text:
Let's Face It: The Democrats Have Nothing Going For Them Other Than How Bad The Alternative Is
The juice of a carrot, the smile of a parrot
A little drop of claret, anything that rocks
Dan Pfeiffer wrote this morning that optimism doesn't come easy to him but that he's feeling less pessimistic about the midterms now. Ever hear of Ian Drury and the Blockheads? They had another song that people loved back in the '70s besides "Sex & Drugs & Rock'n'Roll." That song above, "Reasons to Be Cheerful, Part 3," was another of their underground hits. Underground in America; it was Top 10 in the U.K. "Up until recently," wrote Pfeiffer, "Democrats were stuck in a doom loop. That defeatism threatened to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What activist, donor, or voter wants to sign up for a suicide mission? And to be honest, it's been hard to make a reasonable, fact-based case that Democrats could upend the historical trends. However, over the last few weeks, the worm has turned. Democrats now have a legitimate shot to outpace expectations dramatically." Drury was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 1996. He died in 2000, age 57.
Pfeiffer admits his case for Democrats is "credible bull." He begins, as anyone would with the fact that "All political analysis should begin with the fact that America has a growing, diverse, pro-truth, pro-democracy, anti-MAGA majority. Now, of course, this majority is not evenly distributed geographically, which is why the GOP often has an advantage in the Senate and Electoral College. But the bulk of the races this cycle will be conducted in states Joe Biden won in 2020. Simply reconstructing the Biden coalition in composition and turnout will be sufficient to win. Our major problem to date has been disillusion and disappointment among our base and the Independent voters who favor Biden." His first reason for optimism is some kind of cockamamie claim to success.
He wrote that "In rapid succession, Democrats passed legislation on guns, microchips, veterans' benefits, and the historic Inflation Reduction Act. Democrats now have reasons to be happy, and Independents have reasons to reconsider supporting Republicans. More specifically, the climate change provisions are an opportunity to re-engage young voters."
Key word here is "Bull." Is anything in his litany of Democratic "success" anything voters will care about at all? It's all compromised crap. Even the lower cost of drugs accomplishment— which voters do care about and could have been meaningful— only includes 10 drugs, not 100s— and the process won't start to go down for 4 years. The Democrats' "accomplishments" are just like more reasons forepeople to hate their guts. Why not do something straight-forward… like raise the minimum wage? I almost forgot… their Arte Democrats opposing that, including one, Maggie Hassan, running for reelection who the Democratic Party is demanding everyone vote for.
This afternoon, Bernie sent an e-mail to his supporters explaining his own ambivalence towards the Build Back Worse legislation that Pfeiffer referred to as "the historic Inflation Reduction Act." Bernie tried to make it better, failed and voted for it anyway. "This bill," he wrote, "was a chance to do big things. It did very modest things. It was a chance to stand up boldly for the working families of our country and restore their faith in government. It didn't… We still have a long way to go to create the kind of economic, social, racial, and environmental justice the people of our country deserve."
He explained that the Democrats "could have taken a significant step forward in addressing the major economic, social, and environmental crises facing our country. That's not what happened. Two corporate Democrats, Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, both of whom receive huge amounts of campaign contributions from powerful special interests, prevented that from happening. The result is that this bill does nothing to reform our dysfunctional, wasteful, and cruel health care system. It does nothing to address the massive levels of income and wealth inequality and concentration of ownership that we are currently experiencing. It does nothing to raise the starvation minimum wage or make it easier for workers to join unions. It does nothing to build the millions of units of affordable housing we need. It does nothing to address the crisis of childhood poverty and a totally inadequate childcare system. It does nothing to address the home health care crisis facing our seniors and people with disabilities. It does nothing to expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision care. It does nothing to make it easier for young Americans to get a higher education, or pay off their student debt. It does nothing to move us forward toward immigration reform or voting rights reform."
So why did he vote for it? There is more to it than just being a team player and giving the Democrats the kind of political lifeline Pfeifer was pretending will change the doom loop.
This legislation makes important investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. At a time when we face the existential crisis of climate change, the most significant part of this bill is an unprecedented $300 billion investment in clean energy, including a $7 billion solar roof top proposal that I introduced. This bill could help increase U.S. solar energy by 500 percent and more than double wind energy by 2035. That is no small thing.
And let me be clear. An investment in clean energy of this size did not happen by accident. It occurred because the progressive community has been pressuring the political system for years to act with urgency on this life-and-death issue, and we should be proud of what we accomplished. Is the funding in this bill for sustainable energy and energy efficiency large enough? No. Does it include a Civilian Climate Corps that calls a generation of young people into service to help build a better sustainable future? No. But, all and all, it is a major step forward in addressing the enormous climate crisis the planet faces.
But here is the very negative aspect of this bill. Unbelievably, at a time when we are trying to cut carbon emissions, this bill provides massive giveaways to the fossil fuel industry. Under this legislation, up to 60 million acres of public waters must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before the federal government could approve any new offshore wind development. And that's not all. The fossil fuel industry will benefit from a side deal that would approve the $6.6 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline— a fracked gas pipeline that would span 303 miles from West Virginia to Virginia, and potentially on to North Carolina. This is a pipeline that would generate emissions equivalent to that released by 37 coal plants or by over 27 million cars every year and is vigorously opposed by the environmental community. It is beyond comprehension that these anti-environmental provisions are in the bill.
In terms of prescription drugs this bill takes a small step forward in doing something that progressives have demanded for years. The good news is that it will allow Medicare to negotiate the outrageously high price of prescription drugs and lower drug costs. The bad news is that these negotiations won't go into effect until 2026 and they will begin with only 10 drugs. Under this bill we will continue paying, by far, the highest prices in the world for our medicines for the indefinite future.
In terms of tax policy, this bill begins the work of making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes by imposing a 15 percent minimum tax on corporations. It is a step forward when large profitable corporations will no longer be able to completely avoid paying their taxes. Further, this legislation gives the IRS the resources they need to pursue the estimated $1 trillion in taxes not paid by the wealthiest people in this country, and will help ordinary, working people get their returns faster.
Dan Pfeiffer
Build Back Worse
climate abandonment


text:
Chonopeltis australis is een visluizensoort uit de familie van de Argulidae. De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1976 door Boxshall.

Argulidae

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Price level of 1.2200 remains the projected target of the current bearish flag pattern as long as 1.2360-1.2390 remains defended by the EUR/USD bears.
Today, bulls spiked up to 1.2496. However, the market came back to trade below 1.2400. It could be representing a failed bullish breakout off the upper limit of the depicted movement channel.
Fixation below the technical key-level of 1.2370 is mandatory to maintain enough bearish momentum to push towards 1.2200.
As depicted on the chart, the GBP/USD pair was trapped between 1.5890 and 1.6100 for almost 20 days before bearish breakout could take place.
This week, the GBP/USD pair is finding intraday DEMAND around 1.5580-1.5550 where many recent lows were previously established back in November.
The current DAILY price action favors the bullish scenario initially towards 1.5800 provided that the bulls can fixate above 1.5720 soon enough.
The market is still reflecting indecision which may give some time for more sideway movement.
It is either a double-bottom reversal pattern being established above 1.5580 OR another bearish flag pattern that waits for bearish breakout below 1.5550 (similar to what happened back in October).
The 4H chart reveals the recent downside movement maintained within the limits of the depicted channel.
Conservative traders were waiting for a bullish pullback towards the price zone of 1.5680-1.5710 for a low-risk SELL entry. Stop Loss should be located at 1.5760.
Obvious 4H fixation below the current Fibonacci levels zone (1.5680 - 1.5700 ) indicates an upcoming bearish movement towards 1.5480-1.5500 where the lower limit of the current movement channel is located.
From today's H4 chart, yesterday's closing below the resistance level of 186.70 gave the price an opportunity for a bearish move. As shown on the attached chart, the price is trying to continue its bearish move, but it will hit the strong support area of the support level of 185.00 trying to break it through. In that case, we might get another opportunity for more sell signals, and it opens the way towards the second support level of 184.40 as the first target, and then the price should test the support level to continue its bearish move. But as long as the price stabilizes above the support level of 185.00, it cancels the first scenario.
Resistance and support levels: R3 (187.50), R2 (186.70), R1 (185.80), S1 (185.00), S2 (184.40), S3 (183.80).
The USD/CAD pair is going to call for a sideways market on December 11, 2014. The price will probably be trapped between the levels of 1.1500 and 1.1443 in order to form a range of 57 pips today. However, risk to reward ratios are important and should be calculated, then a risk (57 pips) reward ratio of 1:1.5 is recommended, it can make a profit of 85 pips. The support sets at the level of 1.1443. Therefore, bulls are going to buy above 1.1443 with the first target at 1.1475, it might resume to 1.1501. It should be also noted that a tripple top is going to set at the price of 1.1501. In consequence, a stop loss should never exceed your maximum exposure amounts. The resistance is set at the level of 1.1500, so the trend will call for a bearish market at the level of 1.1500, since there is a minor bearish channel. Thus, swing trade at 1.1500 in order to sell with the target at 1.0600.
The market is in sideways . Moreover, the trend was so clear because the price moved higher to 1.1500, but the price of the GBP/USD pair has been rebounding lower towards the level of 1.1443.
The double bottom is set at the price of 1.1400.
The level of 1.1410 is the key level to confirm the bullish market.
In our last analysis, EUR/NZD was trading downward. As we expected, the price tested the level of 1.5850 in an extremely high volume (selling climax). Our Fibonacci expansion 100% at the price of 1.6145 held successfully, and it made price start with strong downward movement. I placed Fibonacci retracement to find potential support level and I got Fibonacci retracement 61.8% at the price of 1.5850 (currently on the test). According to the 4H time frame, we can observe lack of supply around the price at 1.5850. So, be careful when selling at this stage, but watch for potential selling opportunities after retracement.
Trading recommendations: Be careful when buying the EUR/NZD pair since we got strong supply in the background.
Since our last analysis, gold has been trading downward. The price tested the level of 1,217.56 in a volume below the average. Our Fibonacci expansion 100% at the price of 1,186.00 is broken so we may expect potential testing of the level of 1,255.00-1,265.00. Gold is now in a bearish corrective phase, so I have placed Fibonacci retracement levels to find potential support levels. I got Fibonacci retracement 38.2% at the price of 1,218.00 (on the test) and Fibonacci retracement 61.8% at the price of 1,206.00. My advice is to look for buying opportunities near the lows (after retracement). According to the 4H time frame, we can observe supply in an average volume.
The GBP/USD pair will probably be moved between 1.5717 and 1.5540, and it should mean that the range will be about 177 pips this week. In particular, it will be significative to wait for a period of tight sideway range market before trading. Besides, the level of 1.5717 formed a strong resistance. Furthermore, this price is in conformity with 61.8% of the Fibonacci retracement levels in the H1 chart. Therefore, it is likely that the market is going to start showing the signs of bearish market. In other words, it will be a good sign to sell below the 1.5717 level with the first target at 1.5637 in order to retest the weekly pivot point. It will fall towards the price of 1.5541 for forming double top. It should also be noted that the weekly support 1 has set at 1.5511. However, if the the pair does not break the weekly pivot point at the level of 1.5637, the market will indicate a bullish opportunity above 1.5637, and the level will act as strong support. So, it will be a good sign to buy above 1.5637 with the first target at 1.5683, and it will call for an uptrend in order to continue bullish trend towards 1.5791 tomorrow.
The Dollar index continued its downward move towards the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement of the rise from 87.50. Trend is bearish for the short-term as price has broken below the Ichimoku cloud. Bulls are still alive as long as price is above 87.50. A bounce from current levels will be a bullish signal with new highs as target.
Support is at 87.50. The long-tailed 4-hour candles from the 78.6% retracement are a bullish sign, but bulls also need to break above 88.57. Making a new lower low below 87.90 will be a bearish sign that will put the low at 87.50 in danger of being broken.
The weekly chart is also not showing any strength, even the opposite. The big red candle is a bearish reversal signal, however, we still have two more trading days left until the end of the week. Bulls also have this time to push the index higher as they did two weeks ago. It is important whether we see an upward reversal or break 87.50. For now bulls continue to have the upper hand and, I believe, this pull back is another opportunity to go long with the stop loss level close by at 87.50. Next target is 91 as long as our stop is not hit.
Gold price has not managed to break above the important resistance of $1,240 and is pulling back down below the first short-term support of $1,225. The next support is at $1,215. If resistance at $1,240 is broken we will see a move up to $1,260-70. If support fails we will see a move towards $1,200-$1,190.
Gold price has been making lower lows and lower highs in the last couple of days, but it still remains above the medium-term upward sloping trend line that comes from $1,140. Breaking below the short-term support of $1,215, we could see a deeper pullback towards $1,200. The upward move from $1,140 may be complete and the entire upward correction may be over. It means that we are at important resistance levels, and that we could see a reversal.
In the daily chart gold price, as expected, is back testing the breakout area of the Ichimoku cloud. A move back inside the cloud will signal a fake breakout and it will be a very bearish sign. Breaking below $1,180 will increase the chances of the bearish scenario where I expect new lows to come.
The 1:1 market geometry corrective move measure has been hit almost to the pip and now market slightly bounced from the level of 146.42 and will make that level an intraday support. The abc green corrective cycle in wave Y brown might be regarded as completed, but to confirm it the market must impulsively break out above the level of 147.33 first, and then test the golden trend line somewhere at the level of 148.32. Otherwise one more leg to the downside still may be expected, with the projected target at the level of 145.70 first.
Daytraders: Unfortunately, the sell orders from the level of 147.37 have missed the yesterday's TP at the level of 146.34 by mere 7 pips. So if you are the one who did not close this trade yesterday, please move the SL to the BE and keep waiting.
The EUR/JPY pair has broken below the trend line support for now as seen here. The pair is trading around 147.20/25 levels for now and could face resistance around 148.00/20 levels. It is recommended to remain flat for now and wait for further reaction at the 148.00/30 levels before initiating positions. The pair could be preparing for a deeper correction into 144.00 and lower levels. Please note that the outer trend line support is also around the 144.00 mark for now. Immediate support is seen at 145.00 levels while resistance is seen at 148.00/30, followed by 149.80 levels respectively.
The yesterday's key level has been violated and the market has made another higher high at the level of 1.1501. This level might be considered as the wave v black top, but it does not mean the price will not go any higher than this level. In the matter of fact, only a small corrective cycle is expected now, and further upward wave progression should unfold soon. This view is valid as long as the level of intraday support at 1.1396 is not broken. First targets for the upside are at the levels of 1.1519 and 1.1579.
Daytraders: yesterday's buy stop entry from the level of 1.1460 should be still kept open, and SL might now be moved to the break even level. First TP is at the level of 1.1519, second TP is at the level of 1.1579.
Swingtraders: please remember that the uptrend is still intact, and swing traders still should consider buying the dips as the market has to complete more waves to the upside. Only a sustained breakout below the level of 1.1189 invalidates the mid-term bullish outlook.
The GBP/CHF pair has been holding above 1.5150 levels for now and is seen to be carving a higher low at sub 1.5175/1.5200 levels for now. Please also note that 1.5150 is the fibonacci 0.618 support of the rally between 1.5075 and 1.5350/60. Furthermore the intermediary support trend line and past resistance turned support zone also converge at the same level. Hence it is recommended to remain long for now, with higher probability for the pair to rally through 1.5450 levels in the sessions to come. Immediate support is seen at 1.5075 while resistance is seen at 1.5450 levels respectively.
Silver has been trading comfortably above $17.00 levels and in the buy zone of immediate downtrend line as seen here. Immediate resistance is now seen at $17.40/50 while support is at $16.10/20 levels respectively. The bulls would like to aim for $17.40/50 levels from here till price remains above $16.20 levels. A meaningful correction can be expected once resistance at $17.40/50 is taken out. Please also note that the inverted head and shoulder reversal still remains possible, provided price remains above $14.50.00 in the sessions to come.
USD/JPY is expected to consolidate with a bearish bias after hitting a two-week low at 117.70 on Wednesday. It is undermined by the flows to haven JPY and unwinding of JPY-funded carry trades amid increased risk aversion (VIX fear gauge jumped 24.45% to 18.53, S&P 500 closed 1.64% lower at 2,026.14 overnight) as oil prices tumbled to fresh five-year lows after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries cut its 2015 demand expectations for crude to the lowest level since 2003, while below-forecast China November CPI data points to weakening growth in the world's second-largest economy. USD/JPY is also weighed by the lower U.S. Treasury yields (10-year at 2.171% versus 2.220% late Tuesday), broadly weaker USD undertone (ICE spot dollar index last 88.23 versus 88.67 early Wednesday) and Japan's export sales. But USD/JPY losses are cushioned by demand from Japan's importers and Bank of Japan's large-scale monetary easing policy.
Daily chart is negative-biased as MACD is bearish, stochastics is falling from overbought levels.
The pair is trading below its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a lower range as far as it remains below its pivot point. Short positions are recommended with the first target at 117.40. A break of this target will move the pair further downwards to 117.05. The pivot point stands at 118.80. In case the price moves in the opposite direction and bounces back from the support level, then it will move above its pivot point. It is likely to move further to the upside. In that scenario, a long position is recommended with the first target at 119.40 and the second target at 120.10.
USD/CHF is expected to consolidate in a lower range as markets await 0830 GMT Swiss National Bank interest rate decision, SNB is expected to leave its monetary policy unchanged. USD/CHF is undermined by broadly weaker USD undertone (ICE spot dollar index last 88.23 versus 88.67 early Wednesday). But USD/CHF losses are tempered by the franc sales on soft CHF/JPY cross.
Daily chart is tilting negative as stochastics falling from overbought levels, MACD is turning bearish.
The pair is trading below its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a lower range as far as it remains below its pivot point. Short positions are recommended with the first target at 0.9302. A break of this target will move the pair further downwards to 0.9590. The pivot point stands at 0.9720. In case the price moves in the opposite direction and bounces back from the support level, then it will move above its pivot point. It is likely to move further to the upside. In that scenario, a long position is recommended with the first target at 0.9755 and the second target at 0.9790.
NZD/USD is expected to consolidate with a bullish bias after spiking to a six-day high at 0.7831 overnight following the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's decision to keep the official cash rate at 3.5%. NZD/USD jumped as the RBNZ unexpectedly reaffirmed its tightening bias in its policy statement after having dropped references to rate hikes in October, BNP Paribas says. NZD/USD is also supported by the broadly weaker dollar undertone and Kiwi demand on soft AUD/NZD cross. But NZD/USD gains are tempered by the increased investor risk aversion and weak commodity prices.
Daily chart is mixed as MACD is bearish, but stochastics is turned bullish at oversold levels.
The pair is trading above its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a higher range as far as it remains above its pivot point. As long as the price is keeping above its pivot point, a long position is recommended with the first target at 0.7860 and the second target at 0.79. In an alternative scenario, if the price moves below its pivot points, short positions are recommended with the first target at 0.7660. A break of this target would push the pair further downwards and one may expect the second target at 0.7610. The pivot point is at 0.7730.
GBP/JPY is expected to consolidate with a bearish bias. It is undermined by the increased investor risk aversion and Japan's export sales. But GBP/JPY losses are cushioned by the demand from Japan's importers. However, GBP/JPY gains are tempered by the sterling sales on soft GBP/JPY cross amid increased investor risk aversion and sterling sales on buoyant EUR/GBP cross.
Daily chart is negative-biased as MACD and stochastics are bearish.
The pair is trading above its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a higher range as far as it remains above its pivot point. As long as the price is keeping above its pivot point, a long position is recommended with the first target at 184.65 and the second target at 184. In an alternative scenario, if the price moves below its pivot points, short positions are recommended with the first target at 187.30. A break of this target would push the pair further downwards and one may expect the second target at 187.85. The pivot point is at 186.45.
Support at 1.6028 held perfect for the next attack on the resistance line. As expected, it broke for a rally higher towards 1.6273, but suddenly near 1.6200 prices ran into a brick wall and took an awful dive. Should we be afraid? When prices collapse like this, we should always be careful, but we regard this decline as wave ii and will be looking for wave iii higher to at least 1.6526, where wave iii will be 161.8% of wave i. In the short term, only a break below 1.5789 will invalidate the bullish outlook.
Our stop at 1.6010 was hit for a nice profit. We will buy EUR again at 1.5915 or upon a break above 1.5984 with a stop at 1.5775.
Today, the focus has shifted to retail sales, core retail sales, and unemployment data. China's economy slowdown supported demand for the Yen and pushed the US dollar lower against most of the currencies.
Today, the focus has shifted to the speech of BOC Governor Poloz.
At yesterday's session, the pair made a double top at 1.1502 and closed at 1.1482. Today, the pair opened on a bearish note, opened higher at 1.1481. Until the prices trades and close below 1.1502, we can witness weakness. In case if the prices close above 1.1502 on a daily basis, it can challenge 1.1540, 1.1565, and 1.1575 in the near term. For an intraday session, we recommend buying only above 1.1485 (today's high) until the current market price 1.1482 remain on the selling side. The intraday support exists at 1.1430. In case, an hourly candle closes below 1.1455, it can extend its fall up to 1.1430 and 1.1400. Today's major US data will determine the trend.
The correction from 149.13 continues to unfold as expected. Wave c of the expanded flat should continue lower to 144.79 as the first target. That said, wave c is allowed to extend and therefore, we could see a move lower to 143.40 and maybe even 141.64 where this correction would have corrected 50% of the rally from 134.14 to 149.13. Short-term resistance at 148.25 should protect the upside for the continuation lower to 144.79.
We are short in EUR from 147.97 and will move our stop lower to 148.35. If you are not short in EUR yet, then sell near 147.75 with the same stop at 148.35.
After a big gain, the metal faced resistance at $1,240.00. The metal made a double top at $1,237.90 and corrected a bit at yesterday's session. Ahead of the U.S. Federal Reserve's meeting next week, the metal is looking mildly strong. The Federal Open Market Committee will undertake a monetary policy review at a 2-day meeting next week on 16-17 December, 2014. The policy meeting will be keenly watched for any hints on the timing of the interest rates hike. Today, the focus has shifted to retail sales, core retail sales, and unemployment data. Today, the pair held the previous low and is trading in the marginal green. Gold has immediate resistance at $1,235.00, above this $1,237.90 and $1,240.00 will act as strong resistance levels. The safe buying will trigger above $1,240.00. The metal prices are taking support at $1,223.00 and $1,220.00. We recommend risk selling below $1,223.00 and safe selling below $1,220.00. In case if the prices fall below $1,220.00, we can expect panic towards $1,213.00 and $1,209.00. The hourly trading view still favours bears. The prices are trading and closed below 35DEMA on the H1 chart. In case if the prices close below $1,209.00, then bears will hold their grip towards $1,200.00. The trading pattern is framed between $1,237.90 and $1,224.30. Breakout of any side will provide further room to trade.
Panic selling is below $1,209.00.
Today, the focus has shifted to retail sales, core retail sales, and unemployment data. The Chinese disappointing data supported the demand for the Yen and pushed the US dollar lower against most of the currencies. The Greece political instability and China's economy slowdown put pressure on the US dollar at the yesterday's session.
The pair rose notably at the previous session and managed to close above 20Dsma. The cable has intraday parallel resistances at 1.5726 and 1.5764 and weekly resistance at 1.5826. We recommend fresh intraday buying above 1.5726 with the targets at 1.5760 and 1.5800. The pair has support at 1.5725, 1.5690, and 1.5650. The selling pressure will emerge only below 1.5680. This bullish view is only for the near term. Today's US data can weigh the pair. Positive readings of the US reports can trigger selling pressure. We recommend selling below 1.5680 levels.
When the European market opens, some economic news will be released such as German Final CPI m/m, French CPI m/m, ECB Monthly Bulletin, Italian Industrial Production m/m, and Targeted LTRO. The US will publish a batch of macroeconomic reports as the Core Retail Sales m/m, Retail Sales m/m, Retail Sales m/m, Unemployment Claims, Import Prices m/m, Business Inventories m/m, Natural Gas Storage, and 30-y Bond Auction. So, amid the reports, EUR/USD will move low to medium volatility during this day.
In Asia, Japan will release the Core Machinery Orders m/m and Tertiary Industry Activity m/m. The US will publish a batch of economic reports such as Core Retail Sales m/m, Retail Sales m/m, Retail Sales m/m, Unemployment Claims, Import Prices m/m, Business Inventories m/m, Natural Gas Storage, and 30-y Bond Auction. So, there is a big probability the USD/JPY pair will move with low volatility during the Asian session, but with low to medium volatility during the US session.
The focus has shifted to today's major key event TLTRO result. In yesterday's French data again, it was disappointed we expected an uptick. French industrial output fell in October as the production of energy, agricultural and food products declined on the month, official data showed . Industrial production in the Euro zone's second largest economy fell 0.8% in October compared with September, the national statistics agency Insee said. On the jobs data it was also disappointed . In Q3 2014, payroll employment in principally market sectors decreased sharply by 0.3% q-o-q (-55,200 jobs), after a slight increase in the previous quarter as per agency Insee.
Today the focus has shifted to retail sales, core retail sales and unemployment data. The Chinese concern supported the demand for the Yen, pushed the US dollar lower against most of the currencies.
The pair rose strongly at the previous session and managed to close above 20Dsma. The pair closed at the highest level at the previous session. Yesterday, we recommended buying above 1.2400 with the targets at 1.2450, 1.2500, and 1.2530. Today, the pair made a high at 1.2450. We are still waiting patiently for the next targets higher. The pair has resistance at 1.2456, above this it can challenge 1.2500 and 1.2507. In case if the prices break out above 1.2507, it can extend its challenge towards 1.2525 and 1.2531. This bullish view is only for the near term. Today's US data can affect the pair. The support level exists at 1.2450, 1.2425, and 1.2400. We recommend selling below 1.2395 with the targets at 1.2360, 1.2340, and 1.2300. The longer-term picture still favour to the bears.
EUR/USD: EUR/USD has been making attempts to go bullish this week. The movement this week has been bullish so far, and this has threatened the recent bearish outlook in the market. From the support line at 1.2250, price has gone upward by nearly 200 pips. A touch of the resistance line at 1.2500 would mean the end of the bearish outlook.
USD/CHF: This currency trading instrument has been making attempts to go bearish this week. The movement this week has been bearish so far, but it would not be said that the bullish bias is over unless price closes below the support level at 0.9600. Further weakness in the Greenback may bring about this expectation.
GBP/USD: The Cable has also gotten engaged in a slow and steady bullish run – something that has resulted in a new bullish bias. Slowly and steadily, price could reach the distribution territory at 1.5800, and this is something that would strengthen the novel bullish bias.
USD/JPY: The bias on USD/JPY has gone bearish and price is now trading below the supply level at 118.00. Further weakness in the market could take price to the demand level at 117.00, which is the next target for bears. Some fundamental figures are expected today and they would have impact on the markets.
EUR/JPY: So far this week, this cross has been trending downwards and this has resulted in a Bearish Confirmation Pattern on the chart. The EMA 11 has just crossed the EMA 56 to the downside and the RSI period 14 is below the level 50. The next target to be attained is the demand zone at 145.50.
On the H4 chart, the USDX has had a fairly strong bearish trend for several days, as this instrument is currently finding support at the 88.27 level. This area could serve as a strong support for the USDX, but remember that this instrument could be looking down to the support level of 87.93, which would be an approximation to the 200-day moving average. The MACD indicator remains in the negative territory.
The USDX found strong resistance at the 88.71 level, where the 200-day moving average is located on the H1 chart. Now, the USDX is trying to form a lower low pattern below the resistance level of 88.43. The nearest support is the level of 88.15 and if the USDX makes a breakout there, it would be expected to fall to the level of 87.86. The MACD indicator remains in the negative territory.
The GBP/USD pair is conducting a breakout at the level of 1.5698, because this pair intends to go up to where the 200-day moving average is located on the H4 chart. This move is probably since the GBP/USD pair managed to consolidate above the bearish trend line that was putting pressure on the level of 1.5650. However, for the rest of the week, movements in a low range are expected.
On the H1 chart, the GBP/USD pair found dynamic support at the 200-day moving average after forming a bullish pattern above the support level of 1.5632. Technically, the GBP/USD pair could rise to the resistance level of 1.5739. However, the bearish outlook is still valid for this pair as on higher charts, GBP/USD is below the 200-day moving average.
USD/JPY is expected to consolidate with bearish bias after hitting a six-day low of 117.90 on Tuesday. It is undermined by the selling of the yen crosses amid diminished risk appetite (VIX fear gauge rose 4.79% to 14.89, S&P 500 fell as low as 2,034.17 overnight before closing roughly flat at 2,056.59 versus the previous close of 2,060.31) as investor sentiment soured after China on Tuesday unexpectedly tightened credit conditions to rein in lending, triggering a 5.31% plunge in Shanghai Composite for sharpest fall in five years. At the same time, the fears over the integrity of the European monetary union were reignited after the Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samara moved forward a high-stakes parliamentary vote for president. USD/JPY is also weighed by the lower U.S. Treasury yields (10-year at 2.216% versus 2.257% late Monday) and broadly weaker USD undertone (ICE spot dollar index last 88.67 versus 89.10 early Tuesday) and Japan's export sales. But USD sentiment is soothed by the stronger-than-expected rise in the USA NFIB index of small business optimism to 98.1 in November from 96.1 in October (versus the forecast of 96.5) and a bigger-than-expected 0.4% increase in the USA October wholesale inventories (versus the forecast of +0.3%), the rise in the USA IBD/TIPP economic optimism index to 48.4 in December from 46.4 in November. USD/JPY losses are also tempered by the demand from the Japanese import and Bank of Japan's large-scale monetary easing policy.
The daily chart is tilting negative as the MACD histogram bars are turned negative, stochastics is falling from overbought levels, bearish parabolic stop-and-reverse signal was hit on Tuesday.
The pair is trading below its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a lower range as far as it remains below its pivot point. Short positions are recommended with the first target at 117.90. A break of this target will move the pair further downwards to 117.40. The pivot point stands at 119.55. In case the price moves in the opposite direction and bounces back from the support level, then it will move above its pivot point. It is likely to move further to the upside. In that scenario, a long position is recommended with the first target at 120.10 and the second target at 120.50.
USD/CHF is expected to consolidate with bearish bias after hitting three-day low 0.9652 on Tuesday. CHF sentiment is boosted by the lower-than-expected Switzerland November unemployment rate of 3.1% (versus forecast 3.2%). USD/CHF is also undermined by the broadly weaker USD undertone. But USD/CHF downside is limited by the franc sales on soft CHF/JPY cross and ultra-loose Swiss National Bank's monetary policy.
The daily chart is mixed as the MACD is bullish, but stochastics turned bearish at overbought levels.
The pair is trading below its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a lower range as far as it remains below its pivot point. Short position is recommended with the first target at 0.9705. A break of this target will move the pair further downwards to 0.9675. The pivot point stands at 0.9735. In case the price moves in the opposite direction and bounces back from the support level, then it will move above its pivot point. It is likely to move further to the upside. In that scenario, a long position is recommended with the first target at 0.9770 and the second target at 0.9795.
NZD/USD is expected to consolidate with bullish bias after hitting two-and-a-half-year low of 0.7606 on Tuesday as the market awaits 20:00 GMT (Thursday 9 a.m. NZ time) the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's interest rate decision. The RBZ is expected to keep its policy rate at 3.5%. The kiwi sentiment is dented after Fonterra lowered its payout to dairy farmers from the previous forecast of NZ$5.30 to NZ$4.70. NZD/USD is also weighed by the kiwi sales on soft NZD/JPY cross amid reduced investor risk appetite. But NZD/USD losses are tempered by the broadly weaker USD undertone and NZD/USD interest differential.
The daily chart is negative-biased as the MACD is bearish, stochastics stays suppressed at the oversold levels, five-day moving average is below 15-day moving average and is declining.
The pair is trading above its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a higher range as far as it remains above its pivot point. As long as the price is keeping above its pivot point, a long position is recommended with the first target at 0.7770 and the second target at 0.7820. In an alternative scenario, if the price moves below its pivot points, short positions are recommended with the first target at 0.7610. A break of this target would push the pair further downwards and one may expect the second target at 0.7565. The pivot point is at 0.7660.
GBP/JPY is expected to consolidate with risks skewed lower. It is undermined by the reduced investor risk appetite and Japan's export sales. But GBP/JPY losses are tempered by the demand from the Japanese importers. But sterling sentiment is dented by a sudden 0.1% monthly drop in the UK October industrial production (versus forecast +0.2%) and a surprise 0.7% monthly fall in the UK October manufacturing output (versus forecast +0.2%).
Daily chart is tilting negative as MACD is in bearish mode, stochastics is turning bearish.
The pair is trading above its pivot point. It is likely to trade in a higher range as far as it remains above its pivot point. As long as the price is keeping above its pivot point, a long position is recommended with the first target at 185.75 and the second target at 185.10. In an alternative scenario, if the price moves below its pivot points, short positions are recommended with the first target at 188.45. A break of this target would push the pair further downwards and one may expect the second target at 189.20. The pivot point is at 187.85.


text:
State v. Ouellette, 37 A.3d 921 (ME Supreme Court 2012)
State: Federal
STATE v. OUELLETTE
37 A.3d 921 (2012)
2012 ME 11
Kenny L. OUELLETTE.
Docket: Aro-11-191
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued: November 9, 2011.
Decided: January 31, 2012.
Theodore M. Smith, Esq. (orally), Smith Law Office, LLC, Van Buren, for appellant Kenny L. Ouellette.
John M. Pluto, Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District No. 8, Caribou, for appellee State of Maine.
Todd Collins, District Attorney (orally), for appellee State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
GORMAN, J.
[¶ 1] Kenny L. Ouellette appeals from a judgment of conviction for reckless conduct (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 211(1) (2011), entered in the Superior Court (Aroostook County,Hunter, J.) on a jury verdict. Ouellette argues that the court erred in declining to instruct the jury on his justification of self-defense to that charge, and in failing to inform the jury of the parties' out-of-court resolution that resulted in a dismissal of a count of criminal
[ 37 A.3d 924 ]
mischief (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 806(1)(A) (2011), stemming from the same incident. We vacate the judgment.
[¶ 2] In 2010 Ouellette was charged with assault (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 207(1)(A) (2011); reckless conduct (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 211(1); and criminal mischief (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 806(1)(A), stemming from an altercation with victim Mike Nadeau. Ouellette pleaded not guilty to all counts. Prior to trial, the court dismissed the criminal mischief charge pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 891(1) (2011) because Ouellette and Nadeau had reached an accord and satisfaction.
[¶ 3] During his jury trial, Ouellette asserted that he acted only in self-defense, and requested a jury instruction to that effect for both the assault and reckless conduct charges. Viewing the evidence of the crimes in the light most favorable to the State, see State v. Severy, 2010 ME 126, ¶ 3, 8 A.3d 715, and the evidence supporting the claim of self-defense in the light most favorable to Ouellette, see State v. Barretto, 2008 ME 121, ¶ 4, 953 A.2d 1138, the following facts were established at trial.
[¶ 4] On the evening of April 4, 2010, in Caribou, victim Mike Nadeau learned that Ouellette was "riding around" with a fifteen-year-old girl. Nadeau, who was driving around town with a male friend at the time, was upset that Ouellette was with the girl. Both Nadeau and his passenger sent text messages to the girl to express their anger, and Nadeau eventually called the girl's cell phone and had a conversation with Ouellette during which Nadeau told Ouellette that he was "going to come find" him and "kick [his] ass." After this conversation, Ouellette brought the girl to her home and started driving with plans to leave Caribou; within a few minutes, Nadeau's vehicle crossed Ouellette's path. Nadeau followed Ouellette "right on [his] bumper," and Nadeau and his passenger made obscene gestures toward him. When both vehicles stopped for a red light, Nadeau and his passenger jumped out of their vehicle and approached Ouellette's vehicle. Ouellette testified: "I felt scared and threatened because they were two guys against one coming to jump me. They had already made threats to me over the phone." Neither Nadeau nor his passenger carried any weapons, but Ouellette left his vehicle with a baseball bat. Ouellette chased Nadeau with the bat and hit Nadeau on his wrist, swung the bat a few times without making contact with anything, used the bat to bash the taillight on Nadeau's truck, and then returned to his vehicle and drove away. After Ouellette got back in his truck, Nadeau chased Ouellette in his vehicle. A short while later, Ouellette reported the incident to a police officer and stated that he had acted in self-defense.
[¶ 5] Although the court granted Ouellette's request for a self-defense instruction as to the assault charge, it reasoned that the justification of self-defense was not applicable to a charge of reckless conduct. Ouellette also requested an instruction informing the jury about the out-of-court accord and satisfaction; the court denied this request as well, based on its determination that the accord and satisfaction was not relevant.
[¶ 6] The jury found Ouellette guilty of reckless conduct, but not guilty of assault. The court entered a judgment on the verdict and sentenced Ouellette to thirty days in jail, all suspended; one year of administrative release; and a $500 fine. Ouellette appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶ 7] Ouellette contends that the court erred in declining to instruct the
jurors that they could consider the justification of self-defense for the reckless conduct count, and in declining to instruct the jurors about the dismissal of the criminal mischief charge. We review the denial of a requested jury instruction for prejudicial error, and will vacate a judgment on this basis only when the denied instruction "(1) stated the law correctly; (2) was generated by the evidence in the case; (3) was not misleading or confusing; and (4) was not sufficiently covered in the instructions the court gave." Barretto,2008 ME 121, ¶ 9, 953 A.2d 1138 (quotation marks omitted).
A. Self-Defense
[¶ 8] We have recently enumerated the three broad categories of criminal defenses—a failure of the State's proof, an affirmative defense, and a justification or excuse—that differ primarily based on the allocation of the parties' respective burdens. State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 2011 ME 96, ¶¶ 12-14, 26 A.3d 828. In asserting a failure of the State's proof, the defendant argues that the State has not established one or more elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defendant himself has no burden. Id. ¶ 12; see 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2011). An affirmative defense, in contrast, places the burden of persuasion on the defendant to establish certain facts by a preponderance of the evidence. LaVallee-Davidson, 2011 ME 96, ¶ 14, 26 A.3d 828; see 17-A. M.R.S. § 101(2) (2011). Finally, a justification places on the defendant a burden of production to generate an issue with sufficient evidence, and then imposes on the State the burden of persuasion to disprove the defense. LaVallee-Davidson, 2011 ME 96, ¶ 13, 26 A.3d 828; see 17-A M.R.S. § 101(3) (2011); State v. Millett, 273 A.2d 504, 508 (Me.1971).
[¶ 9] Self-defense is one type of the third category of criminal defenses, justifications; it details the circumstances in which a person may use force to defend himself or a third person against an aggressor.1 17-A M.R.S. § 108 (2011). Like
other justifications, self-defense "represents a legal acknowledgement that the harm caused by otherwise criminal conduct is, under special justifying circumstances, outweighed by the need to avoid an even greater harm or to further a greater societal interest." State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 974 A.2d 679, 689 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). "[T]he law relating to self-defense is designed to afford protection to one beset by an aggressor and confronted by necessity not of his own making."2 State v. Case, 672 A.2d 586, 589 (Me.1996); Millett, 273 A.2d at 509. Self-defense, like other justifications, is a complete defense, meaning that it negates the commission of the crime; an act committed in self-defense is "simply no crime at all." Singleton, 974 A.2d at 690; see 17-A M.R.S. § 101(3);State v. Kane, 432 A.2d 442, 445 (Me.1981) ("[A] defendant who kills in self-defense is not guilty.").
[¶ 10] Section 108 provides for two possible self-defense justifications depending on whether the defendant uses deadly or nondeadly force. Deadly force is "physical force that a person uses with the intent of causing, or that a person knows to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury." 17-A M.R.S. § 2(8) (2011). A defendant's use of deadly force is justified only when: (1) the defendant has an actual belief that a person is about to use unlawful deadly force against him or another person; a person is committing or about to commit a kidnapping, robbery, or gross sexual assault; or a person has entered or is attempting to enter or remain in a dwelling place without permission and use of deadly force is necessary to prevent bodily injury to himself or another in the dwelling; (2) the defendant believes the use of such force is necessary; (3) those beliefs are objectively reasonable; (4) the defendant did not provoke the attack or does not know that the third person he is protecting provoked the attack; and (5) the defendant knows that he or the third person cannot, "with complete safety," "[r]etreat from the encounter" (with exceptions), "[s]urrender property to a person asserting a colorable claim of right" to it, or "[c]omply with a demand" from the attacker to "abstain from performing an
act that the [defendant] is not obliged to perform" 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2).
[¶ 11] Nondeadly force is "any physical force which is not deadly force." 17-A M.R.S. § 2(18) (2011). A defendant's use of nondeadly force is justified when: (1) the defendant has an actual belief that imminent and unlawful nondeadly force is about to be used against him or a third person; (2) that belief is objectively reasonable; (3) the defendant has an actual belief that force is necessary to defend himself or the third person; (4) that belief is also objectively reasonable; (5) the defendant uses only a "reasonable degree of nondeadly force" to repel the attack; (6) the defendant did not provoke the other person's use of force; (7) the defendant was not the "initial aggressor" or, if he was, he "withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person the intent to do so"; (8) the force is not "the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law"; and (9) the defendant does not know and reasonably should not know that the person using force against him is a law enforcement officer effectuating an arrest or detention, unless he reasonably believes the officer is using unjustified nondeadly force. 17-A M.R.S. § 108(1), (1-A).
[¶ 12] Whenever a jury instruction regarding self-defense is requested, the trial court must consider two interrelated questions. The court must determine whether self-defense is in issue at all and, as it does so, the court will also need to consider whether deadly or non-deadly force is implicated.
[¶ 13] To make its decision, the court determines whether sufficient evidence has been generated that is "of such nature and quality" to render "the existence of all facts constituting the defense a reasonable hypothesis for the fact finder to entertain." Barretto, 2008 ME 121, ¶ 4, 953 A.2d 1138 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Graham, 2004 ME 34, ¶ 12,845 A.2d 558; State v. Philbrick, 481 A.2d 488, 492 (Me.1984). The trial court thus considers whether there is some evidence to support each element of one form of self-defense, and which instruction— deadly or nondeadly—is generated by that evidence. In doing so, the trial court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant and resolve all reasonable inferences in the defendant's favor. State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶¶ 16-17, 724 A.2d 1222 ("[T]he court should have suspended its disbelief and assumed that [the defendant's] story was true.").
[¶ 14] All of the facts underlying self-defense—including the defendant's actual beliefs, the reasonableness of those beliefs, and the reasonableness of the force used in response—must ultimately be decided by the jury. State v. Bard, 2002 ME 49, ¶ 16, 793 A.2d 509;see Lamont v. State, 934 P.2d 774, 777 (Alaska Ct.App. 1997) ("The court must be mindful of the need to refrain from adjudicating factual issues that fall within the jury's domain" or else the court may risk "encroaching on the prerogative of the jury and, to that extent, impinging on the right of the accused to a jury trial." (quotation marks omitted)). Thus, the court's determination at this stage is limited to whether a rational jury could find self-defense on the evidence admitted. See State v. Kaler, 1997 ME 62, ¶ 11, 691 A.2d 1226 ("Merely because there is evidence sufficient to generate an issue of self-defense does not mean the jury is compelled to believe that evidence." (alterations omitted) (quotation marks omitted));State v. Lagasse, 410 A.2d 537, 543 (Me.1980).
[¶ 15] In many, if not most, instances, the trial court may determine, as a matter of law, whether there is evidence that could support a self-defense finding and if so, whether deadly or non-deadly
force is implicated. See Barretto, 2008 ME 121, ¶ 11, 953 A.2d 1138 ("In most cases the jury will not need to address the nature of the force. The nature of the force may be relevant to the court in deciding what instruction is appropriate." (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Forbes, 2003 ME 106, ¶¶ 15-16, 830 A.2d 417 (affirming the trial court's conclusion that the victim's contingent future threat to the defendant did not generate a self-defense instruction as a matter of law); State v. Rainey, 580 A.2d 682, 685 (Me. 1990) (holding that the defendant's actions could not be justified by self-defense given the undisputed evidence that he was the aggressor, entered the victim's property illegally, and had both the duty and opportunity to retreat safely); State v. Glassman, 2001 ME 91, ¶¶ 1, 11, 772 A.2d 863 (in a case involving a charge of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, noting that "a threat to use deadly force is the equivalent of nondeadly force" as a matter of law (alterations omitted) (quotation marks omitted)). If the trial court determines that the defendant has presented insufficient evidence to support either self-defense justification as a matter of law, the court will properly deny the requested instruction. See, e.g., Millett, 273 A.2d at 508 ("If the evidence adduced … is legally insufficient to raise the issue, the trial court will have no occasion or obligation to instruct the jury on the elements essential to a valid claim of self-defense, but rather will remove the issue of self-defense from jury consideration."). If the court determines that one type of self-defense is generated as a matter of law, the court's jury instructions must contain an explanation of that form of self-defense. Cruz v. State, 971 So.2d 178, 182 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007).
[¶ 16] In some instances, however, the issue of self-defense is generated by the evidence, but determining whether the defendant used deadly or nondeadly force depends on a finding of fact, such as when the defendant's actions or use of a weapon could be seen as either deadly or nondeadly. See Barretto, 2008 ME 121, ¶ 13, 953 A.2d 1138 ("[T]he undisputed evidence demonstrates that Barretto intended to use the knife to injure the victim and that he actually stabbed the victim in the shoulder and the hand."); State v. Crocker,506 A.2d 209, 210-11 (Me.1986) (evaluating the use of a baseball bat in a confrontation between individuals in which one witness testified that the aggressor "held the bat low and did not threaten [anyone] with it" and two others testified that the aggressor did swing the bat); Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass. 213, 820 N.E.2d 195, 200 (2005) (discussing that whether a wrestling headlock constitutes deadly or nondeadly force is a question of fact for the jury). When the court is unable to determine whether the defendant used deadly or nondeadly force as a matter of law, the court must instruct the jury as to both and allow the jury to make the preliminary determination of whether the defendant used deadly or nondeadly force. See Commonwealth v. Allen, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 9, 918 N.E.2d 92, 94 (2009); Walker, 820 N.E.2d at 200; Cruz, 971 So.2d at 182; Grimsley v. State, 939 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.2006); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 80 (West Group, LEXIS 2011). This method preserves the defendant's fundamental right to a jury trial given that "[w]eighing the evidence is the sole prerogative of the jury and the trial court should decide whether to give an instruction without weighing the evidence." Cruz, 971 So.2d at 182; see Lamont, 934 P.2d at 777.
[¶ 17] Once the level of force used by the defendant is determined, whether by the court as a matter of law or by the jury as a matter of fact, the jury then considers both the justification generated
and the crime alleged.3 It is the State's burden to both disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt and prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.Graham, 2004 ME 34, ¶ 12, 845 A.2d 558; State v. Soule, 2001 ME 42, ¶ 11, 767 A.2d 316;State v. McMahan, 2000 ME 200, ¶ 5, 761 A.2d 50. If the jury finds that the State disproved at least one element of self-defense, the jury may then convict the defendant if it also finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed each element of the crime. Bard,2002 ME 49, ¶ 16, 793 A.2d 509; Singleton, 974 A.2d at 688-89.
[¶ 18] On appeal, we again view the facts supporting self-defense in the light most favorable to the defendant, review any factual findings for clear error, and conduct a de novo review of the trial court's decisions of law. State v. Thurston, 2009 ME 41, ¶ 15, 969 A.2d 906; Barretto, 2008 ME 121, ¶¶ 4, 11, 953 A.2d 1138; State v. Ricky G., 2000 ME 190, ¶ 5, 760 A.2d 1065.
[¶ 19] In light of the clarification above, we now consider whether self-defense is a possible justification for Ouellette's actions, and if so, whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on that justification.
[¶ 20] Based on its legal conclusion that a self-defense justification is not available for a crime that may be committed with mere recklessness, the court instructed the jury that it could not consider self-defense as to the charge of reckless conduct.4 This ruling was erroneous; a defendant may seek a self-defense instruction pursuant to section 108 for any charge that includes an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as one of its elements. See Forbes, 2003 ME 106, 117, 830 A.2d 417 (discussing self-defense for crimes "for which recklessness suffices" (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 8, 695 A.2d 115 (stating that self-defense is available "for any crimes for which criminal negligence is not an element of the offense"); State v. Davis, 528 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Me.1987) (holding that when "a reckless state of mind suffices," a jury must be instructed on a generated justification). The crime of reckless conduct does include a reckless state of mind as an element, 17-A M.R.S. § 211(1); see 17-A M.R.S. § 35(3) (2011) (defining recklessness), and self-defense
may therefore be available to justify otherwise reckless conduct if generated by the evidence. Singleton, 974 A.2d at 694 (stating that "self-defense is a valid defense to crimes based on reckless conduct as well as intentional conduct" (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted)).
[¶ 21] The State argues that the court's error in concluding that self-defense is not available for reckless conduct was harmless because Ouellette used deadly, rather than nondeadly, force in wielding the baseball bat, but failed to generate any evidence supporting his use of deadly force in self-defense pursuant to section 108(2). See M.R.Crim. P. 52(a). We disagree. We have stated that "where self-defense is an issue essential to the defendant's case, the court's failure to instruct on self-defense pursuant to section 108 deprives the defendant of a fair trial and amounts to obvious error." Bard, 2002 ME 49, ¶ 11,793 A.2d 509 (quotation marks omitted); see Thurston, 2009 ME 41, ¶ 9, 969 A.2d 906;Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 6, 695 A.2d 115. This is particularly true when, as here, there are multiple charges stemming from the same single incident and the jury has received the instruction as to one of the charges: "When the charges stem from several moments of potentially criminal conduct, and the indictment does not identify the particular facts that induced the charges, a court should not refuse to instruct on self-defense when evidence of self-defense surrounding one of the events has been presented." Bard, 2002 ME 49, ¶ 13,793 A.2d 509 (footnote omitted). An acquittal on one charge indicates that the jury did not believe all of the evidence the State presented, and because the indictment contains multiple charges from the same incident, it is impossible to discern which portion of the incident the jury deems determinative. Id.; see Thurston, 2009 ME 41, ¶ 10, 969 A.2d 906("We have held that if the complaint or indictment does not identify the particular event leading to the charge, the court cannot refuse to instruct the jury on self-defense if any one of the events generates a self-defense instruction.").
[¶ 22] The failure to instruct on a justification is even more prejudicial when the jury acquits the defendant of the count for which the instruction was given. In Soule, for example, we held that the trial court erred by giving a self-defense instruction as to an assault count, but declining to give a competing harms justification as to an aggravated criminal trespass count. 2001 ME 42, ¶ 14, 767 A.2d 316. We concluded that the jury's acquittal of the defendant on the assault count indicated that "it was not highly probable that the [failure to give the justification] instruction did not affect the verdict." Id.
[¶ 23] Contrary to the State's contention, the jury could have found that Ouellette acted in justifiable nondeadly self-defense in acquitting him of assault. That the jury also could have found Ouellette not guilty of reckless conduct on the same basis means the failure to instruct accordingly was not harmless. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial on this basis.
B. Accord and Satisfaction
[¶ 24] We are not persuaded, however, by Ouellette's second argument—that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that he and the victim reached an out-of-court accord and satisfaction that resulted in the court's dismissal of the criminal mischief count. A defendant's acts making amends after committing one crime are irrelevant as to whether that defendant committed another crime; the State need only establish each element of the crime at issue beyond
a reasonable doubt. Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 11, 724 A.2d 1222.
The entry is:
Judgment of conviction for reckless conduct vacated. Remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
1. Title 17-A M.R.S. § 108 (2011) provides in its entirety:
§ 108. Physical force in defense of a person
1. A person is justified in using a reasonable degree of nondeadly force upon another person in order to defend the person or a 3rd person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, nondeadly force by such other person, and the person may use a degree of such force that the person reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
A. With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, the person provoked the use of unlawful, nondeadly force by such other person; or
B. The person was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person the intent to do so, but the other person notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, nondeadly force; or
C. The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
1-A. A person is not justified in using nondeadly force against another person who that person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or detention, regardless of whether the arrest or detention is legal. A person is justified in using the degree of nondeadly force the person reasonably believes is necessary to defend the person or a 3rd person against a law enforcement officer who, in effecting an arrest or detention, uses nondeadly force not justified under section 107, subsection 1.
2. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is:
(1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person; or
(2) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping, robbery or a violation of section 253, subsection 1, paragraph A, against the person or a 3rd person; or
B. When the person reasonably believes:
(1) That such other person has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within a dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) That deadly force is necessary to prevent the infliction of bodily injury by such other person upon the person or a 3rd person present in the dwelling place;
C. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force as provided in paragraph A if:
(1) With the intent to cause physical harm to another, the person provokes such other person to use unlawful deadly force against anyone;
(2) The person knows that the person against whom the unlawful deadly force is directed intentionally and unlawfully provoked the use of such force; or
(3) The person knows that the person or a 3rd person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that the person or the 3rd person is not required to retreat if the person or the 3rd person is in the person's dwelling place and was not the initial aggressor;
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a colorable claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that the person abstain from performing an act that the person is not obliged to perform.
2. Self-defense is defensive, not retaliatory: "You may prevent an injury from being done by all proper means, but, when done, you cannot take redress into your own hands." State v. Allen, 235 A.2d 529, 532 (Me.1967) (quotation marks omitted).
3. If only nondeadly force self-defense is generated by the evidence, but the jurors find that the defendant used deadly force in protecting himself or another person, the jurors must be instructed not to consider self-defense as a justification for the defendant's actions. If the level of force the jurors find is consistent with the allowable defense, the jurors will then consider that defense.
4. The self-defense instruction the court gave as to the assault count was flawless. The court correctly determined, first, that Ouellette presented no evidence that Nadeau was about to use unlawful deadly force against him, and second, that Ouellette did generate sufficient evidence that Nadeau was about to use unlawful nondeadly force against him. See State v. Barretto, 2008 ME 121, ¶ 11, 953 A.2d 1138. Having made this determination, the court informed the jurors that they were to decide, as an issue of fact, whether Ouellette's use of the baseball bat represented deadly or nondeadly force. The court then instructed the jurors about how they should use their factual determination concerning the nature of the force used by Ouellette— either deadly or nondeadly—during the rest of their deliberations. Specifically, the court explained that if the jurors found that Ouellette's use of the baseball bat represented deadly force, his actions could not be justified by Nadeau's actions. If, however, they found that Ouellette's use of the baseball bat represented nondeadly force, Ouellette's self-defense claim could justify his acts, and the State then had the burden to establish the elements of the assault charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and also to negate, beyond a reasonable doubt, some element of Ouellette's self-defense justification. See id.; 17-A M.R.S. § 101(3) (2011).
By Andrew Branca| 2012-12-22T13:04:10+00:00	December 22nd, 2012|0 Comments

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Seismic tie for horizontal ties across intervening members.
Allowable loads assume a restrained member of 3 1/2" min. thickness with bolts in single shear.
Bolt and nail values may not be combined.
NAILS: 16d = 0.162" dia x 3 1/2" long. See other nail sizes and information.
SA See specific model numbers for code listings.


text:
Kobe Bryant's Journey With Nike Led To A Basketball Shoe Revolution
Comments Off on Kobe Bryant's Journey With Nike Led To A Basketball Shoe Revolution
It's rare for a player to come into the NBA and have a gargantuan impact on the entire sport as a whole. It's even rarer for that same player to change the game when it comes to the actual shoes the players wear on the court. In order to make that kind of impression, you have to be a special talent who only comes around once in a generation. From the early-2000s to the mid-2010s, that player just so happened to be 5-time champion, Kobe Bryant. When it comes to Kobe's sneaker output, there are so many incredible models to choose from, and if you are looking to secure a pair, or even sell some, then eBay might just be the solution you are looking for. EBay has numerous policies in place that protect both the sellers and the buyers. For instance, all pairs are sent through Sneaker Con's special sneaker facility, where all shoes go through rigorous authentication processes. eBay's Authenticity Guarantee lets sneakerheads sleep at night knowing their rare and retro sneakers are real. Not to mention, the brand also offers no sellers fees on shoes over $100 USD. Their vast collection of rare shoes encompasses Kobe's storied history, and if there is a particular pair you've always wanted to own, chances are, eBay has it.
Harry How/Getty Images
Kobe's sneaker journey was certainly a rocky road at first. His days with Adidas were not fondly remembered by sneakerheads, although his sneaker free agency was the stuff of legend. Kobe would wear any brand that sent him something and eventually, he signed with Nike. Together, Kobe and Nike delivered a fleet of incredible signature sneakers to the masses all while creating new trends that have left a lasting impact on today's crop of NBA stars who have their own signature shoes. Unfortunately, the Nike x Kobe partnership is officially coming to an end which is news that was announced just a couple of weeks ago. At the end of 2021, Nike will stop selling Kobe-related sneakers and as everyone can imagine, it has led to some increased levels of scarcity on the market, which has also increased the value of his shoes.
Following a whole year of being courted by numerous brands, Kobe signed to Nike in 2003 although he wouldn't get a true signature sneaker with the brand until 2005. For the better part of that year, Ken Link began designing a shoe for Kobe that fit the vibes of the time. Pretty well every player was wearing high-tops or mid-tops, and this shoe was no different as it had a stealthy yet bulky design. Pairs of the Nike Kobe 1 eventually started to hit the market in January of 2006 and on 22nd of that very same month, Kobe dropped 81 points on the Toronto Raptors while wearing a white, purple, and black colorway. Eventually, this Player Exclusive got a retro in 2019 and it remains one of the most iconic shoes to ever grace Kobe's feet.
Image via Nike
While the Nike Kobe 2 and Nike Kobe 3 were cool, Kobe's real impact began with the Nike Kobe 4, which debuted during the 2008-2009 season. This was a special time for Kobe as he had just come off of a loss in the NBA Finals, and he was about to win two-straight titles, cementing on-the-court legacy. Kobe knew that he needed to do something special with his signature sneaker line, and he did just that as he shocked critics and consumers with a low-top shoe. When playing basketball, you need adequate ankle support, otherwise, you could be risking injury. Well, Kobe didn't seem to care about all of that because he stuck to his convictions and completely changed the course of basketball shoes with just one silhouette. When the shoe originally debuted, there were people who told him it just wasn't going to work. This fueled Kobe who came through with hilarious promotional campaigns including ankle insurance, which poked fun at the notion of these shoes causing injury.
Needless to say, the Kobe 4 proved to be immensely popular and his success out on the court forced people to take notice of what a low-top could do for someone's game. These days, even big men can be seen wearing low-top shoes and when it comes to new signature sneaker lines, most of them are low-tops. From the Nike KD to the Nike Zoom Freak 1 to the Nike Kyrie series, there is no denying that these shoes would not exist if it weren't for Kobe's foresight.
Following the success of the Nike Kobe 4, Bryant continued on with his low-top journey as he unveiled the Nike Kobe 5 which was a subtle deviation from the previous model. Kobe would go on to win his fifth and final NBA title in these shoes and it was the "Big Stage Home" colorway that got those Game 7 honors against the Celtics. That white and gold pair were an immediate hit amongst fans and when you think of the Kobe 5, you think of that specific colorway.


Scuba diving class practicing CPR First Aid and CPR are good skills for anyone involved in adventure sports – just in case. You need these skills for the PADI Rescue Diver Course.
The fun part about Emergency First Response training is learning serious medical emergency response skills in an upbeat, positive environment. You gain the confidence so that you are prepared to help in an emergency.


text:
from os.path import exists, join
from os import mkdir
from logging import getLogger, Formatter, FileHandler, StreamHandler, ERROR, INFO
from sys import stdout
from Config.settings import LOGHOME

__author__ = 'Fernando López'

class LoggingConf:
    def __init__(self, loglevel=INFO, log_file='log_file.log'):
        if exists(LOGHOME) is False:
            mkdir(LOGHOME)

        log_filename = join(LOGHOME, log_file)
        format_str = '%(asctime)s [%(levelname)s] %(module)s: %(message)s'
        date_format = '%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ'

        self.sp_logger = getLogger()
        self.sp_logger.setLevel(loglevel)
        formatter = Formatter(fmt=format_str, datefmt=date_format)

        fh = FileHandler(filename=log_filename)
        fh.setLevel(loglevel)
        fh.setFormatter(formatter)
        self.sp_logger.addHandler(fh)

        sh = StreamHandler(stdout)
        sh.setLevel(ERROR)
        sh.setFormatter(formatter)
        self.sp_logger.addHandler(sh)

    def close(self):
        self.sp_logger.handlers.clear()

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
ArticulATE 2019
Video: Cafe X and Byte Technologies on Data Rabbit Holes and the One Thing Your Data Team Must Track
The beauty of running an automated or robot-powered business like the coffee-slinging Cafe X or Byte Technologies smart fridges, is that you generate a lot of data. What people are purchasing, when they purchase it, where, how often, etc. All this data powers demand algorithms that help companies like Cafe X and Byte be more efficient by accurately determining business critical decisions such as products to offer and how much inventory to carry.
The downside of running an automated or robot-powered business like Cafe X or Byte Technologies is that you generate a lot of data. Too much data, actually. You could easily spend most of your time diving down a data rabbit hole, trying to fine-tune demand algorithms and actually wind up making them less useful.
So how do you determine what data to capture and what data to pay attention to?
Glad you asked! Because the role of data was central to my discussion with Cafe X COO Cynthia Yeung and Byte Technologies Founder Lee Mokri during the Forecasting, Personalization & Customer Service Challenges for Robotic Retail panel at our ArticulATE food robotics conference last month.
It was fascinating to sit down and learn from Yeung and Mokri about how their respective companies tackle the data issue, and how they use that data to maximize product variety within the limited square footage of their automated storefronts.
Plus, for all you entrepreneurs out there, Yeung explains the one thing you absolutely need to do when building out your data team and plan.
Watch the full video below, and check back for more of our full sessions from ArticulATE 2019.
ArticulATE 2019: Forecasting, Personalization & Customer Service Challenges for Robotic Retail
Video: Albertsons Brings Labor into Automation Decisions on "Day One"
A recurring theme during our recent ArticulATE food robot and automation conference was the issue of human labor. What do you do when machines displace people in the workforce? It's a tough question employers throughout the food world are grappling with.
On the one hand, automation is coming, and we need to figure out what combination of government and private sector will be responsible to help re/train people put out of work by robots. On the other hand, food-related companies like Albertsons (and restaurants), are having a tough time finding people to work for them.
Trung Nguyen, VP of eCommerce for Albertsons, told the audience at ArticulATE that the grocer is having a hard time filling jobs, especially truck driving jobs. Turns out people would rather set their own hours and work unsupervised driving for Uber than a delivery truck.
Even with a labor crunch, Albertsons is very methodical in its approach to automation. That's because Albertsons is unionized, and, as Nguyen explained, before any kind of automation is implemented, the company brings in union reps and lawyers on "day one." This way, Nguyen said that there is clear communication in what the company does.
Check out the full video from the conference to hear more about how the Albertsons grapples with the labor issue, why scale is important to a chain like Albertsons, and how it, too, has started piloting some autonomous vehicle delivery tests in the Bay Area.
ArticulATE 2019, Rethinking Grocery in the Age of Automation
Be sure to check back all through the week for more videos of the full sessions from ArticulATE!
ArticulATE Q&A: Why Starship's Delivery Robots are as Wide as Your Shoulders
We are a little less than a month away from our food robotics summit, ArticulATE, happening on April 16 in San Francisco. The excitement around Spoon HQ is palpable because we have locked in a fantastic lineup of speakers, including today's Q&A guest Ryan Tuohy, the Senior VP of Business Development at Starship.
Starship's autonomous rover bots deliver snacks, groceries and packages to corporate and college campuses and even out to the general public in Milton Keynes in the UK. In advance of Tuohy's talk on-stage at ArticulATE, we wanted to set the stage and learn a little more about, well, what Starship has learned from making all these deliveries (like how big to make its 'bot!).
If you want to know how robots are impacting the present and setting up the future of food delivery, get your tickets to ArticulATE today, they are going quickly!
THE SPOON: Starship has been running deliveries for a while now on Intuit's corporate campus, in Milton Keynes in the UK, and most recently you started at George Mason University. What have you learned about how people use and interact with robot delivery?
TUOHY: One of the things we're proud of is how happy customers are when the robot arrives with their order – every interaction is overwhelmingly one of delight and we've received thank you notes and special drawings of robots from every location where we operate. At GMU specifically, the bots have become famous across social media, with many students posting pictures/videos of their deliveries.
For students at George Mason University, the bots provide a low cost and convenient service to let them spend time doing what they want, rather than waiting in line for food or skipping a meal because they're too busy, GMU students can have food delivered anywhere on campus and use that extra time to hang out with friends, study or take a break.
In some locations, like Milton Keynes, some of our most popular customers are parents who struggle to leave the house because of their children. It's a lot easier to get a robot delivery than try and get two young kids in the car, find parking, walk round the grocery store and then drive back. It's a lot more environmentally friendly as well.
The vast majority of people notice the robot on the sidewalk and simply pass by it. Initially, some people take a selfie or a photo of the robot. This effect diminishes over time as people in the particular location become familiar with seeing the robot in the area.
As you talk with campuses like George Mason, what are the concerns they have about robot delivery and how do you alleviate them?
At George Mason University, some people have asked whether the robots can handle rough weather conditions such as rain and snow. One of the reasons we brought the robots to GMU was for this very reason. The robots have safely traveled over 150,000 miles around the world and completed thousands of deliveries regardless of weather conditions.
Additionally, everyone's first test when they see the robot on the sidewalk is to check if the robot will stop in time, when [they're] blocking its path. But each robot travels at 4mph and has a 'situational awareness bubble' around it with a range of sensors that can detect obstacles like dogs, pedestrians, bikers, and is able to either maneuver around them or stop at a safe distance.
Is there a sweet spot when designing a rover delivery robot, in terms of size and speed, and have you hit that, or is it more of a moving, evolving target?
Robotic delivery is affordable, convenient and environmentally friendly. Starship's robots are intelligent and designed to seamlessly co-exist with humans in the community. They are purposefully about as wide as a human shoulder width when walking on the sidewalk and travel at walking pace (4mph max).
Starship has designed and built our robots with a vast amount of advanced proprietary technology, including a combination of computer vision, sensor fusion and machine learning for seamless navigational and situational awareness. The company's proprietary mapping process enables the robots to understand their exact location to the nearest inch.
What do you think are the biggest misconceptions about robot delivery?
One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding autonomous delivery is around security. Many people believe that robots will be stolen but the reality is very different from this. In tens of thousands of autonomous deliveries, we've not had any robots stolen. The robot has many theft prevention measure to stop this from happening, including 10 cameras, sirens (like a car alarm), tracking to the nearest inch and the lid is of course locked at all times. It would be a big effort to steal a robot and get it home without being caught, only to find some milk and eggs in the basket!
What is your favorite fictional robot?
I enjoy the classic R2D2 robots from Star Wars. Who doesn't enjoy a cute robot that can help you on all your expeditions? We are already at the point where robots can deliver packages and food to your doorstep. It's amazing to see technology we once imagined has now become a reality.
ArticulATE Q&A: Miso's CEO on How Flippy the Robot Will Move From Frying to Chopping
Ahh Flippy. It was the first food robot I ever wrote about, way back in…2018. Back then, it could only grill burgers. Now, a year later, it can fry tater tots and chicken tenders, and will reportedly soon get a job in a deli.
They grow up so fast. Soon Flippy will want the keys to not drive the autonomous car.
We're going to get a full report on what Flippy is — and will be — up to when Dave Zito, CEO of Miso Robotics, sits down for an on-stage chat at our upcoming ArticulATE conference on April 16 in San Francisco. We were so excited to have him be a part of the show that we couldn't wait and sent him some questions via email, which he was kind enough to answer.
This is but an autonomous amuse bouche — get your ticket today to see Zito and a host of truly amazing speakers at ArticulATE!
THE SPOON: Flippy started off grilling burgers and then moved on to frying up chicken tenders. What particular jobs in the kitchen are Flippy, and robots in general, really good at?
ZITO: We started Miso Robotics with the idea of giving eyes and a brain to a robotic arm so it could work in commercial kitchens with real-time situational awareness and real-time robotic controls. We designed and starting building the system from Day One as a software platform that could automate the cooking of all manner of foods and recipes, with all equipment and restaurant brands, and all kitchen formats.
Our autonomous robotic Kitchen Assistants are focused on helping with the most repetitive, dangerous, and least desirable tasks in the kitchen. Flippy grilling burgers was our proof of concept. Flippy can now fry many different kinds of foods as well. These tasks can be improved and optimized for consistency, ensuring each meal is cooked to the perfect temperature with minimal food waste. Beyond frying, grilling, and other cooking, expect them over time to help with tasks like chopping onions, cutting other vegetables, and even cleaning.
The Kitchen Assistant improves and learns over time based on the data available. Ultimately, this frees up kitchen staff to spend more time with customers. We believe the future of food is on-demand, accessible, personalized, and scalable. We are building the technology platform leveraging automation, machine learning, and robotics advancements to deliver on this future.
What did you learn from Flippy's time at Dodger Stadium?
Flippy's deployment at Dodger Stadium emphasized how much one kitchen assistant can impact productivity and efficiency in a high-volume commercial kitchen. Dodger Stadium was the first time we deployed our frying capabilities, and we matched max productivity while producing consistently fried foods to the chef's expectations. Cooking for extended periods of peak demand during baseball games was a key proof point for the reliability and sustained high throughput of our Kitchen Assistants.
But don't just take our word for it; here is what our partner Levy had to say about the experience:
"The robotic kitchen assistant helps us more quickly and safely cook perfectly crispy chicken tenders and tater tots," said Robin Rosenberg, Vice President and Chef de Cuisine for Levy. "It's amazing to see the kitchen assistant and team members working together, and the consistency of product is incredible."
"New technologies at large scale venues and events like this need to add value for both guests and team members," said Jaime Faulkner, CEO of E15, Levy's analytics subsidiary. "Working with Miso, we were able to create a process that both delivers high quality food more quickly, and gives kitchen team members a chance to hone sought-after skills working with robotics and automation."
We are looking forward to resuming frying with Levy this baseball season.
What is the biggest misconception about food robots in the kitchens?
The biggest misconception about the use of technology in the kitchen is that it's about job replacement. There is a growing labor crisis in the restaurant industry. Local workforces are shrinking, and wages are increasing, making commercial cooking uneconomical. Meanwhile, consumers have an increased desire for meals cooked for them, whether via delivery, take-out, dining out, or grocery deli meals, adding pressure on kitchen workers.
Restaurants already see 150% turnover today from a dissatisfied workforce. Pair this with an aging workforce that can't handle some of the physical demands that come with the job and commercial kitchens are struggling to recruit and retain talent. Intelligent automation not only creates an avenue for meaningful work for the next generation through the creation of new jobs like a Chef Tech (employees trained to manage the robot), but also takes the physical burden off of more mature employees who want to continue to contribute later in life.
The tasks that Miso's technology can perform are some of the most dangerous tasks in the kitchen, not to mention messy and menial, ultimately improving the employee experience by freeing up time for them to focus on more meaningful work, like warm customer service that a robot simply can't match.
What should restaurant owners know about food robots before implementing them?
Expect improvements across several aspects of their business — better food, better customer service, better inventory and cost management. While a signature recipe for a restaurant can make it a success, it can be hard to reliably reproduce at scale to every customer, but robots like Flippy can deliver consistency in flavor to help keep customers loyal. Furthermore, the value proposition of implementing robotics in the kitchen spans productivity and cost-savings to one of the most pressing issues in our world today – sustainability. Food waste is a huge contributor to the climate crisis we are in, wasting $160 billion of food a year. This technology has the potential to significantly reduce that number – restaurants can contribute to a positive step in the right direction of food waste and ensure they are maximizing inventory as they begin to grow.
As a kid I loved Johnny 5 from the film Short Circuit. I loved the idea that technology built for one purpose, in this case the military, once embedded with artificial intelligence shifted to more compassionate pursuits. In that way we are inspired at Miso to take industrial robotic arms, add our intelligence, and in so doing improve them for a broader and more impactful service — helping liberate commercial kitchens from repetitive tasks and mediocre menus, while empowering chefs to make delicious and nutritious meals accessible for all.
ArticulATE Summit Agenda Announced: Sony, Google, AutoX, Starship, Albertsons and More to Speak
We are excited to officially announce the full speaker (and robot!) lineup and agenda for our upcoming ArticulATE Food Robotics Summit. The one-day conference will be held on April 16 at General Assembly in downtown San Francisco, and it promises to be a great event packed with amazing talks about the future of food robots and automation.
A seriously stellar roster of speakers from up and down the robotic food stack will be there, including:
Linda Pouliot, CEO – Dishcraft
Narayan Iyengar, SVP, eCommerce & Digital – Albertsons
Jewel Li, COO – AutoX
Randall Wilkinson, CEO – Wilkinson Baking Company (BreadBot)
Vincent Vanhoucke, Principle Scientist, Google Brain team – Google
Masahiro Fujita, Chief Research Engineer, AI Collaboration Office of Sony – Sony
Ali Ahmed, CEO – RoboMart
Cynthia Yeung, COO – Cafe X
Ali Bouzari, Chief Scientist – Pilot R&D
Dave Zito, CEO – Miso Robotics
Deepak Sekar, CEO – Chowbotics
John Ha, CEO – Bear Robotics
Ryan Tuohy, Senior VP, Business Development – Starship
Alex Vardakostas, CEO – Creator
Brian Frank, General Partner – FTW Ventures
Mara Behrens, Chowbotics
Brita Rosenheim, Partner – Better Food Ventures
Chas Studor, Founder/CTO – Briggo
Lee Mokri, Founder – Byte
Shawn Lange, President – Lab2Fab (A Middleby Corporation)
Avidan Ross, Root VC
Matt Rolandson, Ammunition Group
But it's not just humans! We couldn't have a robotics conference without some robots, so we are equally pleased to announce that Kiwi, Penny, and Sally will all be in attendance as well!
We've been putting a ton of work into this show to make sure that it delivers an exciting day that gives every attendee better insight into the business, technological and societal implications of our impending move towards robots and automation in food tech.
As such, we have hand crafted a solid agenda that brings out the expertise we've gathered on-stage to create a full day of insight and engaging conversation. Talks will include:
Grocery: Rethinking Grocery in the Era of Robotics
Society-Robot Relationship: How to Navigate Skepticism and Fear around Automation in Food
Restaurants: The Front and Back of House
Food Production: Hyperlocal Food Factories
Robots on Roads: Robotics For the Last Mile
24 Hour Storefronts: Automation At Point of Sales
Overcoming The Big Technical Challenges With Food Robotics
Novelty, Niche or Next Big Thing? How To Make Good Experiences (and Food) With Robotics
Collaborate, Coexist, Cobot: Building Towards Integrated Robot, Human Work Environments
Investment Opportunities in Food Robotics
Check out the full agenda.
We hope to see you there! Tickets are limited so get yours today!
ArticlATE Q&A: Google Brain's Vanhoucke on Robots, AI and Programming vs. Learning
The hardware of a robot is only as good as the software brain that powers it. This is why we are so excited to have Vincent Vanhoucke, Principle Scientist with the Google Brain team speak at our upcoming ArticulATE conference.
In addition to being the director of Google's robotics research efforts, Vanhoucke has spent his career researching artificial intelligence and machine learning. Before we sit down with him at the show, we wanted to give you a little taste of what he'll be talking about with a brief Q&A that we conducted over email.
If you want to see Vanhoucke in person and be a part of the discussion on the future of food robotics and automation, get your ticket to ArticulATE today!
What is Googley about robots and automation?
There is something new and exciting happening in the world of robotics: thanks to the advances in deep learning of the last few years, we now have vision systems that work amazingly well. It means that robots can see, understand, and interact with the complicated, often messy and forever changing human world. This opens up the possibility of a robot helper that understands its environment and physically assists you in your daily life. We are asking ourselves: what could happen if the devices you interact with every day could carry out physical tasks, moving and picking things up — if they could ask 'How can I help you' and do it directly?
What are some broad applications that AI and machine learning are really good at right now and where is biggest room for improvement?
Perception at large has made enormous progress: visual understanding, localization, sensing, speech and audio recognition. Much of the remaining challenge is to turn this progress into something actionable: connecting perception and action means understanding the impact of what a robot does on the world around it, and how that relates to what it sees. When a robot operates in a human environment, safety is paramount, but also understanding social preferences, as well as people's goals and desires. I believe that enabling robots to learn, as opposed to being programmed, is how we can establish that tight degree of human connection.
Do you need massive amounts of data for training AI, or do you just need the right data?
Improving data efficiency has been a major focus in recent years. In the early days of deep learning, we explored what was possible when lots of data was available. Today, we're probing whether we can do the same thing with a lot less data. In most cases, the answer is yes. In robotics, we've been able to leverage lots of simulated data for instance. We're also finding new ways to improve systems on the fly, as they operate, by leveraging data-efficient techniques such as self-supervision and meta-learning.
Computer vision + AI is shaping up to be a versatile and powerful combination (spotting diseases on crops, assessing food quality, automating store checkout). Where is this technology headed and what are some untapped uses for it?
If you look at the perception systems that have evolved in animals and humans, they're largely driven by function: for instance, our own visual system is very good at sensing motion, and at focusing its attention on the entities that we interact with in a scene. Computer vision systems don't work like that today, because we haven't closed the loop between sensing and acting. I think that one of the grand challenges of computer vision is how to optimize visual representations for the tasks we care about. Robotics will enable us to close this functional loop, and I expect that we will see the technology improve dramatically as a result.
Japanese giant robots were a fixture of TV shows when I was a kid in 80's France. Of the lot, I'm going to have to go with UFO Robot Grendizer out of sheer nostalgia. Today, I find inspiration watching Simone Giertz' terrific robot contraptions on YouTube.