text:
as amended May 21, 2006
Appendix: Endowment Fund Resolution
Section 1. Requirements and Limits. Any person who is in sympathy with the purpose of the Church may become a Member of the Church by signing the Membership Register in the presence of the Minister or an Officer or Trustee. Any Member who takes an active interest in the Church by attendance at its services, by taking part in its activities, or by financial contribution, shall be deemed a Voting Member of the Church, except that:
(a) Waiting Period. There shall be a waiting period of thirty days between becoming a Member and having voting privileges, and no one with membership of less than six months' duration shall be entitled to vote on disposition or acquisition of real property or on hiring or dismissal of the Minister.
(b) Age Requirement. Only Members who are sixteen years of age or over shall be entitled to vote in any meeting of the Church.
Section 2. Cessation. Any Member failing to maintain for a period of one year an active interest in the Church, as defined in Section 1 of this Article, shall cease to be a Voting Member after written notification by the Secretary, upon instruction from the Board of Trustees.
Section 3. Reinstatement. Any Member whose voting membership has ceased may become a Voting Member again by both communicating to the Secretary in writing the intent to resume an active interest in the Church and resuming such active interest.
Section 4.Withdrawal. Any Member may withdraw voluntarily from membership by so notifying the Secretary in writing.
Two Trustees to serve a term of three years;
Terms of office for all elective positions shall commence on July 1st, except that anyone elected to a vacant position shall take office immediately.
Section 2. Notice and Special Meetings. Notice of the Annual Meeting shall be given from the pulpit and by mail or personal delivery not less than ten days prior to such meeting. Special Meetings of the Church may be called by the Board of Trustees at any time and shall be called by the Board at the request in writing of no fewer than ten Members of the Church, provided that notice be given from the pulpit and by mail or personal delivery at least seven days prior to such a Meeting and that the object and business of the Meeting be distinctly stated in the call.
Section 3. Quorum. To constitute a legal Meeting, a quorum of at least fifteen voting Members, or twenty-five percent of the total voting membership, whichever is larger, must be present. Upon all questions, except as otherwise provided in the Bylaws, the action of a majority of those present and voting shall be binding upon the Church.
(a) Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee shall consist of three members: one Trustee, who is not an Officer, who shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees at its first meeting after the Annual Meeting, to serve for one year; and two members who are neither Trustees nor Officers, of whom at least one shall be elected at each Annual Meeting, to serve a term of two years.
[TRANSITIONAL PROVISION: The first two non-Trustee members of the Nominating Committee shall, if feasible, be elected at the same Annual Meeting that adopts this revised bylaw; otherwise they shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees as soon thereafter as possible. The Nominating Committee will then decide which of the two non-Trustee members shall serve for just one year.]
The Nominating Committee shall, on or before the first day of March, select nominees for Officers, Trustees, and the non-Trustee seat on the Nominating Committee, and shall, on or before that date, notify the Secretary in writing of the nominees so selected. It shall also be the duty of the Nominating Committee to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees for persons to be appointed to fill vacant positions. The Committee shall obtain the agreement of each Member to serve before nominating or recommending that Member. If the Nominating Committee nominates one of its own non-Trustee members to be elected as a Trustee or Officer before the end of the first year of that person's term on the Nominating Committee, then the Committee shall also nominate a replacement Committee member. No person shall serve on the Nominating Committee more than four years in succession.
(b) Notice of Nominations; Nomination by Petition. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to cause a list of the nominations to be mailed or delivered to all Members of the Church on or before the fifteenth day of March. Any ten Members entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting may make other nominations and deliver the same to the Secretary not later than the first day of April, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary to cause a list of such nominations, together with the names of the Members proposing the same, to be mailed or delivered to all Members at least ten days prior to the annual meeting.
Section 1. Board of Trustees. The executive power of this Church shall be vested in its Board of Trustees, which shall consist of six members, to be designated "Trustees," two of whom shall be elected at each Annual Meeting for terms of three years, and, in addition thereto, the Officers of the Church.
Section 2. Eligibility & Term Limits To serve as a Trustee or an Officer, a person must have been a Voting Member of the Church for at least one year before being elected. No person shall be eligible for re- election as Trustee until one year after the expiration of a full term of three years. No person shall be elected to more than three consecutive one-year terms in the same office.
Section 3. Removal. An Officer or Trustee can be removed by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting at a Meeting of the Church, provided that notice of the consideration of such removal has been included in the notice of the Meeting.
Section 4. Vacancies. If the position of any Trustee or Officer shall become vacant, the Nominating Committee shall, as soon as possible, recommend a successor to the Board of Trustees, and a majority of the remaining Officers and Trustees shall appoint a successor to serve until the next Congregational Meeting. The successor appointed by the Board of Trustees shall be announced to the Membership from the pulpit and by mail or personal delivery as soon as possible after the appointment.
Section 3. Expenditure Restriction. The Board of Trustees may not authorize the expenditure of more than five percent over and above the total annual budget without the approval of the Membership. Exceptions to this, in case of emergency, shall be subsequently ratified in a Membership Meeting.
The Board of Trustees shall hold at least six regular meetings each year. Special meetings shall be at the call of the President or two or more trustees. At all meetings of the Board of Trustees, six members shall constitute a quorum. Notice of every meeting shall be given to every member of the Board of Trustees and notice of every regular meeting shall appear in the Church Newsletter. Notice of every special meeting shall be given to the Church Membership to the extent feasible. Meetings of the Board of Trustees shall be open to Members of the Church, except when the Board goes into executive session.
Section 2. Committees. With respect to all committees except the Ministerial Search Committee, the Ministerial Relations Committee and the Nominating Committee, the President shall appoint chairpersons and members, and shall be, by virtue of office, an advisory member, with power to attend and deliberate but not to vote.
In addition to other duties provided for in the bylaws, the Secretary shall keep an accurate up-to-date list of the Members of the Church, and accurate minutes of all business transacted at Meetings of the Church and of the Board of Trustees, and shall cause to be posted on a bulletin board provided for the purpose in the Church or Parish House a current list of committees with the names of their chairpersons. The Secretary shall have custody of all Church records in accordance with law. The Board of Trustees shall establish procedures for maintenance of the Church records and for access thereto.
Section 4. Quorum and Notice for Congregational Decisions on Ministry. All Congregational meetings provided for in this Article shall require a quorum of at least twenty-five Voting Members, or forty percent of the total voting membership, whichever is larger, and notice given by mail or personal delivery not less than twenty days prior to the date of the meeting.
Section 9. Appointment of Committee on Ministry. There shall be a standing Committee on Ministry, consisting of one member appointed by the Minister, one member appointed by the Board of Trustees, and a third member appointed by the other two members. All members of this Committee shall have been Voting Members of the Church for at least one year. The member appointed by the Board of Trustees may be a Trustee or the Vice President, but shall not be the President, Secretary, or Treasurer. The members of the Committee on Ministry shall have staggered three-year terms. [Transitional provision: The first members of the Committee appointed under this bylaw shall determine among themselves who shall have a one-year term, a two-year term, and a three-year term.] No one shall serve more than six consecutive years on this Committee.
Amendments to this Constitution and Bylaws may be considered only upon recommendation of the Board of Trustees or upon petition signed by no fewer than ten Voting Members of Church, and may be made with the consent of two-thirds of the Members present and voting at any Meeting of the Church, provided that copies of the proposed changes shall have been mailed or delivered to each Member at least ten days prior to the Meeting at which the changes are to be voted upon.
passed at Congregational Meeting of May 12,1991; amended at Congregational Meeting of May 8, 1998.
(1)A separate fund is hereby established, to be known as the Endowment Fund.
(2) The Endowment Fund shall be kept in a separate bank account or other investment account, the nature of which shall be for the Board of Trustees to decide.
(3) A payment to the Endowment Fund shall be a regular line item on the expense side of the annual church budget, the amount to be decided in the same manner as the rest of the budget.
(4) Interest earned on the Endowment Fund shall not be included on the income side of the budget, but instead shall be continually reinvested in the Endowment Fund.
(5) The monthly and annual financial reports shall include a report of the amount in the Endowment Fund.
(6) Special contributions designated for the Endowment Fund shall always be accepted, with the understanding that such contributions are not in fulfillment of pledges toward the operating budget.
(7) Any expenditure from the Endowment Fund, or any amendment to the present resolution, shall require a vote of at least 75 percent of the Members attending a Congregational Meeting duly called with advance notice of the proposed expenditure or amendment.
(8) The present resolution shall require a 75 percent vote for passage.
(9) The Board of Trustees shall have discretion to add to the Endowment Fund any undesignated donations or bequests received in excess of the budgeted donation income.
(10) The Congregation may at any duly called meeting decide by simple majority to transfer any amount to the Endowment Fund from other capital funds.


text:
Q: how to send message to all connected client from server i've created an android application in which, android application act as the client, and server resides in the desktop application.
suppose there are 10 android application runs the same at a time on 10 different android tablets, when one updation received from one tablet, the desktop application sends the updation to all other remaining tablets. how could the server knows how many clients are connected and how to send the message to all the clients
what i plan is to run a server in all android so that when one updation received from one tablet, the desktop application sends the updation to all other remaining tablets.
can anyone please tell me some suggestion regarding this.
Client side
private int SERVER_PORT = 9999;
class Client implements Runnable {
            private Socket client;
            private PrintWriter out;
            private Scanner in;

            @Override
            public void run() {
                try {
                    client = new Socket("localhost", SERVER_PORT);
                    Log.d("Client", "Connected to server at port " + SERVER_PORT);
                    out = new PrintWriter(client.getOutputStream());
                    in = new Scanner(client.getInputStream());
                    String line;

                    while ((line = in.nextLine()) != null) {
                        Log.d("Client", "Server says: " + line);
                        if (line.equals("Hello client")) {
                            out.println("Reply");
                            out.flush();
                        }
                    }

                } catch (UnknownHostException e) {
                    // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                    e.printStackTrace();
                } catch (IOException e) {
                    // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                    e.printStackTrace();
                }
            }

        }

Server class
class ServerThread implements Runnable {
        private ServerSocket server;

        @Override
        public void run() {
            try {
                server = new ServerSocket(SERVER_PORT);
                Log.d("Server", "Start the server at port " + SERVER_PORT
                        + " and waiting for clients...");
                while (true) {
                    Socket socket = server.accept();
                    Log.d("Server",
                            "Accept socket connection: "
                                    + socket.getLocalAddress());
                    new Thread(new ClientHandler(socket)).start();
                }
            } catch (IOException e) {
                // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                e.printStackTrace();
            }
        }

    }

    class ClientHandler implements Runnable {

        private Socket clientSocket;
        private PrintWriter out;
        private Scanner in;

        public ClientHandler(Socket clietSocket) {
            this.clientSocket = clietSocket;
        }

        @Override
        public void run() {
            try {
                out = new PrintWriter(clientSocket.getOutputStream());
                in = new Scanner(clientSocket.getInputStream());
                String line;
                Log.d("ClientHandlerThread", "Start communication with : "
                        + clientSocket.getLocalAddress());
                out.println("Hello client");
                out.flush();
                while ((line = in.nextLine()) != null) {
                    Log.d("ClientHandlerThread", "Client says: " + line);
                    if (line.equals("Reply")){
                        out.print("Server replies");
                        out.flush();
                    }
                }
            } catch (IOException e) {
                // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                e.printStackTrace();
            }

        }

    }

A: You could save the Sockets in a List and send a message through all the OutputStreams in that List:
Socket socket = Server.accept();
sockets.add(socket);  //sockets is an ArrayList<Socket>

public void sendMessageToEveryone(String msg) {
for(Socket s : sockets) {
  s.getOutputStream().write(msg.getBytes());
  s.getOutputStream().flush();
}

A: You could use the Google Cloud Messaging service.
Take a look at this page:
https://developer.android.com/google/gcm/index.html

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


All-hazards Waste Management Decision Diagram.
Once finalized, these documents will guide government, private, nonprofit, community, and other stakeholders in preparing for debris management before a natural disaster occurs. These three documents will provide an update to existing 2008 guidance, and their development was prompted by numerous natural disasters that occurred in 2017, including: 1) three separate hurricanes that impacted a large area of the United States, 2) the northern California firestorm, and 3) tornadoes across the South and Midwest.
EPA is accepting comments on these draft documents until June 26, 2018. Comments may be posted here.


text:
Home » Context of 'January 23, 2006: Bush Asserts Authority to Ignore Laws in National Security Interest'
Context of 'January 23, 2006: Bush Asserts Authority to Ignore Laws in National Security Interest'
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event January 23, 2006: Bush Asserts Authority to Ignore Laws in National Security Interest. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
September 14-18, 2001: Congressional Joint Resolution Allows President Bush to Use All Necessary Military Force
The US Congress adopts a joint resolution, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), that determines that "the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Congress also states that the "grave acts of violence" committed on the US "continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to [its] national security and foreign policy." [US Congress, 9/14/2001] President Bush signs the resolution into law on September 18. [White House, 9/18/2001] The passage of the AUMF served another purpose: to extend presidential power. While the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff intended the AUMF to define the conflict in narrow terms, and authorize the US to move militarily against al-Qaeda and its confederates, and the Taliban, Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington, had a larger goal. Attorney Scott Horton, who has written two major studies on interrogation of terrorism suspects for the New York City Bar Association, says in 2005 that Cheney and Addington "really wanted [the AUMF defined more broadly], because it provided the trigger for this radical redefinition of presidential power." Addington helped draft a Justice Department opinion in late 2001, written by lawyer John Yoo (see Late September 2001), that asserted Congress cannot "place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response." [US News and World Report, 5/21/2006]
Entity Tags: US Department of Defense, Taliban, Scott Horton, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, David S. Addington, George W. Bush, John C. Yoo, Al-Qaeda, Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)
Timeline Tags: Torture of US Captives, Complete 911 Timeline, Civil Liberties
December 15, 2005: New York Times Reveals Bush Authorized Warrantless Wiretapping of Domestic Communications
New York Times headline from article revealing NSA surveillance. [Source: CBS News]The New York Times reveals that after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush granted the National Security Agency (NSA) secret authorization to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US without going through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to obtain legal warrants (see Early 2002. The administration justifies its actions by claiming such eavesdropping, which includes wiretapping phones and reading e-mails, is necessary to find evidence of terrorist activities, and says the nation needs the program after the 9/11 attacks exposed deficiencies in the US intelligence community's information gathering process, and because of what they characterize as the "handcuffing" of US intelligence agencies by restrictive laws. The Times has had the article for over a year; the White House prevailed on the Times not to publish its findings for that time, arguing that publication would jeopardize continuing investigations and warn potential terrorists that they were under scrutiny. Many believe that the White House wanted to delay the publication of the article until well after the 2004 presidential elections. The Times delayed publication for over a year, and agreed to suppress some information that administration officials say could be useful to terrorists. (Less than two weeks before the article is published, Bush tries to convince the Times not to print the article at all: see December 6, 2005.) Two days after the Times publishes its article, Bush will acknowledge the order, and accuse the Times of jeopardizing national security (see December 17, 2005). The NSA program eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the US at any given time, officials say; the overall numbers have likely reached into the thousands. Overseas, up to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are being monitored. Officials point to the discovery of a plot by Ohio trucker and naturalized US citizen and alleged al-Qaeda supporter Iyman Faris to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches as evidence of the program's efficacy. They also cite the disruption of an al-Qaeda plot to detonate fertilizer bombs outside of British pubs and train stations by the program. But, officials say, most people targeted by the NSA for warrantless wiretapping have never been charged with a crime, and many are targeted because of questionable evidence and groundless suspicion. Many raise an outcry against the program, including members of Congress, civil liberties groups, immigrant rights groups, and others who insist that the program undermines fundamental Constitutional protections of US citizens' civil liberties and rights to privacy. Several other government programs to spy on Americans have been challenged, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)'s surveillance of US citizens' library and Internet usage, the monitoring of peaceful antiwar protests, and the proposed use of public and private databases to hunt for terrorist links. In 2004, the Supreme Court overturned the administration's claim that so-called "enemy detainees" were not entitled to judicial review of their indefinite detentions. Several senior officials say that when the warrantless wiretapping program began, it operated with few controls and almost no oversight outside of the NSA itself. The agency is not required to seek the approval of the Justice Department or anyone else outside the FISA court for its surveillance operations. Some NSA officials wanted nothing to do with a program they felt was patently illegal, according to a former senior Bush administration official. Internal concerns about the program prompted the Bush administration to briefly suspend the program while Justice Department officials audited it and eventually provided some guidelines for its operations. A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the FISA Court, helped spur the suspension, according to officials. Kollar-Kotelly questioned whether information obtained under the program was being improperly used as the basis for FISA wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department. Some government lawyers say that the Justice Department may have deliberately misled Kollar-Kotelly and the FISA court about the program in order to keep the program under wraps. The judge insisted to Justice Department officials that any material gathered under the program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. The question also arose in the Faris case, when senior Justice Department officials worried that evidence obtained by warrantless wiretapping by the NSA of Faris could be used in court without having to lie to the court about its origins. [New York Times, 12/15/2005]
Entity Tags: US Supreme Court, George W. Bush, US Department of Justice, Iyman Faris, National Security Agency, New York Times, Al-Qaeda, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
December 18, 2005: Critics Say NSA Wiretapping Program Illegal
After the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program is revealed (see Early 2002 and December 15, 2005), some commentators criticize the program. Americans have fundamental Constitutional protections that are enforceable in court whether their conversations are domestic or international, says law scholar Geoffrey Stone. Stone says that President Bush's emphasis that NSA wiretapping only takes place on US calls to overseas phones or overseas e-mails "is no different, as far as the law is concerned, from saying we only do it on Tuesdays." Former FBI national security law chief Michael Woods, who served in the position when Bush signed the NSA directive, calls the program "very dangerous." Though Woods says the program was justifiable in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, "[By now] we ought to be past the time of emergency responses. We ought to have more considered views now…. We have time to debate a legal regime and what's appropriate." [Washington Post, 12/18/2005] Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, says the secret order may amount to Bush authorizing criminal activity in direct violation of FISA. "This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," she says. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans." The American Civil Liberties Union's Caroline Frederickson says of the program, "It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity." [Washington Post, 12/16/2005]
Entity Tags: Center for National Security Studies, Geoffrey Stone, American Civil Liberties Union, National Security Agency, Caroline Frederickson
January 20, 2006: Rove: Use Warrantless Wiretapping Controversy to Paint Political Opponents as 'Weak on Terrorism'
President Bush's top political adviser, deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, tells a meeting of the Republican National Committee that the warrantless wiretapping controversy (see December 15, 2005 and December 18, 2005) can be used to boost Republicans' election chances in the 2006 midterm elections. Republicans should emphasize that the wiretapping proves that Bush is willing to do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism and keep Americans safe. Critics of the program, therefore, can be painted as weak on terrorism. "The United States faces a ruthless enemy, and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in," Rove says. "President Bush and the Republican Party do; unfortunately, the same cannot be said of many Democrats.… Let me be clear as I can be: President Bush believes if al-Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interests to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree." [WIS-TV, 1/20/2006; Savage, 2007, pp. 203]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Republican National Committee, Karl C. Rove
January 23, 2006: Bush Asserts Authority to Ignore Laws in National Security Interest
Speaking to a cheering crowd of military families in Kansas, President Bush declares that he has no intention of following the laws requiring warrants for wiretaps (see December 15, 2005 and December 18, 2005) because Congress authorized the use of military force against terrorists (AUMF—see September 14-18, 2001), and because he has the power to bypass laws at his own discretion in the interest of national security. The Kansas appearance is part of an election-style "blitz" of appearances around the country designed to build support for the warrantless wiretapping program, and to bolster support for Republicans in the midterm elections (see January 20, 2006). "I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what [the AUMF] means," he says. "It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people but it didn't prescribe the tactics.… If [terrorism suspects] are making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why, to protect you." [Savage, 2007, pp. 203]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Query sheet and return Column Headers that match two criteria in a row I am trying to return an array of column headers based on TRUE values and Item names.
Link to sheet <- Clicky
Sheet 2:

Sheet 1: (desired results)

I think I am close but can't rack my brain to search for both TRUE values within the corresponding Item and return the headers for each. I have tried the following but it returns nothing. It is as far as I have gotten.
=IFERROR(QUERY(QUERY(Sheet2!A1:D,"Select * where G='"&A1&"'",1),"Select Col1 where Col2 is not null"))

A: use:
=INDEX(IFERROR(SUBSTITUTE(SPLIT(TRIM(FLATTEN(QUERY(TRANSPOSE(
 IF(Sheet2!A2:D=TRUE, SUBSTITUTE(Sheet2!A1:D1, " ", "♦"), )),,9^9))), " "), "♦", " "))

update:
=INDEX(IFNA(VLOOKUP(A1:A, {Sheet2!G2:G,
 IFERROR(SUBSTITUTE(SPLIT(TRIM(FLATTEN(QUERY(TRANSPOSE(
 IF(Sheet2!A2:D=TRUE, SUBSTITUTE(Sheet2!A1:D1, " ", "♦"), )),,9^9))), " "), "♦", " "))},
 {2,3,4,5}, 0)))

A: If anyone is interested in another way, I did find a solution utilizing a preferred method of sticking with minimal functions that I have a better understanding of, I was simply missing the transpose function.
=TRANSPOSE(QUERY(TRANSPOSE(QUERY(Sheet2!$A$1:$G,"Select * where G = '"&$A1&"'",1)),"Select Col1 where Col2 = TRUE"))

The only unfortunate part is I cannot seem to get it to expand down but it will return the results horizontally in a cell. It is also MUCH faster.
To get the results separated by comma's in a single row you could use JOIN:
=JOIN(", ",TRANSPOSE(QUERY(TRANSPOSE(QUERY(Sheet2!$A$1:$G,"Select * where G = '"&$A1&"'",1)),"Select Col1 where Col2 = TRUE")))


1. On a chopping board, lay a cling film to cover the prawns.
2. On the same chopping board, mix in fish and pork paste.
3. Using a chopper to chop and fold the mixture till well mixed.
sugar, salt, pepper and spring onion.
This method can helps the mixture become chewy after frying.
around the asparagus, exposing the asparagus tip.
with vegetable oil height around half the thickness of the prawn.
1-2 mins) lower the heat if too high.
8. This can be served with Thai chilli or Viet dipping sauce.


Victoria Grossack: You may be familiar with the Greek myth of Niobe – but in case your memory needs to be refreshed, a brief summary follows. Niobe, a queen of Thebes during the late Bronze Age, had fourteen children – seven sons and seven daughters – of whom she was very proud. The great number of her children led her to boast that she was better than the goddess, Leto, who had only one of each: the twin Olympian gods, Apollo and Artemis. Furious with Niobe at claiming to be superior to their mother, Apollo and Artemis took out their bows and shot dead all seven of Niobe's sons and six of Niobe's seven daughters.
Good article and an interesting read. Its good that these questions are kept alive.
Interesting article. It should be noted though, that a number such as seven sons and seven daughters sounds like one of those exaggerated numbers which appear in mythology (such as the 300 Spartans standing alone against over a million Persians). I think it was more likely that she lost her children, blamed the gods and went into the wilderness out of grief and died there, which for a queen of Thebes it's enough to guarantee a place in Greek mythology.


Having a video produced for your company is no cheap thrill. This isn't something that you can just scoff at or that you can shrug off. Most companies pay thousands of dollars just to have a video produced to introduce a new product, concept, or service. That's why it's almost physically painful to see businesses being duped by Lakeland video production companies.
There are a number of reasons, of course, why some production companies choose to make businesses believe they can deliver the corporate videos they need. Videos are expensive to produce, and they almost always justify the cost that companies require from their clients. Businesses are so desperate to have a professionally-done corporate video that they agree to hefty price tags.
However, there are unscrupulous video companies out there that take the money out from your hands and give you something generic in return. That's not what you paid for, and you should learn to have a voice in order to protect your investment. Here are three signs that it's time to walk away from your video producer.
What this means is the company does SEO work, videos, photos, graphic design, website design, etc. This is not the kind of company you want to produce your video. There is a good chance that it started as a company with one focus only, and then slowly incorporate everything because they are constantly being asked about it and they want to earn big bucks.
You want a specialized company that knows how to get to your intended audience.
They didn't say they are of good value, right? They said they are cheap. The biggest mistake you can do in your business is to go along with a supplier just because they say they are cheap. Always look at the quality first before the price. Yes, you are on a restricted budget, but you also don't want to waste your money on something that won't work.
Hopefully, this warning sign is enough for you to back away from this company. You need samples to decide if it is the right company for your business, and whether it can do the job right. Look for a Lakeland video production company that can show you samples of their work. Better yet, they should have a portfolio of every project they have done in the past.
Next Post What Could Be Wrong With Your Corporate Videos?