text:
Stan Lee is "damn mad" about missing out on topless dancers for his Deadpool cameo
By Gem Seddon 2016-05-31T18:30:33.151Z News
Stan Lee has racked up tons of cameos in Marvel movies. From the Marvel Cinematic Universe to Fox's Fantastic Four and X-Men films, his appearances serve as high-profile easter eggs that even the casual moviegoer can spot. He always looks like he's having a blast, and based on his latest performance in Deadpool it's not hard to see why.
The scene in question takes place in a strip club, the camera cutting away briefly to the DJ booth revealing that Lee is the one spinning the tunes. Due to the wonders of editing, it turns out that the reality of the shoot was rather different to what ended up onscreen. At this weekend's MegaCon Lee spoke to reporters, revealing that he wasn't even in the club when he delivered his customary cameo.
"I don't know if I should tell you the truth about that cameo. It will kill all your fun," said Lee. "I was not in the topless dancing place. I did that in a studio and then they put it into the movie, and I'm damn mad about that!"
He is, of course, joking. He's not *really* mad about it. But nevertheless, he plans to ensure he doesn't miss out on being surrounded by half-naked women the next time around. "I made them promise on the next one," he adds. "I'm going to be right there."
Directed by Tim Miller and starring Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, T.J. Miller and Gina Carano, Deadpool is available on DVD and Blu-ray in the US now and on June 13, 2016 in the UK.
Images: Marvel/ABC


Sentai Filmworks has announced its anime release schedule for January 2019. It's a little bare-boned–with only three Blu-rays–but all three series are held in pretty high regard. If you're looking for something to watch this fall, we've compiled a guide of the Netflix, Amazon, Crunchyroll, Funimation, and HiDive anime that you should watch, including Sentai Filmworks' new Bloom Into You series.
You might not have heard of the first title, Rocket Girls, which is a 2007 series based off of a 1995 light novel series. This 12-episode anime is primarily about Morita Yukari, a high school girl who wants to find out what happened to her father after he disappeared. Her journey takes her to the Solomon Islands, where the native Space Association is trying to build a big enough rocket to send an adult into space, with zero success. Yukari's tiny frame makes her ideal for flying in one of the SSA's smaller, more reliable rockets so she agrees to undergo the training to be one of the association's astronauts in return for help in finding her father. This anime is more than just a female version of Space Brothers, and hits on similar story lines and themes of A Place Further Than The Universe. Rocket Girls releases on January 15, 2019, and you can pre-order it for $26.
A special steelbook Blu-ray of Land of the Lustrous releases the following week. Plenty of people missed out on Lustrous because the series released on Amazon Video when the streaming service was still charging an exorbitant fee to watch anime. Which is a shame, because Lustrous is one of 2017's best anime. Lustrous is a retelling of the 2012 manga about a race of sentient jewels who must defend themselves from lunar invaders that want to turn the gems into jewelry. The story stars Phosphophyllite, who goes by Phos, the jewel with the weakest hardness. Phos cannot fight, even though they want to, as they shatter easily so they're assigned to writing an encyclopedia. The task leads Phos down a path of revelation as they learn the secrets behind the gems. Land of the Lustrous Steelbook Edition releases on January 22, 2019, and you can pre-order it for $52.
Finally, at the end of the month, the premium box set of Girls' Last Tour releases. Based on the 2014 manga, Girls' Last Tour is a dystopian slice-of-life about two young girls, Chito and Yuuri, who drive around in a military vehicle in search of food and other survival materials. Chito is rather serious and enjoys reading while Yuuri is easy-going and loves eating. Girls' Last Tour borrows narrative beats from stories like The Road. It's simultaneously cutesy and very depressing. The Girls' Last Tour Premium Box Set releases on January 29, 2019, and you can pre-order it for $98.


text:
Zale-Las Vegas v. Bulova Watch
Wilke Holzheiser v. Dept., Alco. Bev. Con
v. Francis (1956) 134 Colo. 160 [ 301 P.2d 139]; MilesLaboratories v. Eckerd (Fla. 1954) 73 So.2d 680; Cox v.…
State v. Opperman
See also People v. Disbrow, 1976, 16 Cal.3d 101, 127 Cal.Rptr. 360, 545 P.2d 272; State v. Hehman, 1976,…
Full title:ZALE-LAS VEGAS, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; ZALE OR ZALES JEWELRY STORE…
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada
80 Nev. 483 (Nev. 1964)
396 P.2d 683
striking down law that bound third parties to non-compete provisions in private contracts because the law did not promote competition
Summary of this case from Patel v. Tex. Dep't of Licensing
Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; George E. Marshall, Judge.
Foley Brothers, of Las Vegas, for Appellants.
Sundean, Christensen, Bell, Morris Albright, of Las Vegas, for Respondent.
By the Court, BADT, C.J.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the court below upholding the validity of the Fair Trade Act, being Chapter 48, Stats. of Nevada, 1937, and comprising NRS 599.010-599.050, and granting a preliminary injunction enjoining appellants from advertising, offering for sale, or selling Bulova products at prices below those established by the fair-trade agreement between Bulova and Ginsburg Jewelry Company. We reverse.
The title to the act in question reads as follows: "An Act to protect trade-mark owners, their agents, producers, distributors, and the general public against injurious and uneconomic practices in the distribution of competitive commodities bearing a distinguishing trade mark, brand or name, through the use of voluntary contracts establishing minimum resale prices, and other matters properly relating thereto."
Section 2 of the act reads: "Willfully and knowingly advertising, offering for sale or selling any commodity at less than the minimum price stipulated in any contract entered into pursuant to the provisions of this act, whether the person so advertising, offering for sale or selling is or is not a party to such contract, is unfair competition and is actionable at the suit of any person damaged thereby." (Emphasis supplied.)
An annotation in 60 A.L.R.2d 420, entitled "Validity, under state constitutions, of nonsigner provisions of Fair Trade Laws" (1958), discusses under appropriate headings all the jurisdictions to the date of the annotation which showed, at that time, if our count is correct, 15 jurisdictions including the United States Supreme Court, holding in favor of constitutionality, and 13 holding against constitutionality. Subsequent to that annotation, 12 states have decided the issue — 10 against constitutionality and 2 in favor, so that at present 23 jurisdictions have held such acts unconstitutional as against 17 upholding the acts. The issue has not been decided in this jurisdiction and we are therefore free to adopt either theory.
To discuss all the cases, or even to cite or list the same, is beyond the requirements of this appeal. We restrict ourselves, then, to reciting the rationale of the leading cases upholding the Fair Trade Acts and the rationale of the cases striking them down, and to our choice of the latter.
The writer of the annotation, at 60 A.L.R.2d 422, describes the issue in the following words:
"Fair trade laws, although of comparatively recent origin, are unquestionably the most familiar of legislative methods to control resale prices. Such statutes validate contractual provisions by which the buyer of a trademarked or `brand name' commodity agrees that he will not resell the commodity except at the price stipulated * * *. Included in such statutes are so-called `non-signer provisions' — often described as the backbone of fair trade legislation — under the terms of which one not a party to such a contract, who, with notice, offers for sale or sells a commodity at less than the resale price stipulated in a contract between the vendor and a buyer of a trademarked commodity, is made subject to liability for unfair competition; * * *. The validity of these provisions as a matter of federal constitutional law having been established by a decision of the United States Supreme Court, the question to be dealt with herein is whether non-signer provisions are defective from a state constitutional point of view."
The provisions of the Nevada constitution involved are the following sections quoted in pertinent part:
Art. 1, § 1: "All men * * * have certain inalienable rights among which are those * * * Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property * * *."
Art. 1, § 8: "* * * No person shall * * * be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; * * *."
Art. 1, § 20: "This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people."
Art. 4, § 1: "The Legislative authority of this State shall be vested in a Senate and Assembly which shall be designated `The Legislature of the State of Nevada' * * *."
Appellants contend that under these provisions and under Article 4, § 17, the act violates the constitution, because (1) it is in violation of the requirement: "Each law enacted by the legislature shall embrace but one subject, and matter, properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title * * *;" in that the title to the act recites that it is "An Act to protect trade-mark owners, their agents, producers, distributors, and the general public against injurious and uneconomic practices in the distribution of competitive commodities bearing a distinguishing trade mark, brand or name, through the use of voluntary contracts establishing minimum resale prices * * *," thus referring only to voluntary contracts, while effective against contracts not signed by the vendees of the trade-mark commodities. Although this issue is argued at great length in the briefs, we find it unnecessary to dispose of it by reason of our other reasons for holding the act in violation of the constitution.
Appellants attack the legislation upon the further grounds as follows:
"2. It is unlawful exercise by the Legislature of the police power granted to the state.
"3. The Act constitutes an unlawful deprivation of property rights of Appellant contrary to the due process clause of the Nevada Constitution.
"4. The Act is an unlawful delegation of Legislative authority contrary to the Nevada Constitution."
So heavily does the respondent rely on Max Factor Co. v. Kunsman, 5 Cal.2d 446, 55 P.2d 177, that its quotations from the opinion consume 15 pages of its typewritten brief. Many pages of the quoted matter are devoted to the proposition that the advisability of the legislation, or whether it is good or bad, is no concern of the court. This point has been so often determined by this court that no great citation of authorities or quotation of page after page of the decisions is or was necessary. The California court did definitely hold, however, as concisely noted in headnote 9: "Power of state to regulate right of free bargaining in exercise of police power includes power to regulate price"; and, as concisely stated in headnote 10: "Price fixing in statute affecting entire class of articles which is reasonably subject of classification is valid, notwithstanding that articles involved may not be affected with public interest"; and further, as concisely, stated in headnote 11: "Purchase and sale of article or entire class of articles is affected with public interest where subject to regulation under police power." (Emphasis supplied.)
This statement (headnote 11) holds itself up by its own bootstraps. The main question as will hereafter appear is whether the regulation was a proper exercise of the police power. The mere fact that an article was subject to regulation under the police power cannot, of itself, indicate that it is affected with a public interest.
Having then seen that "price fixing" and "regulating price" are recognized as being the purpose of the act, it then appears, as indicated briefly in headnote 12, that the provisions in question of the Fair Trade Act were "intended to protect property and contract rights of manufacturer or producer of commodities by prevention of price cutting, and not primarily as price-fixing statute * * *." (Emphasis added.)
The court then proceeded to hold that such acts were not arbitrary or discriminatory and were not an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the laws. The court held further that, in approving injunctions issued under such statutes with reference to the sale of trade-marked commodities at prices less than those fixed by the producer in contracts with other distributers or other retailers (although the particular defendant was not a party thereto), the relief was limited to the factual situation presented to the court.
In the case under discussion, Factor was engaged in the manufacture of cosmetics and toilet articles manufactured by it under registered trade-marks, and had transferred to Sales Builders, Inc., the exclusive right and privileges of selling such commodities in the United States, "including the state of California" with the good will pertaining thereto and with the right to use the trade-marks; that Kunsman offered such commodities "at prices conspicuously lower than the marked or established prices of said commodities as so-called `leaders,' * * *"; that persons or traders such as Kunsman have become known as "cut-rate drugstores." The "evils" of such system were recited in the opinion. Other dealers were forced to meet the cut prices, trade-marks and brand items were offered at prices cut to a point yielding no profit and in many cases representing a loss. Other distributors in general observe and conform with the terms of the contracts. Sales Builders, Inc., enjoys a good profitable business under the California Fair Trade Act, but the practices of the defendant have caused other distributers to sell such products at conspicuously lower prices, so that other dealers are forced to meet defendant's price competition. The defendant "has procured, and continues to procure, commodities manufactured by Max Factor Co. bearing the trade-marks, brands, and names of Max Factor Co., and has sold, and is now selling, the commodities at prices less than the retail sales prices which are being sustained by substantially all of the retail dealers in cosmetics and toilet articles in the state of California." Such practices "are unduly influencing retail and wholesale distributers of Max Factor Co.'s products * * *," and that other retailers will have to meet such prices, that the result "will be the destruction of the business of plaintiffs and the good will pertaining thereto."
The foregoing quotations are for the most part the statements by the California court of the allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint. The Supreme Court of California reversed, rejecting "respondent's main contention that such a statute violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions, in that it denies to him the liberty and freedom of contract." The court first discussed the theory of the California Cartwright Act, illustrating the theory then adopted that "at the time such statutes were passed [the legislature was], of the view that, from a social standpoint, free and open competition was desirable. The basis of this view is that, in the long run, it is against public interest to allow the manufacturer, producer, or distributer to fix the resale price of an article. In recent years, there has developed, in opposition to the above views, the concept that a manufacturer of a trademarked article that is sold in competition with articles of a similar nature and who has fixed a fair price at which he, as well as his distributer and retailer, can make a fair profit, has a property right in the good will towards his product which he has created, and that it is sound public policy to protect that property right against destruction * * *. The basic theory on which this concept rests is that, from a social standpoint, price cutting, in the long run, adversely affects the public interest * * *. [T]he state Legislature * * * adopted in 1907, partially at least, the first economic policy above discussed. By the enactment of the Fair Trade Act in 1931 * * * the state Legislature, for reasons known to it and which we must presume were sufficient, has seen fit to attempt to change its former policy and to adopt the second economic concept above discussed." The California court then goes on to discuss at length the proposition that it has no duty to determine whether the statute is wise or unwise, but only to determine whether the subject of the legislation is within the state's power, "and, if so, to determine whether the means adopted to accomplish the result are reasonably designed for that purpose, and have a real and substantial relation to the objects sought to be attained." The California court then quotes at length from Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, at 537, 54 S.Ct. 505, 516, 78 L.Ed. 940, 89 A.L.R. 1469, which upholds the right of a state "to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose." It emphasized safeguard of the consumers' interests, waste harmful to the public, the threatened cutting off the supply of a commodity needed by the public, the destruction of the industry itself. It sustained "price control" if not arbitrary, discriminatory or demonstrably irrelevant and an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with individual liberty. The United States Supreme Court went on to say: "In the second place, it must be kept in mind that the present statute is one passed in the exercise of the state's police power, and so differs fundamentally from statutes passed by the federal government." The court went on to concede that "* * * when the Legislature attempts to regulate the price of a particular commodity, in order to justify classifying that article differently from other commodities, its purchase and sale must affect the public interest."
Thompson, J., and Shenk, J., dissented. We discuss these dissents because they support what we recognize as the majority rule and as the modern trend. (Mr. Justice Shenk first concurred in the dissent of Mr. Justice Thompson and then wrote an additional dissenting opinion of his own.) The dissent asserted that no answer could be found to the contention that the act violated section 1 of Article 1 of the California constitution: "`All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness'"; and section 13 of the same article that no person "shall `be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'" The dissent quotes Ex parte Quarg, 149 Cal. 79, 84 P. 766, 5 L.R.A., N.S., 183, 117 Am.St.Rep. 115, 9 Ann.Cas. 747, as follows:
"`The constitutional guaranty securing to every person the right of "acquiring, possessing and protecting property," refers to the right to acquire and possess the absolute and unqualified title to every species of property recognized by law, with all the rights incidental thereto, and, in connection with the right of personal liberty, it includes the right to dispose of such property in such innocent manner as he pleases, and to sell it for such price as he can obtain in fair barter.'" (Italics added.) To the same practical effect is Ex parte Dickey, 144 Cal. 234, 77 P. 924, 925, 66 L.R.A. 928, 103 Am.St.Rep. 82, 1 Ann.Cas. 428, in which we find this expression:
"`This right of contract common to all legitimate occupations is an asset of the petitioner in his chosen occupation, and, as has been said, is a part of the property in the enjoyment of which he is guarantied protection by the Constitution. By the act in question he is arbitrarily stripped of this right of contract, and deprived of his property, and left, in following his vocation and in pursuit of his livelihood, circumscribed and hampered by a law not applicable to his fellow men in other occupations.'"
The dissent goes on to say:
"Second I refer to Doubleday, Doran Co., Inc. v. R.H. Macy Co., Inc., 269 N.Y. 272, 199 N.E. 409, 411, which case involved a practically verbatim copy of the section here involved, adopted by the Legislature of New York. Bearing in mind that the New York Court of Appeals was the same court which first sustained the New York Milk Control Act (People v. Nebbia, 262 N.Y. 259, 186 N.E. 694), which was the subject of judicial inquiry in the case of Nebbia v. New York, from which the majority opinion has quoted so extensively, the expressions we find in the case are especially illuminating. It is there said:
"`That the states cannot fix the selling price of any and all commodities has been settled. Williams v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 235, 49 S.Ct. 115, 73 L.Ed. 287, 60 A.L.R. 596; Tyson Bro. United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, 47 S.Ct. 426, 71 L.Ed. 718, 58 A.L.R. 1236; Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U.S. 522, 43 S.Ct. 630, 67 L.Ed. 1103, 27 A.L.R. 1280; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490, 37 S.Ct. 412, 61 L.Ed. 866, L.R.A. 1917E, 1196, Ann.Cas. 1918A, 955.
"`Books, at least these books, are not "affected with the public interest" any more than theater tickets; no emergency has yet arisen in literary publications, and the business is not such as comes within the class which must submit to rate fixing. Circumstances which cannot be foreseen from one generation to another may arise which will require certain articles to submit to regulatory prices in order that the public may get them at all or get them in a pure and beneficial state. We cannot always express legislative power in exact formulas nor decide a case before it happens. Experience is the mother of teachers. Under the Nebbia Case for instance (Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940, 89 A.L.R. 1469), no one would doubt now that New York state would have the power to get milk to the public somehow if any combination of forces threatened to shut off all supply or to deteriorate that which was supplied. The price might be an element to be considered with other things in such a case. So we thought in People v. Nebbia, 262 N.Y. 259, 186 N.E. 694. But to fix arbitrarily the price of books by legislation and not by agreement comes within the condemnation of the decisions which have heretofore dealt with like legislation. What the Legislature cannot do directly it cannot do indirectly, nor does it cease to be a price fixed by the Legislature because that body has clothed the publisher with the power or authority to establish it.'"
But how different are the facts in the present case — not the distribution of milk, in which the public is definitely involved, but the distribution of Bulova watches. Respondent introduced in evidence the price list of all Bulova watches which was enclosed with the letter referring to the Bulova fair-trade agreement "in effect in your state," and advising all persons selling watches and jewelry, " although you are not a signatory to these agreements, you are obliged to advertise and sell Bulova fair-trade products at no less than Bulova's stipulated minimum resale prices." The price list ranged from $24.75 to "to the Accutron (platinum) $2,500." "The Beau Brummel `WW'" is listed at $400. It was stated in oral argument and not denied that the very high prices listed for some of the wrist watches resulted from the decorations of diamonds and other jewels in the wristband. It is difficult to conclude that in such cases the fixing of a minimum price was a protection of the manufacturer's trade-mark or that it was a commodity affected with a public use or in which the public was interested.
The dissent further refers to several opinions by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the question of whether a business is "affected with a public interest" so as to make it subject to regulatory measures. These are specifically defined, and the following is then quoted, with italics by the California court, from Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U.S. 522, 535, 43 S.Ct. 630, 632, 67 L.Ed. 1103, 27 A.L.R. 1280:
"`In nearly all the businesses included under the third head above, the thing which gave the public interest was the indispensable nature of the service and the exorbitant charges and arbitrary control to which the public might be subjected without regulation.'"
There follows this language:
"It is said that whether these results should follow is an economic problem with which the courts have nothing to do. But it is the business of the courts to see to it that, in carrying out any such program, the fundamental and guaranteed rights of the citizen to deal with his property as he chooses, subject to such reasonable regulations as may properly be imposed, are not destroyed. The statute under attack does not regulate. It prohibits. It is essentially a price-fixing statute. To me it is beyond question that the Legislature itself could not fix the retail prices of all or any commodities not affected with a public interest or clothed with a public use. We are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on that subject, as pointed out in the opinion of Mr. Justice Thompson. If the Legislature itself is without power to fix the retail price of such commodities, how then can it delegate that power to one who is governed by no power except his own self interest?"
Nebbia v. New York, supra, involved the price fixing of milk. The majority upheld the statute. But even with a commodity of that nature, four justices dissented.
Strong reliance is placed upon Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., 299 U.S. 183, 81 L.Ed. 109, 106 A.L.R. 1476, in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Chicago Fair Trades Act whose primary aim "is to protect the property — namely, the good will — of the producer, which he still owns. The price restriction is adopted as an appropriate means to that perfectly legitimate end, and not as an end in itself.
"Appellants own the commodity; they do not own the mark or the good will that the mark symbolizes. And good will is property in a very real sense, injury to which, like injury to any other species of property is a proper subject for legislation."
In concluding, the court said:
"* * * [S]ince the sole purpose of the present law is to afford a legitimate remedy for an injury to the good will which results from the use of trade-marks, brands or names, it is obvious that its provisions would be wholly inapplicable to goods which are unmarked."
Thus the sole ground for upholding the validity of the Chicago Fair Trade Act was to protect the trade-mark or brand of the producer.
Many cases uphold the validity of fair trade laws and reject the attacks made on such laws, whether the attack is based upon the claim that the particular statute is an unlawful exercise of the police power or that it violates due process or that the non-signer clause is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.
Of the cases that strike down such statutes, some do it upon a single one of the grounds last mentioned, or upon two of such grounds, or upon all such grounds. The grounds that the statute deprives a non-signer of his property without due process and also that it is an unlawful exercise of the police power overlap. If the commodity in question is affected with a public use or its regulation is required for the public health or welfare, then the police power may be used to regulate its sale even though its result is to interfere with the disposition of his own property lawfully acquired.
With special regard to the closing paragraph of the Old Dearborn case quoted, supra, upholding the legislation as a protection of the manufacturer's ownership of his trade-mark or good will, we quote from an article by Professor Harry Shulman of Yale Law School: "The Fair Trade Acts and the Law of Restrictive Agreements Affecting Chattels," in 49 Yale Law Journal 607, 616:
"It is common knowledge that the pressure for the passage of these Acts, insofar as it was publicly disclosed, came not from manufacturers or other trade-mark owners but from distributors — first and foremost the retail druggists associations and then other retail and wholesale distributors. It is doubtless true that many distributors wanted resale price maintenance at the time of the Dr. Miles case. And doubtless true also that some manufacturers want resale price maintenance now for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court, Professor Chafee and Mr. Rogers. But the organized pressure for the Fair Trade Acts, however subsidized privately, came from distributor groups; and the legislative response was response to distributor groups. Distributors organized in Code Authorities under the NRA sought to deal with the problems of loss leaders, price cutting and so-called predatory or cut-throat price competition. Upon the demise of the NRA, they turned to the Fair Trade Acts as a partial substitute. The concern of the distributors was not for the goodwill symbolized by the trade-mark, but for their own welfare. They sought an adequate mark-up, and adequate profit on the goods which they marketed, — not protection of the manufacturer's trade expectancies. They sought to protect themselves against old and new methods of merchandising which threatened their positions whether or not the producer or his goodwill were similarly threatened. If the producer were also to profit from the scheme, that was an accidental incident."
In an article written some 14 years later by Professor Carl H. Fulda, of Rutgers University, 21 University of Chicago Law Review 175, the author says: "The `good will' theory of the Old Dearborn decision thus seems to be at odds with both the realities of the market place and the theories of the law of unfair competition." He goes on further to say: "* * * [T]he second Schwegmann case [in which Schwegmann reduced his profit to 15% instead of the minimum 40% fixed by the producer] is Exhibit A for the proposition * * * that the fair-trade laws make no distinction between competitive and predatory price cutting." The author continues: "On the basis of these considerations the Supreme Court of Florida held recently that the fair-trade law of that state is `arbitrary and unreasonable and violates the right to own and enjoy property' guaranteed by the Florida Constitution, and that it `serves a private rather than a public purpose.'" Liquor Store, Inc. v. Continental Distilling Corp., 40 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla. 1949).
Similarly the Supreme Court of Michigan in Shakespeare Co. v. Lippman's Tool Shop Sporting Goods Co., 334 Mich. 109, 54 N.W.2d 268, held the non-signer clause unconstitutional as violative of the due process clause of the state constitution. It rejected the argument that the non-signer clause was a valid exercise of the state's police power because it is directed against "destructive price cutting." The court said: "Can it be said that by the process of reducing prices either war, destruction or evil are visited upon the public health, safety, morals or the general welfare? (That is the controlling question.) Such is not the concept upon which America's competitive economy was developed."
Likewise the Supreme Court of Georgia in Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. v. Oneida, Limited, 209 Ga. 613, 75 S.E.2d 161, held a non-signer act to be "null and void" because it offends the due process clause of the Georgia constitution.
In Union Carbide Carbon Corp. v. White River Distributors, 224 Ark. 558, 275 S.W.2d 455, the Supreme Court of Arkansas struck down the Fair Trade Act, as it was not protective of the public welfare, and was in violation of the due process clause of the state constitution:
"* * * It is a generalization, but not an overstatement, to say that the effort to `fix prices' is made by groups who desire to sell something for more than the sponsoring group believes that the purchasing public would pay for that `something' without an enforced fixed price. It would seem apparent that the principal objective of minimum price maintenance is the protection of profit margins for retailers and distributors unable or unwilling to meet the pressure of competition."
Consider also the following reasoning of the Arkansas case:
"* * * Considering the Act in relation to this particular case, it virtually gives appellant the absolute right to fix the price at which Prestone must be sold to the consuming public in Arkansas without regard to the cost of manufacture or distribution. We are not forgetting that it must first contract with one retailer in the state and appellee must have knowledge of contract and the fixed price, but these provisions consist more of form than substance and merely indicate a desperate attempt to hedge against the charge of unconstitutionality. Nobody doubts the feasibility of appellant acquiring one contract dealer out of the hundreds of retail dealers in the state, or the feasibility of bringing this information to all other dealers. If securing a contract with one dealer binds all others, then the corollary would be that, absent such contract, the others are not bound. It is frightful to think a device so easily concocted could destroy the constitutional bulwark protecting our personal liberties and the public welfare."
Even the ancient poets expressed their horror in considering the holding of the dogmatic theologians:
"What! from his helpless Creature be repaid Pure Gold for what he lent him dross-allay'd —
Sue for a Debt he never did contract, And cannot answer — Oh the sorry trade!"
Omar Khayyam, The Rubaiyat, Quatrain LXXIX
In Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. Francis, 134 Colo. 160, 301 P.2d 139, 147, the Colorado court sitting en banc declared the act unconstitutional on several grounds. With respect to the exercise of the police power, the court said:
"* * * The right to contract is a property right, protected by the due-process clause of the constitution, Const. art. 2, § 25, and cannot be abridged by legislative enactment. The police power of the state exercisable by the General Assembly, while very broad, is exercisable only within the limits of the constitution. To sustain the price-fixing power attempted by the General Assembly in the statute involved, under a claimed exercise of the police power, would be to place the power of the legislature above the constitution."
In General Electric Company v. A. Dandy Appliance Co., 143 W. Va. 491, 103 S.E.2d 310, the West Virginia court said:
"* * * However, our conclusion that the Act in question is not a proper exercise of the police power of this state will eliminate any necessity for holding the Act valid because it may not violate the Federal Constitution. We are of the opinion that the determination of the extent and limitations of the police power of this state remains a prerogative of the sovereignty of this state and any question of constitutionality thereof under the Constitution of West Virginia is determinable by this Court.
"Though it is of great advantage to the plaintiff to have additional protection in the provision making it unlawful to sell trademark or brand articles below the prices fixed by the manufacturer, nevertheless the manufacturer or distributor is not deprived of his rights to make reasonable contracts with others in regard to the price at which such merchandise shall be sold, and he can protect himself by suits for enforcement or damages. To extend such manufacturer's or distributor's rights to the public generally is but another improper exercise of the police power and not in our opinion warranted, and being such is void, as in violation of [the West Virginia due process clause]."
The Supreme Court of Washington in Sears v. Western Thrift Stores of Olympia, 10 Wn.2d 372, 116 P.2d 756, had in 1941 upheld the constitutionality of the non-signer provision, with three judges dissenting. However, it re-examined that decision in Remington Arms Company v. Skaggs, 55 Wn.2d 1, 345 P.2d 1085, in 1959, and quoted with approval 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 195, pp. 939-945, as follows:
"`* * * the limit of a state's exercise of the [police] power is reached when the regulation transcends public necessity.
"`In order that a statute may be sustained as an exercise of the police power, * * * the courts must be able to see that the enactment has for its object the prevention of some offense or manifest evil or the preservation of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, that there is some clear, real, and substantial connection between the assumed purpose of the enactment and the actual provisions thereof, and that the latter do in some plain, appreciable, and appropriate manner tend toward the accomplishment of the object for which the power is exercised.
"`* * * The legislature may not exercise the police power for private purposes, or for the exclusive benefit of particular individuals or classes. * * *
"`A statutory provision which is not a legitimate police regulation cannot be made such by being placed in the same act with a police regulation, or by being enacted with a legislative declaration of a purpose which would be a proper object for the exercise of that power. * * *'"
The court then said:
"Thus, it is seen that to justify any law upon the theory that it constitutes a reasonable and proper exercise of police power, it must be reasonably necessary in the interest of the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the people. This exercise of police power must pass the judicial test of reasonableness.
"Since May, 1951, sixteen state supreme courts have declared acts of this kind unconstitutional. Generally, the acts were found unconstitutional on the grounds that legislative power had been unlawfully delegated and that they constituted improper use of the police power in that they bore no reasonable relation to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public."
As did the Supreme Court of Washington in reversing its position as to the constitutionality of the statute, so did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overrule its 1955 decision in the case of Burche Co. v. General Electric Co., 382 Pa. 370, 115 A.2d 361, upholding Pennsylvania's Fair Trade Act in the March, 1964, decision in Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp. v. White Cross Stores, Inc., 414 Pa. 95, 199 A.2d 266 (rehearing denied in April, 1964). Burche had relied largely on Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp., supra, holding, inter alia, that the Pennsylvania statute was not an unlawful delegation of legislative power. In Olin Mathieson the court said: "With this, we do not agree." The basis of Olin Mathieson was unlawful delegation of legislative authority. There was one dissent by the chief justice on the ground that the doctrine of stare decisis should prevail. Jones, J., in a dissent of eight lines, thought that the rationale of Burche was sound and should control.
It was strongly urged in the written briefs and oral argument that the fair-price laws are but a determination of policy and that therefore the court is not in position to interfere with the determination of the legislature. The best answer to that is to quote from the opinion of Harnsberger, J., in Bulova Watch Co. v. Zale Jewelry Co. of Cheyenne, 371 P.2d 409 (Wyo. 1962), in which that court literally kept an accurate score of the 17 states which had held the acts constitutional and the 20 states holding them unconstitutional, with a list of the states in which the fair-trade laws had not yet been attacked and the states that were without fair-trade laws. This was in May, 1962. Mr. Justice Harnsberger said:
"The disposition of the judicial branch of government has always been to scrupulously refrain from encroaching in the slightest way into the legislative field of policy making where factual or economic factors require latitude of discretion. We will not and we do not substitute our opinions in such matters for the considered judgment of our lawmakers. Yet, we ourselves have a function to perform, a constitutional right, and the paramount duty to insist that the legislature not renounce its legislative power by any such attempt to delegate it away. We approached the limit of judicial tolerance in upholding legislative fiat in the so-called trading stamp matter, Steffey v. City of Casper, Wyo., 357 P.2d 456 (1960), rehearing 358 P.2d 951 (1961). We conceded the legislative right to directly prohibit a sales practice which that body evidently deemed was inimical to public welfare. What we cannot approve of here is the attempt to delegate to others the legislative right to prohibit.
"Aside from the improper delegation of legislative power are the further questions of the reasonableness of the law and whether it is an unwarranted invasion of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. We have heretofore acknowledged that, notwithstanding, property rights and the right to make contracts should be free from governmental interference, still these rights are not absolute. This, of course, means the sovereign may, in proper circumstance, limit the exercise of these rights. When, however, governmental limitation is attempted by giving unto private interests the right to prescribe conditions of use, sale and contract respecting a person's property, such legislation is so grossly unconscionable that courts, as the final arbiters of its reasonableness, must hold the law an unwarranted invasion of the private liberty and property guaranteed by the Constitution of this State.
"The police power of the legislature is great indeed. Its exercise in the protection and preservation of the public safety, its health, its morals, and in behalf of its general welfare is not merely laudable, it is essential. But however great its power, it is nonetheless not beyond limitation. Even if it be agreed that the philosophy behind the enactment of this law brings it within the long-range welfare of the public by assisting in the preservation of certain businesses which can no longer continue to exist without governmental subsidy and the supposed protection accorded by the Act, still the means adopted to accomplish the purpose must provide a legal process by which to infringe the liberty or the property of persons affected. What day in court is given them? To what authority, board, officer, tribunal or court may such persons make representations in their own interest or behalf before the sale price is fixed? It would be bad enough if such a price-fixing formula were accomplished through some public official acting without hearings, but the price-fixing method prescribed by the Act is without even that vestige of due process."
The foregoing case and many of the cases cited therein are authority for the conclusion that our only concern is whether the act in question offends the provisions of our own state constitution. We are under no compulsion to follow decisions of the United States Supreme Court which considers such acts in connection with the federal constitution. It must be remembered that we are considering an act which is claimed to have been enacted in the exercise of the state police power.
To discuss the opinions in the 20 states that have rejected the Fair Trade Acts would draw this opinion out to unpardonable lengths. Some of them have declared the acts unconstitutional in even stronger language, but we think the rationale of these cases has been sufficiently recited. It is important to note too that such is the holding of most of the recent cases, so that there is a decided trend to hold such non-signer acts unconstitutional. We are impelled to accept the rationale of such cases and reject the reasoning of the cases which declare the acts to be a lawful and reasonable exercise of the police power.
Judgment reversed.
McNAMEE and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
recognizing that the Legislature's police power is "great indeed" and "essential" for "the protection and preservation of the public safety"
Summary of this case from ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
HEADLINES: Catch Up On the Rest of the News
Here are the other stories conservatives are talking about today.
ADIDAS DROPS YE: Adidas announced Tuesday it has ended its partnership with Ye, also known as Kanye West, over a series of antisemitic comments he made recently in a series of social media posts and interviews. The sports apparel giant said it would immediately halt production and marketing of his Yeezy fashion brand. Read more.
Kanye:
"The thing about it being Adidas — I can say antisemitic things and Adidas can't drop me. Now what? Now what?"
pic.twitter.com/a9S1EvzPk2
— Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) October 21, 2022
STACEY ABRAMS ORG PAID MILLIONS TO CLOSE FRIEND'S FIRM: Fair Fight Action, a voting rights organization founded by Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, paid $9.4 million over two years to a boutique law firm owned by Abrams' close friend and campaign chairwoman, Allegra Lawrence-Hardy. Read more.
(Alex Wong/Getty Images)
DEMOCRATS WITHDRAW LETTER ASKING BIDEN TO NEGOTIATE WITH PUTIN: Following backlash from members of their own party earlier this week, a group of 30 House Democrats on Tuesday retracted a public letter urging President Joe Biden to negotiate directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. Read more.
13 CHARGED IN CHINESE ESPIONAGE CASE: On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced charges against 13 individuals accused of attempting to "unlawfully exert influence in the United States" on behalf of China. Read more.
AG Merrick Garland: "The DOJ has taken several actions to disrupt criminal activity by individuals working on behalf of the government of the People's Republic of China." pic.twitter.com/E3TPAmxq1J
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) October 24, 2022
GRINER SENTENCE UPHELD: WNBA star Brittney Griner faces nearly a decade in Russian prison after a Russian court upheld her nine-year sentence for marijuana possession. The move will likely intensify pressure on the Biden administration to secure her release. Read more.
REPORTER: "What is your next move now that Brittney Griner lost her appeal?"
BIDEN: "We're in constant contact with Russian authorities to get Brittney and others out and so far, we have not been meeting with much positive response, but we're not stopping." pic.twitter.com/YwZVmiwxYy
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 25, 2022


Flynt Roger M Jr Attorney (Attorneys) is practicing law in Atlanta, Georgia. This lawyer is listed on Lawyer Map under the main category Lawyers - All in Attorneys.
Flynt Roger M Jr Attorney is listed under Attorneys in Atlanta, Georgia .
There's currently no information available about fees or if Flynt Roger M Jr Attorney offers free initial consultation.
The information below about Flynt Roger M Jr Attorney is optional and only visible if provided by the owner. Call (404) 335-0707 to learn more.
Contact Flynt Roger M Jr Attorney to find out about hours of operation / office hours / business hours.
Listed business hours are general only. Call (404) 335-0707 to learn about office hours.


This painting made me think of subdued yet strong colors – both warm and cool. Intensely pigmented, but muted in brightness… It was a beautiful challenge.
I especially like the last four frames – which I could easily incorporate into my 'business' attire at the University.
Lovely autumn outfits! I have a blouse and skirt very similar to those in the first frame but have never thought to put them together. Thanks!
Janice — I love that you have made me think of clothes from a new angle. Your way of drawing inspiration for color combinations from art, scarves, or just anything that strikes your fancy was an "aha!" moment for me. And you continually remind me to be much more thoughtful about my purchases — to treat them as investments rather than a quick hit. Thank you for sharing your wisdom!
Beautiful painting and beautiful clothing. I do love the colors. Pendleton has some camel and charcoal items this season that would fit in well here, too.
The outfits are beautiful1 Love the way you incorporated "comfort" shoe brands, intentionally or not.
I have been wondering if you could address "comfort" shoes with the squared off toes like the ones pictured here. I own two pairs, but neither one have ever looked right on me. Comfortable they are, but I always feel a bit frumpy in them.
Oh, I choose them very deliberately – I probably look at a minimum 100 pair of shoes for each pair that I use on the blog! Comfort is paramount. And chere Cornelia, I think part of what's difficult with shoes is that they look VERY different when you look down at them from above, rather than when you look at them from a distance, as part of an ensemble. The first person perspective is NEVER objective, and rarely aesthetically optimal, either!
Laughing out loud here… point of view had never entered my mind. Thanks, Janice.
Thank you, Janice, for yet another inspiring post. I live in Colorado, and love the ochre/gray/bronze combinations. Love the 'intensely pigmented, but muted in brightness" description in your text.
The colours are glorious. I am a fan of autumn colours and of comfort shoes. A woman with sore feet can never be elegant!
Very nice. I like these colors.
Thank you for taking up the challenge that I requested! You have made me look at grey in an entirely new way, as it is a color that I never really considered to be a good neutral for me. I think some of these color combinations are beautiful – and something that I would have never come up with on my own. Great work and an awesome starting point, thanks Janice!


text:
Woodside Building for Technology and Design
Home Projects by Application Featured Woodside Building for Technology and Design
TEd Building at Monash University
– a unique building and learning experience
Set to be the new home of Engineering and Information Technology schools of Monash University Clayton Campus, the Woodside Building for Technology and Design is envisioned to be a state-of-the-art living laboratory, housing 30 teaching spaces and a collaborative space that could accommodate 360 people. As a living laboratory, the building was designed to be part of the educational pedagogy by allowing visual demonstration of various engineering concepts through its own building systems and components. For example, visual access will be provided to its plant rooms through glazed windows, and will include sensors on its structural steelwork and exposed piles in order to show how stresses and vibrations on structural elements change in different load conditions and temperatures.
Geared to be "one of the most efficient and innovative teaching buildings of its type in the world," the building was designed not only to be sustainable but also regenerative. This means creating an environment that is future-ready, adaptable, biophilic, and eco-friendly, as well as an environment that nurtures and builds healthy relationships within and beyond the campus, and promotes passion for learning among the community.
In partnership with Woodside Energy and in line with Monash University's Net Zero Initiative— a commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2030 for all of its Australian campuses, the 5-storey TEd Building was built to comply with the German Passive House Building Standard. This is a rigorous voluntary standard for buildings that aim to achieve a more comfortable and healthier environment, while ensuring lower energy costs and increased building structure longevity, made possible by requiring very high levels of building fabric air tightness, controlled thermal fluxes over the building envelope, and highly efficient heat recovery units. The building's energy efficiency will further be increased by using solar energy as one of its primary sources of power.
Domestic Hot Water System
Consistent with the goal to build an energy-efficient structure, Aurecon tapped Automatic Heating Global to design, supply, and commission a highly efficient domestic hot water system for the TEd Building. The solution was to install two 15-kW Revere™ CO2 Heat Pumps coupled with two coil tanks to supply the daily hot water demand of up to 3000 students, academics, researchers, and industry collaborators.
As the name suggests, CO2 heat pumps use supercritical carbon dioxide as refrigerant. Compared to using boilers and other types of water heaters, this type of heat pump is more efficient and eco-friendly since it utilizes heat from the ambient air and only uses energy to transport heat into the water. Furthermore, since it uses carbon dioxide as refrigerant instead of the more common HFC refrigerants like R410A and R134A, it minimizes the danger of harming the atmosphere as carbon dioxide only has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) value of 1.0 and zero Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP).
Aside from being eco-friendly, the use of supercritical CO2 allows for heat transfer to occur across a wider range of temperature than conventional heat pumps, while achieving higher efficiencies even at low ambient conditions. Lastly, our WaterMark-approved system occupies only a small footprint and allows remote monitoring, giving the customer greater peace of mind through increased functionality and control. These make our system the best fit for a one-of-a-kind project like the TEd Building.
Automatic Heating would like to thank Aurecon, Monash University, and all involved parties for entrusting us with a notable project like this.
REVERE CO₂ Air to Water Heat Pump
Thermex Duplex Stainless Steel Hot Water Tanks


text:
Last Update May 2, 2016
Union lobbyist who worked one day as a teacher suing Illinois for $30,000 pension
By Eric Boehm | watchdog.org
After working one day as a substitute teacher in Illinois, David Piccioli could be entitled to an annual pension of more than $30,000.
And he's suing the state to make sure he gets paid.
Piccioli is a retired union political activist who's already pulling down a pair of state pensions from Illinois' beleaguered public retirement system. But he's taking the Teachers Retirement System to court to squeeze more money out of the state.
The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday that Piccioli is already collecting $31,000 annually from the Teacher Retirement System, but he could get an additional $36,000 annually if he wins his case. He's also collecting a $30,000-pension from a different state retirement system for his time as a legislative aide in Springfield, according to the Tribune.
Piccioli is a retired lobbyist for the Illinois Federation of Teachers and never worked in a classroom, but he took advantage of a loophole in Illinois pension law to score his teaching pension.
In 2007, he worked one day as a substitute teacher at a Springfield school. Under Illinois pension law, that one day in the classroom allowed him to qualify for a pension that would pay him for all of his years of work as a member of the union.
Click for more from Watchdog.org.


text:
Q: Pegar trecho de uma string entre () e alterá-lo em JavaScript Tenho uma string em texto no seguinte formato:

Tamanho 35 (5 Unidades)

Eu preciso pegar os números que estão dentro dos parênteses, rodar uma função (que já está pronta) e devolver um novo número no lugar.
O problema é quando o exemplo fica

Tamanho 3 (3 Unidades)

Quando retorno a função, que é uma subtração, e há dois números iguais, ela atualiza o primeiro número e não o que está dentro do parênteses, ficando assim:

Tamanho 2 (3 Unidades)

E eu preciso que ela fique desta forma, neste exemplo:

Tamanho 3 (2 Unidades)

Meu código está assim:
this.optionSelect = product.querySelectorAll("select");
//Lista todos os campos tipo SELECT
this.optionSelect.forEach(item => {
        let selectText = item.options[item.selectedIndex].innerText;
        //Pega o texto da tag OPTION
        let removePar = selectText.split("(");
        let replaceSelectQty = removePar.replace(/\D/g, '');

        for (let match of selectText.matchAll(/\([^)\d]*(\d+)[^)\d]*\)/g)) {
            var a = match[1];
            item.options[item.selectedIndex].innerText.replace(a, parseInt(replaceSelectQty)-parseInt(this.inputQty.value));
            //Atualiza o texto da tag OPTION, mas se o primeiro número for o mesmo da quantidade, ele atualiza o primeiro número e não a quantidade que está dentro dos parênteses
        }

    });

A: Você pode mudar sua regex, colocando mais grupos de captura (ou seja, mais trechos entre parênteses). Isso cria mais grupos de captura e permite que você faça a substituição do trecho correto:

function mudarNumero(n) { // uma função qualquer que muda o valor
    return parseInt(n) - 1;
}

let selectText = 'Tamanho 3 (3 Unidades)';
let novoTexto = selectText.replace(/(\([^)\d]*)(\d+)([^)\d]*\))/g,
    function(match, p1, p2, p3) {
        return `${p1}${mudarNumero(p2)}${p3}`;
    }
);
console.log(novoTexto); // Tamanho 3 (2 Unidades)

Agora há 3 trechos entre parênteses (e portanto, 3 grupos de captura):

*

*(\([^)\d]*): o parênteses de abertura e zero ou mais caracteres que não é número nem ). Ou seja, é tudo desde o ( até antes do número

*(\d+): um ou mais dígitos de 0 a 9

*([^)\d]*\)): zero ou mais caracteres que não é número nem ), seguido do parênteses de fechamento. Ou seja, é tudo depois do número até o ).

Na função passada como callback para replace, tenho os parâmetros p1, p2 e p3, que correspondem respectivamente aos grupos 1, 2 e 3 descritos acima. O retorno da função monta outra string com p1 e p3 sem modificação, e entre eles eu chamo a função que modifica o valor de p2 (que é o número que está entre parênteses).
Assim a regex só substitui o número que estiver entre parênteses, ignorando o que está fora deles.

Se a string tiver vários parênteses, e dentro de cada um tiver mais de um número, aí a solução é um pouco diferente. Neste caso, eu pego cada trecho entre parênteses e em seguida substituo todos os números dentro deles:

function mudarNumero(n) { // uma função qualquer que muda o valor
    return parseInt(n) - 1;
}

let selectText = 'Tamanho 3 (3 Unidades 33 abc 3 xyz 44 def) lorem 4 ipsum (4 dolor 44 sit)';
let novoTexto = selectText;
// para cada conteúdo dentro de parênteses
for (const match of selectText.matchAll(/\(([^)]+)\)/g)) {
    // troca todos os números pelo retorno da função que muda o valor
    let s = match[1].replace(/(\d+)/g,
        function(match, p1) {
            return mudarNumero(p1);
        }
    );
    novoTexto = novoTexto.replace(`(${match[1]})`, `(${s})`);
}
console.log(novoTexto); // Tamanho 3 (2 Unidades 32 abc 2 xyz 43 def) lorem 4 ipsum (3 dolor 43 sit)

A: Seguindo sua abordagem, com poucas modificações, daria para fazer assim:

function go(){

            let select = document.querySelector("select");

            let currentSelectedOption = select.options[select.selectedIndex];

            let stringToHandle = currentSelectedOption.innerText;

            for (let match of stringToHandle.matchAll(/\([^)\d]*(\d+)[^)\d]*\)/g)) {

                let fullParentesisText = match[0];
                let number = match[1];

                let newFullParentesisText = fullParentesisText.replace(number,
                    parseInt(number) - 2
                );

                let newFullText = stringToHandle.replace(fullParentesisText,
                    newFullParentesisText
                )

                currentSelectedOption.innerText = newFullText;

            }

        }
<select name="" id="">
    <option value="one">Tamanho 35 (5 Unidades)</option>
    <option value="two">Tamanho 3 (3 Unidades)</option>
</select>

<button onclick="go()">Go</button>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
import IDisplayObjectContainer from './IDisplayObjectContainer' ;

/**
 * TODO: YUIDoc_comment
 *
 * @class IDOMElement
 * @extends IDisplayObjectContainer
 * @module StructureJS
 * @submodule interface
 * @interface
 */
interface IDOMElement
{
    /**
     * @property checkCount
     */
    checkCount: number;

    /**
     * @property element
     */
    element: HTMLElement;

    /**
     * @property $element
     */
    $element: JQuery;

    /**
     * @property isReference
     */
    isReference: boolean;

    /**
     * @method getChild
     */
    getChild(selector: string): any;

    /**
     * @method getChildren
     */
    getChildren(selector?: string): Array<any>;

    /**
     * @method removeChildAt
     */
    removeChildAt(index: number, destroy?: boolean): any;

    /**
     * @method createComponents
     */
    createComponents(componentList: Array<any>): Array<any>;

}

export default IDOMElement;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Home › EMINEM - THE SLIM SHADY Vinyl LP
EMINEM - THE SLIM SHADY Vinyl LP
The Slim Shady LP is the second studio album and the major-label debut by American rapper Eminem, released on February 23, 1999 by Aftermath Entertainment and Interscope Records. Recorded in Ferndale, Michigan, following Eminem's recruitment by Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine, the album features production from Dr. Dre, the Bass Brothers, and Eminem himself. The Slim Shady LP is his first album with a major label after his first album Infinite was released on an independent label in 1996.


text:
Q: How does the air traffic system on Coruscant work? I'm currently watching Episode III, and when looking at the air traffic on Coruscant, it appears that traffic moves on level planes that differ by elevation, and so, I wondered: how are these elevations established? For example, is it based on the distance being traveled by the vehicle, or, is it by velocity? And then, are vehicles able to transition from one elevation to another while in-flight? Or, is it the fact that, once they've established an elevation, they must maintain it until they've reached [near] their destination?
So, ultimately: How does the air traffic system on Coruscant work? Does there exist any evidence [either in the movies or in books] that outlines how this finely-tuned transportation system works?

A: Non-canon answer
Traffic is organised in 3D traffic lanes, governed by a complex set of rules, and policed by Coruscant Air Traffic Control (name varies according to the Era).
A quote from "Legacy Of The Force Book 2 - Bloodline" (Legends continuity)

It was hard to seal off a neighborhood in a place like Coruscant. The intersections were three-dimensional and required six CSF traffic division repulsorlift ships for each skylane junction that Jacen needed to have blocked off. He stood on the platform of a military assault vessel, a matte-gray gunship not unlike its CSF counterpart, watching two of the CSF ships hover into position. It was still dark; the CSF vessels had no navigation lights showing. Jacen could only see them because the light pollution on Coruscant meant that Galactic City was never truly pitch black, and he could pick out the shape of the hull when it moved.

I found no canon texts explaining the matter.

A: I feel like they'd have to have specific clearance or permission to travel on a certain level. Also while there are some spots you can see the levels all at once, some of them may lead them different places.


text:
OIAA: Chapter 62
Yi Jiamu helped Gu Yesheng to the door of the lounge and met the other members who arrived. He slowly shook his head to signal they shouldn't worry and helped Gu Yesheng in alone.
Lu Zexiu stopped everyone who wanted to follow. "Leave it to Yi Jiamu. It's time to prepare for the next match."
Zhou Ming glanced at the lounge. "But…"
Lu Zexiu told him, "Win the match. That is the best thing for Gu Yesheng."
Zhou Ming's back straightened slightly. "I will work hard!"
Through the door, Yi Jiamu could hear the footsteps gradually moving away. He looked down at Gu Yesheng lying on the sofa and was about to get up. Before he could even take a step, he found that his fingers were grabbed.
The moment Yi Jiamu's touch was removed, all the backlash came back like a wave, making Gu Yesheng wake up. Sweat dripped down his back in an instant. He instinctively grabbed Yi Jiamu's body like it was the last straw.
Yi Jiamu saw unprecedented panic in Gu Yesheng's eyes and his tone softened slightly. "I'm not going. I just want to pour a cup of hot water for you."
Gu Yesheng's voice was a bit hoarse. "Don't go."
The tone of the last word was lowered and Yi Jiamu didn't know if it was his illusion but there was a bit of confusion. Yi Jiamu opened his mouth but didn't know what to say. He slowly sat back down on the sofa. "Okay, I'll sit with you and you can sleep a bit more."
He could see that Gu Yesheng's mental state was very bad. He was curious about what happened on the field just now but he didn't ask. Gu Yesheng seemed relieved when he heard Yi Jiamu say this and he slowly closed his eyes again.
The lounge was quiet with only faint breathing floating in the heavy air. Through the door, Yi Jiamu could hear warm applause in the distance. The third match should've started. However, he had no time to pay attention to the match. All his attention was on Gu Yesheng.
For the first time, he found that someone's fingertips could be so cold. Their hands were held together and he could clearly feel the chill coming from the other person. Gu Yesheng might be sleeping but Yi Jiamu looked down and it wasn't hard to tell from the furrowed brow that his sleep wasn't too peaceful.
Yi Jiamu remembered the scene when Gu Yesheng entered his susceptible period and his eyes flickered slightly. Then he tentatively released some pheromones. The green plums smell belonging to the omega floated in the lounge like an invisible hand that smoothed out Gu Yesheng's forehead.
Seeing the results, Yi Jiamu's mouth finally curved up in a small smile. He carefully surrounded Gu Yesheng with his pheromones.
The star luster spilled in from outside and against the white curtains, this scene looked peaceful. It lasted until there was a knock on the door of the lounge. Yi Jiamu looked up and saw Zhen Jingyao poking his head through the crack in the door. He smelled the pheromones in the lounge and looked surprised.
Yi Jiamu noticed his expression and instantly understood. "The doubles match was lost?"
Zhen Jingyao remembered his purpose and smiled bitterly. "It was bad luck."
Yes, bad luck. Who would've thought that Perpetual Full Moon would actually arrange the individual player Ji Wenxing to play doubles. It also cleverly happened to match with Zhou Ming's group. The immediate result was that a doubles match evolved into two singles matches. In the end, they failed to withstand the other side's strong attacks and were defeated.
It was originally arranged for Zhou Ming and Xu Yi to be partners in order to form a new duo. Now that they had lost two consecutive matches, it was unknown how the arrangements would be if they advanced to the finals. However, this was all for the future.
Zhen Jingyao glanced at Gu Yesheng lying on the sofa and lowered his voice to give a reminder. "It's time for you to play."
Yi Jiamu nodded as he looked down at the sleeping Gu Yesheng. Then he stood up from the sofa. "I am going to prepare now."
Zhen Jingyao walked in lightly. "Don't worry, leave this place to me."
The victory in the doubles match gave fans of Perpetual Full Moon hope again. Then they thought of the next singles match and felt complicated. Sublime Star had always been strongest in the singles match. Apart from Gu Yesheng, the existence of Lu Zexiu itself was a great deterrent to all teams.
Then the list of singles players appeared on the big screen and the entire venue fell into a strange silence. Sublime Star didn't send Lu Zexiu? Yi Jiamu? Who was this?
The director turned the camera smartly to the virtual cabin. As a result, a figure with silver-white hair appeared in the audience's vision. He moved with an indifferent expression as he opened the door of the virtual cabin and entered.
He looked familiar and wasn't difficult to recognize. It was the omega who helped Gu Yesheng after the match. They realized he was a pure newcomer and a few seconds later, the entire venue blew up completely.
Forget the spectators present, even the players of other school teams watching the match couldn't understand it. What was Sublime Star's plan? He didn't go out against the Falan team and instead sent the newcomer to train against Perpetual Full Moon? However, the fourth match was the last one. Didn't they want to enter the semi-finals?!
Just as there was a lot of discussion in the audience, someone from the Burning Wood team staggered and almost fell from his chair. His teammate looked at him curiously. "Ah Yao, what is it?"
Liang Qiuzhi next to him naturally recognized who was on the field. He silently watched Jing Yao's extremely shocked expression and helped cover it up. "Nothing, he just can't sit still."
Jing Yao obviously couldn't hear the words of his teammates anymore. His eyes were fixed on the virtual cabin door and there were all types of bubbles of unidentified colours popping in his mind. He had already lost his calm after seeing Yi Jiamu pick up Gu Yesheng. Now the crazy thoughts in his mind made his heart jump violently.
Why did Sublime Star arrange for a new player to appear at this time? Was it because the player's strength was enough to gain everyone's trust? If this was the case, could it be that the new account he encountered on the virtual platform that day was actually…
Jing Yao managed to control his thoughts in time and turned to look at the player seats on Sublime Star's side.
At this point, most of the attention had been shifted to Sublime Star's side. They could see Lu Zexiu sitting in the front row with a straight back. There were no superfluous expressions on his indifferent face, as if it wasn't him that everyone was questioning. The players from both sides entered the virtual cabin and the game reached the final stage of preparation.
Just then, Xiang Zhuo suddenly yelled, "Gu Yesheng? Why are you here? Aren't you taking a small break?"
Lu Zexiu looked up and saw the slightly pale Gu Yesheng. Zhen Jingyao followed behind him, not daring to touch Gu Yesheng and looking like he didn't know what to do.
In fact, Gu Yesheng had woken up the moment Yi Jiamu left.
The chaotic thoughts screaming in his mind made all his nerves sharp. Fortunately, after a small rest, it had slowed down slightly. In any case, it was impossible for him to sleep any further so he went back to the player seats to watch the match.
The towel hanging around his neck was soaked in sweat as Gu Yesheng walked to Lu Zexiu's side and sat down, facing the big screen in the centre of the field. He raised his head and looked at the lineup for the match. Then his lips curved in a smile. "My little friend is making his debut. How can I miss it?"
Lu Zexiu clearly felt that Gu Yesheng's mental state wasn't good but he didn't say much. "You should take a good look."
Just then, the background noise of the audience changed and the match officially started.
Perpetual Full Moon had arranged for their ace and one of the strongest ice ability players in the league, Luo Yuxin to play in the fourth round.
His popularity might not be as high as the enthusiastic Ji Wenxing but he was a steady veteran. No matter which team he faced, he could always withstand the pressure. He had made great contributions against Sublime Star.
Luo Yuxin was a bit surprised after finding out his opponent in this round but at the same time, he was extremely careful. Anyone who could take Lu Zexiu's position definitely wasn't weak.
Still, this was the first time the new player was participating in the league. He definitely wouldn't have much experience with the map. It was as Luo Yuxin guessed. The choice Yi Jiamu made at the beginning seemed very ordinary. He went straight to the center and took the most obvious road in order to not get lost. Therefore, he was directly exposed to Luo Yuxin before he got close.
An official commentator felt like he had encountered the greatest failure in his career today and he couldn't help stuttering for a moment before finding an appropriate adjective. "The player from Sublime Star is really… really straightforward!'
Everyone knew he was speaking lightly. To put it bluntly, it was lacking any of the basics. Sure enough, Luo Yuxin quickly found the best offensive position. In an instant, pieces of hail fell straight down
There was a sudden uproar. No one would've thought that Luo Yuxin would use the skill he was famous for immediately. A person who took such a hit without warning would definitely lose a layer of skin, even if they weren't eliminated.
Just as everyone thought that the fourth round singles match would end without any suspense, an unbelievable scene occurred. He was obviously in the midst of ice and rain but Sublime Star's Yi Jiamu didn't seem affected at all. On the contrary, after such an attack, he quickly locked onto Luo Yuxin's location.
His eyes flashed.
The camera director quickly zoomed in. As a result, everyone could see that when the hailstones hit Yi Jiamu's body, they turned into clear water droplets. Luo Yixin's offensive was neutralized so quietly.
The entire venue was silent. Even the official commentators were too shocked and didn't know what to say. What was with the abilities of all the newcomers in the league this year?"
In the Burning Wood spectator area, Jing Yao couldn't help standing up and his arms trembled slightly as Liang Qiuzhi supported him. It had to be said that… this scene was too familiar!
Mumu's attack!
Proofreader: Grinding Love~


text:
Concert Review: Jimmy Buffett and the Coral Reefers @ Royal Farms Arena (3/30/18)
Jimmy Buffett at the U.S. Naval Academy on March 29, 2018 (Photo from FB @jimmybuffett)
Jimmy Buffett and his Coral Reefer Band thrilled Baltimore on Good Friday, March 30th!
Nearing the end of his I Don't Know Tour at the Royal Farms Arena, Jimmy gave the swarming mass of Parrotheads 26 songs and a lot of love and luck to enjoy. From my 5th row vantage point, it was another incredible show, also streamed live on Margaritaville Radio.
Before going any further, here are five things I want you to know about Jimmy Buffett:
He's reached the ripe age of 71. He claimed to want to slow down at 70 and enjoy his new boat, The Drifter. Not happening so far.
He's been singing for almost 50 years and touring with the Coral Reefer Band for 44.
He's released 29 albums in his career, including his most recent Christmas album, 'Tis the SeaSon, from 2016.
He's performed too many shows to count (for me; although someone has) and tours every year. One of the most prolific touring artists ever, and I've only made it to four shows so far!
He has his own beer known as LandShark Lager brewed by Anheuser-Busch for his Margaritaville restaurants. I only bring this up because I need five things and there were plenty available for the pre-party on the street outside Royal Farms Arena.
Opening the evening was country artist Caroline Jones, who played a very excellent set promoting her new album, Bare Feet. Give her a listen. She also came back to join the band later on a couple of songs.
Then Jimmy, in board shorts and tee, and the full Coral Reefer Band took positions and dove right in to "Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes", which was a fitting song to get a cold Baltimore in the mood.
The Coral Reefer Band itself is prodigious. Including Jimmy, there are 12 members that span the gamut of instrumentation and backup vocals. From three drum sets (including steel drums by Robert Greenidge) to keyboards (Michael Utley) to guitar to pedal steel guitar (Doyle Grisham) to dancers to more lead vocals (at times Mac McAnally and Nadirah Shakoor) and more, the band is full of movement and dazzle and energy. The rest of the band are: Peter Mayer (guitar), Jim Mayer (bass), Roger Guth (drums), John Lovell (trumpet), Tina Gullickson (guitar) and Eric Darken (percussion).
The band formed two rows in front of a giant screen that flicked through images, videos and photos throughout the night.
A few songs later Jimmy brought Caroline back out, where they played "Come Monday" and the whole arena sang along. The screen transformed to show beautiful images of the wilderness and Jimmy and others out in nature, it rather appeared they were hoping the grind of Monday never actually came, because instead you're living life to the fullest.
Jimmy is famous for performing his 'Big 8' songs during concerts. Two more have been added in the last 15 years ("It's Five O' Clock Somewhere" and "One Particular Harbor"). They indeed played all save one ("Why Don't We Get Drunk" – he rarely plays it now). As they closed out "Fins" and led in to "Margaritaville", with Caroline once again sharing vocal duties, he said his most asked question is 'don't you get tired of playing the same songs every night?' He responded with a resounding 'Hell no! I love playing the songs you all want to hear. That's why I'm here, for you!' Thanks, Jimmy! We were there for you, so it all worked out.
"A Pirate Looks At 40" came towards the end of the main set, and is one of my favorite songs by him, with one of my favorite lyrics about getting older, 'Yes I am a pirate, two hundred years too late, the cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder, I'm an over-forty victim of fate, arriving too late.' They closed out the main set with "Volcano", and the refrain for the tour name 'I don't know' echoed loudly from the lips of everyone (probably) in arena.
Throughout, they gave us a few covers, like "Learning To Fly" and "Southern Cross". Also, Mac McAnally (winning all Michael McDonald look-alike contests) sang lead on two songs. "Little Martha" served as a break for the rest of the band, and later "Back Where I Come From", which Mac originally wrote and recorded in 1990, regaled the big screen with scenes of Baltimore to get the crowd excited.
My forays into Parrotheaddom started in 1998 at the Tacoma Dome (Tacoma, WA) and moved on to Nissan Pavilion (now Jiffy Lube Live) in 2006 and 2009, where I got the full culture shock of people dressing up, creating dioramas with their vehicles or parking spaces (notable, a giant active volcano car and an adult-sized beach sandbox). That level of commitment wasn't on display in the latitude of Baltimore, but plenty of people wore the appropriate attire and enjoyed the requisite attitude.
That attitude included a healthy amount of beach balls bouncing around the seats and hopping off heads and faces. After a number of 'hopped in the glasses' mishaps, a few of my seat neighbors started hoarding the beach balls. By the end of the night they had over 20 stashed away, out of circulation.
Returning for the encore, they played another one of my favorites "One Particular Harbor", with a fun mix of energetic chorus and a beautiful little come down for 'but there's this one particular harbor' about finding a place just for you. We all need such a spot.
Jimmy and band ended with "Lovely Cruise" and as the masses streamed out, maybe not relishing our cruise home, we certainly felt better for the experience. Certainly eager to do it again soon.
Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes
We Are The People Our Parents Warned Us About
Knees Of My Heart
Pencil Thin Mustache
Growing Older But Not Up
Come Monday
Son Of A Son Of A Sailor
Weather With You (Crowded House cover)
Beautiful Swimmers (first time played live)
It's Five O' Clock Somewhere (Alan Jackson cover)
Little Martha (sang by Mac McAnally)
He Went to Paris
Gypsies in the Palace
Take It Easy (Eagles cover)
Learning To Fly (Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers cover)
Cheeseburger in Paradise
Last Mango In Paris
A Pirate Looks at 40
Back Where I Come From (sang by Mac McAnally)
Southern Cross (Crosby, Stills & Nash cover)
One Particular Harbor
Love and Luck
Lovely Cruise
Author: Jeremy Bailey
Writer and editor living in Washington, D.C. View all posts by Jeremy Bailey
Author Jeremy BaileyPosted on April 4, 2018 July 24, 2018 Categories Concert ReviewTags Baltimore, Coral Reefer Band, country, Jimmy Buffett, Parrotheads, Rock, Royal Farms Arena
2 thoughts on "Concert Review: Jimmy Buffett and the Coral Reefers @ Royal Farms Arena (3/30/18)"
Pingback: Concert Roundup: Top 11 Concerts of 2018 – A DC Journey
Pingback: Top 20 Concerts for July 2022 – A DC Journey
Previous Previous post: Concert Pick: Franz Ferdinand @ 9:30 Club (4/11/18)
Next Next post: Bummers and Big Deals (4/6/18)


text:
Mr. President, Now Is the Time to Withdraw Hagel Nomination
by Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison | Feb 4, 2013 | Israel & Jewish Roots, Standing With Israel
Former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense should be withdrawn now. He delivered what may be the worst performance at a confirmation hearing ever given. He was described as "confused," "befuddled" and "self-contradicting." One of Mr. Hagel's own backers deplored the lack of "charisma" the nominee showed during the hearings.
Was this just a "bad hair day" for Mr. Hagel?
"Hagel, who can be hilarious, didn't show much of that today," said Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation. Let the record show that never before has "hilarious" been offered as a qualification for a Cabinet officer supervises America's nuclear arsenal.
Perhaps the lowest moment of the entire dismal day occurred when an aide helpfully passed Hagel a note. We are not privy to its contents, but it prompted the embattled nominee to correct himself.
He did not—as he had just testified under oath—support the president's containment policy toward an Iran with nuclear weapons. That was because the president has said over and over again: He favors preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, not containing a nuclear Iran. He does not have a containment policy.
In a chess game, you would turn over your king. In tennis, you'd hop over the net to congratulate your victorious opponent. In short, if you have to do something like that under the full glare of klieg lights, you've lost all credibility.
Before Thursday's hearings, the Chuck Hagel nomination was simply very controversial. He had made alarming statements and cast alarming votes during his Senate career. He had opposed economic sanctions against Iran. We have expressed our own skepticism about the efficacy of these sanctions.
But Hagel also opposed naming the Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. It is common knowledge that Iran backs Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Both of these outfits are terrorist gangs, so described routinely by the U.S. government. Naming the home office of Mideast terrorism a terrorist organization should not be hard. But it was too hard for Chuck Hagel.
After Thursday's hearings, we have an entirely new set of concerns. Hagel has never administered any large organization—in private industry or in government. The Pentagon is a huge bureaucracy.
He seems to be telling us, "It isn't a problem, all the wild things I've said, because I will not be in a policy-making position." If he is confirmed and not making policy, that fact would speak volumes about this administration's lack of seriousness on national defense.
Since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947, the civilian head of the Pentagon has performed a vital role in the highest counsels of government. In 1948, it was the new department's critically important task to integrate the U.S. Armed Forces—and to undertake the defense of encircled West Berlin through the now-famous Berlin Airlift.
Throughout the decades since, some Secretaries of Defense have been deeply controversial—like Robert Strange MacNamara during the Vietnam War. Some have been great and capable leaders—like Caspar Weinberger during the highly successful Reagan years. But we have never had a Secretary of Defense who promises, on entering office, to be inconsequential.
For President Obama to go forward with this deeply flawed nomination now is to take upon himself the responsibility for inviting chaos and confusion at a time of international peril. The prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs in Tehran who invented suicide bombing should concentrate the thoughts of even our distracted Washington policy makers.
Democrats should privately, or publicly if necessary, appeal to the president to reconsider this nomination. We are reminded of the brave stance of the late Paul Weyrich. This conservative leader testified against the nomination of former Sen. John Tower in 1989, not because of Tower's record on defense issues, with which Weyrich largely agreed. But Weyrich said he had seen the Texan's all-too-frequent inebriated state. It took courage for Paul Weyrich to put country above party then, and it's what we ask of Democrats now.
President Obama has successfully avoided serious questioning about his foreign policy. We have praised his raid to take out Osama bin Laden. We remain concerned that the president does not take seriously enough the menace of Iranian nukes.
Thursday's hearing makes clear why the Iranians might want Chuck Hagel leading the Pentagon; it does not make clear why most Americans should. It seems the president chose an old Senate chum who could be relied upon to rubber stamp the administration's social engineering of the military.
The first duty of the president of the United States is to safeguard the American people and our Constitution. If he goes forward with this flawed nomination, President Obama will be saying loudly on national defense: Whatever.
Mr. President: Now is the time to prevent future grief for our nation and our all-volunteer military. Now is the time to withdraw this nomination: Chuck Hagel.
Ken Blackwell is senior fellow at Family Empowerment, and Bob Morrison is senior fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council.