short History of the Six Day War can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22787004/A-Short-History-of-the-Six-Day-War.
Posted in Causes of War, Politics. Tags: Cold War, Egypt, Gaza, Israel, Jerusalem, Jordan, Lebanon, nasser, oil, Palestine, refugee, Saddam, Six Day War, Syria, terrorism, United States, USSR, war, Yitzhak Rabin. 2 Comments »
Why did Israel win the Six Day War? There are a few reasons. First, it attacked preemptively. Israel's attack may or may not have been justified (though, as I will explain in the third section, the historical record implies that it was) but it was a surprise. Surprise attack is a good strategy. Second, Israelis generally felt that their backs were against the wall. The prevailing feeling in Israel before the war had been one of fear (which, again, we will go into in the final section of this account), and when fear is translated into fight (as opposed to flight) it is deadly. The prevailing feeling among Arabs was hubris. Third, Israel had superior forces, and relied on air power at the beginning of its campaign. Fourth, the Arab armies had poor leadership and organisation, and were not as prepared, as numerous or as mighty as they had thought. This section will expatiate on the most important events of the war.
By 07:30 on June 5, 200 Israeli planes were aloft and heading to Egypt. A Jordanian radar officer noticed and radioed his commanding officer in Amman. The officer in Amman relayed the information to Cairo. However, the Egyptians had, just the day before, changed their codes and had not notified the Jordanians. The Israeli aircraft destroyed most of Egypt's air force and antiaircraft weapons on the ground.
Now in control of the air, Israel sent tanks across the Sinai desert. They suffered many casualties but still did better than the Egyptians. Major General Ariel Sharon, prime minister during the Second Intifada, was commander of one of the most powerful of the armoured divisions that took the Sinai. Battles continued and Israeli tanks kept advancing. By day 4, there was no more doubt that the Egyptians were defeated and that Israel had taken the Sinai.
A few hours after the attack on Egypt, the US consul-general in Jerusalem mused that Jerusalem might have been spared the violence that was raging around the region. At first, things were calm. King Hussein of Jordan, which controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank, received a phone call from Nasser saying that Israel had suffered great losses. The Iraqis told him their aircraft were already engaging with Israel's. Hussein ordered the attack.
Bombs from planes and cannons shook Israel for a few hours but then Israel performed two lightning strikes that destroyed Jordan's planes and airfields. They took other positions in Jordan, and over the next two days occupied much of the West Bank. This new territory included the Old City–East Jerusalem. Jews were ecstatic. This was a big cause of their feeling at the end of the war that God was truly on their side: not only had they triumphed over seemingly (but not actually) overwhelming odds, but they had taken back the holy lands of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the now united holy city of Jerusalem.
On day 2, Nasser declared, erroneously, that the US was actively aiding Israel in the fighting. He asked the USSR for equal assistance to ward off the Americans. Radio stations in Syria, Jordan and elsewhere claimed, also erroneously, that American or British planes and ships were causing all kinds of trouble. As a result, mobs attacked American embassies throughout the Middle East. Ten oil-producing Arab states including Saudi Arabia and Iraq limited or banned oil shipments to the US and Britain. This began the 1967 oil embargo and the use of the "oil weapon".
The United States continued monitoring the conflict from a distance. The USS Liberty, breaking with the 6th Fleet, came close to the Sinai coast. Yitzhak Rabin, then Israeli chief of staff (later prime minister), had warned that all unidentified vessels traveling at high speed would be sunk. The Liberty was not identified fast enough, and Israeli jets and boats attacked it. The ship was badly damaged and 34 American crewmen died. The US and Israeli governments both conducted inquiries and found that the attack was an accident. However, some US diplomats and officials say it was not. The Israeli government later paid nearly $13m in settlements. To this day, there are many unanswered questions about the USS Liberty incident.
Back to the front. Syria had also believed the reports that Israel was nearly defeated but nonetheless moved with some caution. When the Israeli Air Force was finished with the Egyptian Air Force, it turned its attention to the Syrian Air Force. In the evening of the first day of the war, the Israelis destroyed two thirds of Syria's fighter jets. Several Syrian tanks were put to rest as well. Syria's army began shelling positions in northern Israel but were soon pushed back again. By day 5, the battle for the Golan Heights was raging. The Golan Heights are a plateau bordering Israel, Syria and Lebanon. In two days, they became an occupied territory and in 1981 were annexed (like East Jerusalem but unlike Gaza and the West Bank) by Israel.
After the last gun had been fired over the Heights, the war was over. The ceasefire was signed the next day, on June 11th. Israelis proved to the world that it took more than some local bullies to bring it down. But its troubles were not over.
Yesterday, we saw the consequences of the Six Day War. Part 3 will show us how we got to June 5.
Posted in International Law, Politics. Tags: Cold War, Egypt, Gaza, Golan Heights, Israel, Jerusalem, Jordan, Lebanon, nasser, occupied territories, oil, Palestine, Saddam, Six Day War, Syria, United States, war, West Bank, Yitzhak Rabin. Leave a Comment »
Contrarian views on what you may be worried about
April 15, 2009 — Chris
Are most people natural worriers? Or are they just worried because all the worriers around them tell them to be?
Boy, there are a lot of worried people out there nowadays. Almost everything you could worry about, people have exaggerated it to the stature of Godzilla, poised to bring down civilisation as we know it. Popular books and newspaper articles warn of the end of everything we hold dear.
Fortunately, there are some skeptical optimists out there to shed a little perspective on things, put a stop to all the irresponsible fearmongering and help you get back to living your life. I should note that I do not read just to maintain my optimism, I read to maintain a balanced viewpoint on things. When everyone seems to think something is bad, there is always someone else to tell you the good side of things. This post will give you the pessimists' side of things, followed by a contrarian's. Both are worth listening to before you decide to worry. (Please follow the links I provide to get my full side of each story.)
Pessimist: Climate change is the biggest threat to our civilisation and the biggest challenge to our generation. It threatens to destroy everything we hold dear.
Contrarian: That is unlikely. To be clear, I am not denying climate change, nor that it could be harmful. What I am not convinced about is that everything is going to blow up in our faces and our grandchildren will be left with nothing. Climate change is one of those issues on which we have too much certainty, too much worrying that the end is near, and not enough debate about the facts.
Furthermore, every generation worries about environmental collapse. When I was young, it was the ozone layer. Thirty years ago, it was global cooling. And so on for the past hundred years. None of these problems has destroyed us yet. I guess we are just more resilient than the doomsayers realised.
Pessimist: We are running out of natural resources. Oil has peaked, wood is disappearing, and wars are brewing over water. We are in big trouble.
Contrarian: The first problem with these arguments is that they are trying to predict the future without firm grounding in the present. Sure, those things could be true, but we are always finding ourselves wrong about them. We thought gold, silver, copper, iron and so on would all run out completely twenty or thirty years ago, and they have not. Oil might have peaked but we do not know. Existence of debate about something (like peak oil) does not mean it has been proven. And water supplies are getting thinner in some places, where there is indeed water war, and greater in other places, as global warming frees up water supplies embedded in glaciers. Besides, how could we run out of water? It could become harder to find for some people, and harder to clean and desalinate, but surely we are not going to run out.
The second problem is that the future changes every day. Predictions by the wisest experts are notoriously unreliable, partly because every time there is a new, disrupting technology, everything changes. For instance, a big environmental problem at the end of the 19th century was horses. Everyone was getting around in horses, but horses were leaving messes all over the streets. Flies were being born in great numbers and spreading disease. What was to be done? Then, the automobile came along and saved the day. The point is, we do not know what new technology is coming or when. Every time a new technology comes along, yes, of course, it causes new problems, but it also solves old ones. The better technology gets, the better our understanding of science is, the more likely we can find our way out of the mess. I admit we could be in trouble, but people talk as if, if we turn on another light or start up another car, society will collapse. We are stronger than that.
Thirdly, I am not worried about the depletion of any of these things. Humankind has proven itself highly adaptive to change, and the depletion of one or another natural resource will be shaken off so we can go destroy something else.
Pessimist: China's rise is a military and economic threat to everyone else, especially us westerners.
Contrarian: We are really scared of China, aren't we? But why? First, China is not as "rising" as some might have you believe. As I wrote earlier, China is not about to overtake the United States in anything except instability of its environment.
Second, the rise of China is, for the most part, a good thing. It means a big new market for companies from the rest of the world, and new businesses, ideas, products and so on for the world outside China. The China of Mao's era or before would not be helping to stop piracy in the Arabian Sea, or terrorism on its Central Asian borders. It means more wealth and, in my opinion, more security, not less.
Third, the rise of this or that country is always feared, and always has been. When Japan was ascendant in the 1980s, the bookstores were full of books saying how powerful it would become and take over the world. How many books do you see about that now? What are you afraid of? That China will take over the world? That Chinese business will be more competitive than your country's? The only problem I see is that Chinese consumers and businesses will use more and more natural resources and create more and more pollution. But it would be hypocritical of me to tell them to stop trying to achieve a better life.
BUT, say the pessimists (and I was one of them a couple of years ago), China could be the source of the next world war. No doubt, China's Taiwan policy could mean a war between China and Taiwan that the United States might step into. But what is the likelihood of that?
Contrarian: First, a war between China and the United States would be immensely costly. The Chinese government and some of its people would be behind a war to regain Taiwan, but they are not so arrogant as to think they could simply defeat the United States in a year or two. Americans, on the other side, are unlikely to want to engage one of the most powerful militaries in the world simply for the sake of Taiwan's independence.
Second, there are many people from China in the United States and many from the United States in China. These are people who will do anything to avoid war between the two countries. That means thousands of people saying, "if you want them, you've got to go through me."
What are some other looming wars you may be building a bomb shelter for?
Pessimists: Iran is building a bomb and war is inevitable.
Contrarian: War with Iran is highly unlikely. Aside from a few opportunists, nobody wants it. Iran is not attacking anyone and Barack is not attacking them.
Pessimists: North Korea is shooting rockets and threatening everyone. Won't they go to war too?
Contrarian: They cannot. Nuclear weapons are so powerful that no one can ever use them. North Korea is a complicated matter but nuclear weapons are among the least of our worries.
Besides, who would want to fight a war when this economic crisis will bring the world to its knees alone? The pessimists, including one of my favourite historians, Niall Ferguson, say that it could lead to depression and war, like the 1929 crash did. (To be fair, Ferguson said "there will be blood", not "there will be world war".) I, contrarian, think things are fundamentally different and are not as bad as in the 1930s.
We have lower trade barriers and fewer suffocating regulations than in the days of the Depression. The stock market crash in 1929 was inevitable: stock markets sometimes go up and down slowly, but when they reach such dizzying heights as in 1929, they crash painfully. The crash was pretty big in 1987, too, but then things recovered. The Great Depression was brought on, however, by excessive protectionism and regulation that I do not think we will resort to. Though today there is, of course, a risk of war, none of the major powers are about to become socialist, fascist or communist, and none of them have tariffs even approaching those of the 1930s. You might lose your job, but this economic crisis will not mean the end of the world.
The reason we are told to worry about all these things is that people want to draw attention to their cause, and they know that it is not enough to say "the climate is getting slightly warmer" or "there is a remote possibility of war". Instead, one person exaggerates, then the next person doubles it, and so on around the circle until everyone is screaming and throwing their hands in the air.
To answer my original question, my guess is that worriers on one end tell everyone else to worry, so they do. Please do not let yourself get caught up in the hysteria.
Posted in Causes of War, Economics, Politics. Tags: China, global warming, Iran, natural resources, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Obama, oil, Taiwan, United States, war. 2 Comments »


text:
Q: What happens if I edit a folder while copying it? Suppose I have a large folder and copy it. The copy takes a couple hours. While it's copying, I add some sub-folders and files to it. Does this pose any risk to confusing the OS and corrupting the metadata about the files during the copy? Am I guaranteed anything about whether any added files/subdirectories will/won't be included in the copy?
And out of curiosity, what happens if I actually edit a file while it's being transferred? Will that potentially corrupt the file at either the source or destination?
Similarly, what about file/folder deletions during copies (some light is shed on this for *nix OS's here)?
I'm curious about the answer for other OS's too, but this question is specifically about this situation on Windows 7.

A: You can add files/folders to the directory that is being copied, however, I would imagine wherever the system is in terms of copying, it may or may not pick up the newly-added data.  Best rule of thumb, just don't. Wait until the data transfer is done.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


This is not the first time Chase has expressed critical opinions regarding the show.
Chevy Chase had yet another "outburst" on set of NBC's Community, as reported by Deadline and confirmed by his rep to E! News.
The 69-year-old actor, who has voiced his opinions regarding the show numerous times, this time utilized the N-word.
Chevy Chase rants at Community creator in newly released voice mail and calls the show "mediocre sitcom"
However, it apparently was not directed towards African-American castmates Donald Glover and Yvette Nicole Brown but rather his discomfort with the way things were going with his narrow-minded character, Pierce, in which he suggested he may next be asked to call Glover's character Troy or Brown's character Shirley the N-Word.
He also reportedly "apologized immediately" to his fellow castmembers.
But as he's expressed before, Chase has not had the smoothest ride while being on the NBC show. Chase even revealed to The Huffington Post UK: "It was a big mistake [taking the role]! I just sort of hung around because I have three daughters and a wife, and I figured out I might as well make some bread every week, so I can take care of them in the way they want."
Check out what to watch this Fall on TV!
He also added: "The hours are hideous, and it's still a sitcom on television, which is probably the lowest form of television."
So what has kept the man on the show? "I think the reason I have stuck around is because I love these kids, the cast--they are very good."
However, the feelings might not be mutual as Yvette took to Twitter in what may be a related post, tweeting, "I have the gift of walking away. Always have. #ThatIsAll."
In other news, check out the best things in pop culture this week!


text:
package com.amazonaws.services.macie2.model.transform;

import java.math.*;

import javax.annotation.Generated;

import com.amazonaws.services.macie2.model.*;
import com.amazonaws.transform.SimpleTypeJsonUnmarshallers.*;
import com.amazonaws.transform.*;

import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonToken;
import static com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonToken.*;

/**
 * CriterionAdditionalProperties JSON Unmarshaller
 */
@Generated("com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-code-generator")
public class CriterionAdditionalPropertiesJsonUnmarshaller implements Unmarshaller<CriterionAdditionalProperties, JsonUnmarshallerContext> {

    public CriterionAdditionalProperties unmarshall(JsonUnmarshallerContext context) throws Exception {
        CriterionAdditionalProperties criterionAdditionalProperties = new CriterionAdditionalProperties();

        int originalDepth = context.getCurrentDepth();
        String currentParentElement = context.getCurrentParentElement();
        int targetDepth = originalDepth + 1;

        JsonToken token = context.getCurrentToken();
        if (token == null)
            token = context.nextToken();
        if (token == VALUE_NULL) {
            return null;
        }

        while (true) {
            if (token == null)
                break;

            if (token == FIELD_NAME || token == START_OBJECT) {
                if (context.testExpression("eq", targetDepth)) {
                    context.nextToken();
                    criterionAdditionalProperties.setEq(new ListUnmarshaller<String>(context.getUnmarshaller(String.class))

                    .unmarshall(context));
                }
                if (context.testExpression("eqExactMatch", targetDepth)) {
                    context.nextToken();
                    criterionAdditionalProperties.setEqExactMatch(new ListUnmarshaller<String>(context.getUnmarshaller(String.class))

                    .unmarshall(context));
                }
                if (context.testExpression("gt", targetDepth)) {
                    context.nextToken();
                    criterionAdditionalProperties.setGt(context.getUnmarshaller(Long.class).unmarshall(context));
                }
                if (context.testExpression("gte", targetDepth)) {
                    context.nextToken();
                    criterionAdditionalProperties.setGte(context.getUnmarshaller(Long.class).unmarshall(context));
                }
                if (context.testExpression("lt", targetDepth)) {
                    context.nextToken();
                    criterionAdditionalProperties.setLt(context.getUnmarshaller(Long.class).unmarshall(context));
                }
                if (context.testExpression("lte", targetDepth)) {
                    context.nextToken();
                    criterionAdditionalProperties.setLte(context.getUnmarshaller(Long.class).unmarshall(context));
                }
                if (context.testExpression("neq", targetDepth)) {
                    context.nextToken();
                    criterionAdditionalProperties.setNeq(new ListUnmarshaller<String>(context.getUnmarshaller(String.class))

                    .unmarshall(context));
                }
            } else if (token == END_ARRAY || token == END_OBJECT) {
                if (context.getLastParsedParentElement() == null || context.getLastParsedParentElement().equals(currentParentElement)) {
                    if (context.getCurrentDepth() <= originalDepth)
                        break;
                }
            }
            token = context.nextToken();
        }

        return criterionAdditionalProperties;
    }

    private static CriterionAdditionalPropertiesJsonUnmarshaller instance;

    public static CriterionAdditionalPropertiesJsonUnmarshaller getInstance() {
        if (instance == null)
            instance = new CriterionAdditionalPropertiesJsonUnmarshaller();
        return instance;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Counter-Strike: GO "Big Content Update" Friday, More On Yesterday's Changes
March 6, 2012 9:09 am in News
Those enjoying the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Beta will be treated to an update this Friday according to developers.
"Big content update and changes Friday. We wanted people to play train after the change so they can compare," stated developers recently." The "change" they're referring to in this case was the update made yesterday to the map de_train.
De_train is still going to be the map of choice for the next few days until developers decide to move on to something new this Friday. What has changed recently, however, is the atmospheric haze, something which, according do developers, drastically affects gameplay. The problem is as described on the official CS blog: "Counter-Strike players need to quickly identify their targets, so it's important that those targets stand out. But as environments have become more richly detailed, it has gotten harder to separate a player from the background. This affects players by slowing their searches for targets, and can be the difference between life and death."
To remedy this, developers explain that "atmospheric haze ('fog') is one of the tools we use to solve this problem. It reduces the visual impact of the distant environment, and when the appropriate amount is used in a map, players become far more distinguishable." In yesterday's update, developers "have adjusted the levels of haze in de_train. The adjustment balances the need to make out players at long distances with the benefit of separating players from the background." They added, "it's true that eliminating haze would allow snipers to see very distant targets more clearly. However, aside from helping in that isolated case, removing it entirely would slow searches in the vast majority of player interactions. Counter-intuitive as it may seem, a little fog can help you see much more clearly."
Stay tuned to MP1st on Friday for a list of updates being made to the beta. For now, let us know in the comments below how you find the addition of atmospheric haze on de_train?
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive No Longer Supports Cross-Platform play, Releases This Summer
Tags: Beta Counter-Strike: Global Offensive CS:GO de_train Featured
DICE Working on "Permanent Solution" For Battlefield 3 Australia Servers
Mass Effect 3 Rewards Exclusive Multiplayer Items For Battlefield 3 Owners


text:
Home /Celebrity
'Good Times' Star John Amos Said He Enjoyed Hitting Jimmie Walker on the Classic Sitcom
by Fred Topel twitter facebook linkedin | More Articles: Celebrity
When Norman Lear created the classic TV show Good Times, John Amos and Esther Rolle were the stars. Rolle spun off from Maude and Amos had played a different character on The Mary Tyler Moore Show. However, Jimmie Walker began stealing the show as their son, J.J. Evans with his catch phrase "dy-no-mite."
John Amos and Esther Rolle | CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images
Amos spoke with Showbiz Cheat Sheet about his role in Coming 2 America, in which he reprised his role as Cleo McDowell. When we asked about Good Times, he shared this story of messing with Walker on the set.
Why John Amos left 'Good Times'
Amos became critical of Walker's performance he felt was playing up negative Black stereotypes. As a result, Lear had to tell Amos the series was continuing without him. James Evans, Sr. would die. Amos said he never spoke directly with Walker about his issues.
"No, I didn't feel it was my right as an actor to go to another actor and say you should change your portrayal of this character," Amos said. "I think my displeasure with some of what I regarded as burlesque moves, I think he got the message."
John Amos still had fun with Jimmie Walker while it lasted
During his seasons on Good Times, Amos had plenty of opportunity to stick it to Walker. Every time J.J. messed up, the script had James Sr. whack him.
L-R: Jimmie Walker and John Amos | CBS via Getty Images
"Every once in a while a scene would call for me to apply some physical rectification as to his behavior," Amos said. "After he'd suffered a couple of comas, he went to Norman and said, 'Hey, will you tell him to stop smacking me in the head so hard.' I enjoyed that, I gotta admit it. I didn't say anything to him, I just let him know how I felt through my actions. Whenever the opportunity presented itself for me to put my hands on him, I put my hands on a brother if you know what I mean."
There were still good times on 'Good Times'
Even though Amos's time on Good Times ended prematurely, he still values the seasons he got to do. And, Amos still credits Good Times with raising awareness for social issues.
John Amos and Esther Rolle | CBS via Getty Images
'Good Times' Star John Amos Reveals He Was Not Shocked By Bill Cosby's Conviction
Good memories and proud memories. The messages we were able to deliver through Norman Lear's direction and his writing and that of the other skillful writers on our writing staff. We got people to pay attention to social issues that they could relate to. Seniors being forced to eat pet food to survive, youngsters blowing each other away with military type weapons, all the things that are still headlines today, Norman Lear was tackling these issues and wrapping them in an envelope of comedy so that by the time the folks had digested the entire show, it resonated with them that they better watch what their children are taking to school in their napsacks, etc. It brought home some issues that far went beyond the pale of Hollywood comedy.
Tags:tv shows


text:
Queen Elizabeth said to have left her jewels to only Kate, Camilla and Megan get nothing
Posted on September 13, 2022 September 13, 2022 Author TNR Staff Comment(0)
RUMOUR circulating widely has it that Queen Elizabeth II changed her will before she died and gave 300 pieces of jewellery worth around 4 billion baht to Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, with newly appointed Camilla, Queen Consort, and Megan, Duchess of Sussex, getting nothing.
RadarOnline.com said the wife of William, Prince of Wales, is expected to inherit the late monarch's pricey jewellery collection — set to be worth a whopping $110 million. The 300 personal pieces belong to the Queen and not the Crown, an important distinction.
In July, sources told RadarOnline.com, "She's been focusing on her beloved pieces and who deserves what.
"The whispers are that she's made some last-minute changes to her will that'll be a shocking surprise for her heirs."
This outlet is now told that Middleton is likely to reap the benefits — a decision that's expected to ruffle some royal feathers.
"Kate is clearly the family favourite," an insider spilled to RadarOnline.com, adding the move will likely trigger Camilla, Meghan, and their significant others, King Charles and Prince Harry.
This news site said Camilla, who has been crowned Queen Consort with Elizabeth's blessing, has always been secretly jealous of Middleton's bond with the late Queen.
"She'd never say it, of course," said the source, "but it's one of the reasons Camilla resented Kate."
Camilla isn't alone. RadarOnline.com is told Meghan and her daughter, Lilibet, are expected to get the royal shaft. "There's a very good chance the Queen won't leave either of them any jewels of value," the pal revealed.
"It's not surprising, since they're not members of the royal family anymore," the insider continued, "but it would be a real slap in the face." When it comes to the Queen's jewels, Kate and William are "not worried" because they knew where they stood with Elizabeth.
While Kate's likely to pass some of the jewels on to her daughter, Princess Charlotte, she and William "really don't want Lilibet to be left out."
"As for Meghan, she's not their concern," scoffed the royal insider.
If the Queen does indeed cut Meghan out, "some people think it won't be out of spite, but practicality," RadarOnline.com is told. "Others say it would be the Queen sending a message to Meghan and Harry: You reap what you sow."
Queen Elizabeth died at Balmoral Castle on Thursday at the age of 96. The royal family held off on announcing her passing until each of her children and Prince William arrived at the scene. However, they didn't give Prince Harry the same curiosity.
RadarOnline.com can report that Harry was still en route to Balmoral Castle when his embattled family released the statement about Queen Elizabeth's death.
Top: Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, flanked by Camilla, Queen Consort, left, and Megan, Duchess of Sussex, right. Photo: Sanook.com
Insert: Princess of Wales Kate Middleton, left, and Duchess of Sussex Megan, right. Credit: MEGA and published by RadarOnline.com
Front Page: Late Queen Elizabeth II with King Charles III, Prince and Princess of Wales and their son Prince George. Credit: MEGA and published by RadarOnline.com
Also read: King Charles III proclaimed monarch of Australia, New Zealand
Charles III proclaimed king at tradition-steeped ceremony
Queen Elizabeth II dies aged 96
Prince Philip, husband of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, dies at 99
Prince Philip's funeral will be low key as Covid-19 changes funeral plans
Tagged Camilla, ElizabethII, Kate, Markle, Megan, Middleton, Queen
Trump campaign's next steps unclear after White House return
Posted on October 7, 2020 Author TNR staff
By AP, published by New Indian Express Washington – US President Donald Trump's return to the White House is poised to reshape the campaign's final four weeks as aides debated how to move past an extraordinary setback while grappling with how to send an infected president back on the road. A race that had remained […]
Blaze, shots heard from prison in Iran capital amid protests
By AP and published by Taiwan News Baghdad – A huge fire blazed on Saturday at a notorious prison where political prisoners and anti-government activists are kept in the Iranian capital. Online videos and local media reported gunshots, as nationwide protests entered a fifth week. Iran's state-run IRNA reported that there were clashes between prisoners […]
Wrangling over Ukraine war dominates G20 summit
Posted on November 16, 2022 Author TNR Staff
By Reuters and published by Cyprus Mail Nusa Dua, Indonesia – A Western-led push to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine dominated Tuesday's Group of 20 summit on the Indonesian island of Bali where leaders of major economies grappled with a dizzying array of issues from hunger to nuclear threats. President Vladimir Putin's Feb. 24 invasion […]
Mechai earned 11 million baht working for Prayut-led coup junta
Champion charged after wakeskating on flooded road
wind speed: 1 m/s NNE


text:
Адрианна Вандерпул-Уоллес (; 4 марта 1990, Нассау, Багамы) — багамская пловчиха. Участница Олимпийских игр 2008 и 2012 года. Бронзовый призёр Чемпионата Мира на короткой воде 2010 года в дисциплине 50 метров вольным стилем.

Карьера
Арианна Вандерпул-Уоллес дочь багамского политика Винсента Вандерпул-Уоллеса. Её международный дебют случился в 2007 на Панамериканских играх в Рио-де-Жанейро, где пловчиха заняла шестое место на дистанции 100 метров баттерфляем, прошла в полуфинал на дистанции 50, 100 и 200 метров вольным стилем. Вместе с подругами по команде Аланой Дилетт, Алисией Лайтберн и Никией Дево завоевала бронзовую медаль в эстафете 4×100 м комбинированным стилем.

В августе 2008 года участвовала в Летних Олимпийских играх в Пекине на дистанции 50 и 100 метров вольным стилем. На короткой дистанции заняла 24 место, на более длинной заняла 28 место.

На Чемпионате мира на короткой воде в 2010 году, проходившем в Дубае Арианна завоевала бронзовую медаль на дистанции 50 метров вольным стилем, 9 место - на 100 метров вольным стилем.

В 2011 году приняла участие в Чемпионате Мира в Шанхае, где оба раза попала в десятку сильнейших: 7 место - 50 метров вольным стилем и 10 место - 100 метров вольным стилем.

На Олимпийских Играх 2012 года в Лондоне багамка также участвовала в соревнованиях в   двух своих коронных дисциплинах: 8 место - 50 метров вольным стилем, 10 место - 100 метров вольным стилем.

На Чемпионате Мира-2013 года в Барселоне дважды остановилась на стадии полуфинала (15 место - 50 метров, 10 место - 100 метров).

Спортсменка учится в Обернском университете, расположенном в штате Алабама, США. За клуб университета она и выступает.

Личные рекорды

 Короткая вода

 Длинная вода

Ссылки
sports-reference - профиль Арианны Вандерпул-Уоллес

Пловцы на летних Олимпийских играх 2008 года
Пловцы на летних Олимпийских играх 2012 года
Пловцы на летних Олимпийских играх 2016 года
Пловцы Багам

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


1918 – Satisified Owner, Port Pirie S.A.
Attached Photo Caption: Mr. M. H. F. Noll, Port Pirie.
Please find enclosed a. snap of our 'bus after a desperate race from Port Pirie to a fruit garden 10 miles out on the River Broughton. It's needless, to say which one won the race. Our 'bus" is still going strong, more so since I've had her down for a cleaning out of carbon. I was very much taken up to find out that there is not the slightest sign of wear on the crank, rods, pistons, or any other bearing; everything was well oiled, the piston rings were free, nothing whatever wrong with the whole works. The fine bearings take my eye. There is plenty of surface, hence the wear is cut down to a minimum.
I'm thoroughly satisfied, after four years of running, with practically no trouble, speaks well for a Buick. I like them, and they'll always do me.
You may use this as you think fit. Wishing you every success in the future.


text:
package io.dshell.bootstrap;

import com.alibaba.fastjson.JSON;
import com.spotify.docker.client.DefaultDockerClient;
import com.spotify.docker.client.DockerClient;
import com.spotify.docker.client.exceptions.DockerCertificateException;
import com.spotify.docker.client.exceptions.DockerException;
import com.spotify.docker.client.messages.Container;
import io.dshell.functions.CompilingFunction;
import org.apache.commons.io.IOUtils;
import org.apache.http.client.methods.CloseableHttpResponse;
import org.apache.http.client.methods.HttpGet;
import org.apache.http.impl.client.CloseableHttpClient;
import org.apache.http.impl.client.HttpClientBuilder;
import org.junit.Test;

import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException;
import java.net.URLEncoder;
import java.nio.file.Files;
import java.nio.file.Path;
import java.nio.file.Paths;
import java.util.List;

import static java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.UTF_8;
import static junit.framework.TestCase.assertEquals;
import static junit.framework.TestCase.assertNotNull;
import static junit.framework.TestCase.assertTrue;
import static io.dshell.functions.CompilingFunction.CompilingFunctionResult;

public class BootstrapITest {
    public static final String URI_TPL  = "http://127.0.0.1:%d/?fileName=HelloDshellFunction.java&function=%s&dependencies=%s";
    public static final String URI_TPL2 = "http://127.0.0.1:%d/?name=helloDshell&language=java&artifact=%s";

    private final DefaultDockerClient dockerClient = DefaultDockerClient.fromEnv().build();
    private final CloseableHttpClient httpClient   = HttpClientBuilder.create().build();

    public BootstrapITest() throws DockerCertificateException {}

    @Test
    public void bootstraps_dshell_successfully() throws Exception {
        final String buildDir = System.getProperty("project.build.directory");
        final Path functionsPath = Paths.get(buildDir)
                                        .getParent()
                                        .resolveSibling("functions")
                                        .resolve("src/main/java/io/dshell/functions");

        // bring compiling function & deploy function up
        Bootstrap.start(new String[]{"--functions", functionsPath.toString()});

        // wait until functions are running
        Thread.sleep(30000);

        // submit a new function
        String function = new String(Files.readAllBytes(functionsPath.resolve("HelloDshellFunction.java")), "UTF-8");
        final String jsonString = httpGet(String.format(
                URI_TPL,
                findContainerPort("compiling"),
                urlEncode(function),
                "io.dshell:java-runtime-api:1.0-SNAPSHOT"
        ));
        CompilingFunctionResult result = JSON.parseObject(
                jsonString,
                CompilingFunctionResult.class
        );
        assertTrue(result.isSuccess());
        final String containerId = httpGet(String.format(URI_TPL2, findContainerPort("deploy"), result.getUri()));
        assertNotNull(containerId);

        Thread.sleep(30000);

        // check if the newly submitted function works
        final String reponse = httpGet(String.format("http://127.0.0.1:%d/", findContainerPort("helloDshell")));
        assertEquals("hello, dshell!", reponse);
    }

    private String httpGet(String url) throws IOException {
        final CloseableHttpResponse helloDshellReponse = httpClient.execute(new HttpGet(url));
        assertEquals(200, helloDshellReponse.getStatusLine().getStatusCode());
        return IOUtils.toString(helloDshellReponse.getEntity().getContent(), "UTF-8");
    }

    private String urlEncode(final String unencoded) {
        try {
            final String encode = URLEncoder.encode(unencoded, UTF_8.name());
            return encode.replaceAll("\\+", "%20");
        } catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
            throw new RuntimeException("encoding url failed: " + e.getMessage(), e);
        }
    }

    private Integer findContainerPort(String functionName)
            throws DockerException, InterruptedException {
        final List<Container> containers = dockerClient.listContainers(
                DockerClient.ListContainersParam.allContainers(),
                DockerClient.ListContainersParam.withLabel("dshell_function", functionName)
        );
        assertEquals(1, containers.size());
        return containers.get(0).ports().get(0).publicPort();
    }
}