Everyone loves a 'Good versus Evil' plot, and BetOnSoft has truly delivered with its Max Cash slot machine offering. This is a five-reel and 50-payline offering that features a green and red background and symbols like Max, his adversaries, cell phones, guns, bombs and more on the screen. The top jackpot here is 50,000 coins so with denominations that range from a penny to $0.10, it's possible to win anywhere from $5000 to $5000 in a single spin.
There are three bonus features to watch in this title: the wild, the scatter and the free spins trigger. The Logo is the wild and it will substitute for anything on the reels with the exception of the trigger or the scatter to help you produce payouts. It is stacked, as well, and this means that you can win multiple times in a single spin with its help. Unfortunately, it does not provide a multiplier.
The scatter is Jane, who is the love of Max's life, and she can trigger between nine and 15 free spins whenever she appears three or more times. All of the wins during this feature will be tripled. Finally, there's Ivan, who is Max's arch-nemesis. When he appears at least twice, you'll get an instant win that could be worth as much as 200 times your initial wager.
Unfortunately, there aren't any second-screen bonus games to enjoy here and the graphics are a bit simplistic in nature. However, anyone who loves a good heroes-versus-villains story is likely to get a kick out of this title since it offers plenty of moderate wins which occur often enjoy to keep you interested in what's happening. It is easily navigable and it can truly be a lot of fun.
To find out for yourself whether this title is right for you, head over to Treasure Mile Casino where you'll get some Max Cash free spins just to check it out. If you decide to keep going, there are other offers available like a $10 no deposit bonus as well as a first deposit match of 100% up to a total of $500.


This APK is signed by Tom Tietze and upgrades your existing app.
You can select and change the data types in the app settings.
NOTE: It may happen that the data you transfer is not immediately visible in the Google Fit app, because it will take a while for all the images to be updated. Some data types are currently not displayed in the Google Fit app graphics (such as sleep, body fat, food & water).
With the AutoSync feature, the steps can be automatically transferred from your Fitbit account to Google Fit. If you prefer manual synchronization, the reminder function helps you to remember this. Both functions can be activated under the menu item "Settings" when required. The AutoSync function allows you to choose between different intervals.
This app is available in English and German.


text:
Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley leave Daybreak
Home • News • Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley leave Daybreak
Updated on Monday 5 December 2011 by @TVNewsroom
[[Adrian Chiles]] and [[Christine Bleakley]] presented their final Daybreak this morning, after 15 months in the job.
The pair had been expected to stay on until the New Year, but after the news broke of their departure the date was brought forward.
Adrian will continue in his role as the presenter of ITV's live football coverage, which includes the FA Cup, England's internationals as well as the UEFA Champions League. Adrian will also continue with his topical discussion show, That Sunday Night Show, which will return to ITV1 for a third series in 2012.
Christine will focus on a range of peak time shows for ITV1, including a new role as the co-presenter of Dancing on Ice alongside Phillip Schofield. Later this month Christine will also host Westlife: For The Last Time and co-present ITV's major new charity and entertainment initiative for Christmas, Text Santa. ITV1 is also developing a new peak time factual entertainment challenge show with Christine as well as a new peak time home renovation programme.
Peter Fincham, ITV Director of Television, said: "Adrian and Christine are both superb presenters. They have worked tirelessly to help establish Daybreak on ITV1 and they leave the show at a point when ratings have recently seen their biggest year on year increase."
Daybreak Presentation
Daybreak Promos
What is Your Hidden Skill? – Daybreak Promo
Daybreak Promo 2012 – What is Your Hidden Skill?
Promos BBC Sport Sky News Sky Sports Former Presenters Channel 4 Sport Sky News Former Reporters ITV Regional Presenters NFL Commentators Formula One Sky Sports Funnies BBC Match of the Day Premier League Football Presentation World Cup 2018 News ITV News FA Cup NFL (American Football) BBC News Presentation ITV Sport BT Sport BBC News Former Reporters UEFA Champions League Sky News Former Presenters

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
real challenges.
real answers.SM
Polsinelli's Randye Soref Selected as 2019 Women, Influence & Power in Law Honoree by Corporate Counsel
Search News & Events
Am Law 100 firm Polsinelli congratulates Los Angeles-based Principal Randye Soref for her inclusion in Corporate Counsel's 2019 Women, Influence & Power in Law awards.
Soref was among seven law firm honorees who were recognized in the Thought Leadership Category, and 63 distinguished female attorneys overall who were included across 13 total categories of the Women, Influence & Power in Law awards. She will be recognized at an awards dinner Oct. 16 as part of the annual Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, D.C.
"Randye sets a bar high in the restructuring industry, but at the same time she's taken the time to advocate for diversity, inclusion, and the promotion of women in law," said Polsinelli Bankruptcy & Restructuring Practice Group Chair Christopher Ward. "Randye has proven to be among the elite and influential female lawyers in the country through her dedication to her clients with her legal industry work outside of our firm. We are proud of Randye and congratulate her on this wonderful achievement."
Soref focuses her practice on distressed companies and has a national practice representing clients in all aspects of bankruptcy proceedings and out of court restructurings, including reorganizations, corporate workouts, creditor's rights, bankruptcy litigation and assignments for the benefit of creditors.
She routinely represents chapter 11 debtors, unsecured creditor and equity security holder committees, creditors, sellers, buyers liquidating trustees and advises on bankruptcy strategy, counseling, reorganization, enforcement of debt instruments and litigation. Soref has served as lead attorney in nationally-known, distressed intellectual property, retail and apparel companies, including e-commerce companies. She has also led numerous distressed healthcare matters involving large nationally-based hospitals, health plans, health care providers and skilled nursing facilities.
"I'm honored to have been included in this year's powerhouse list of Women, Influence & Power in Law honorees by Corporate Counsel," said Soref. "This group of women represents the best and brightest that our industry has to offer, and I am humbled to join so many powerful female lawyers in this year's recognition."
This honor from Corporate Counsel adds to a long list of awards and accolades that Soref has received over the course of her career. She has been ranked in Chambers USA every year since 2011, as well as in The Best Lawyers in America® for Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law every year since 2013. Soref has been included in Southern California Super Lawyers for 15 consecutive years.
Earlier this year, Soref was named one of the 2019 Most Influential Women Lawyers by the Los Angeles Business Journal. She actively serves as Co-chair of the American Bankruptcy Institute's Advisory Board, she's a board member of the Los Angeles Bankruptcy Forum and she currently serves as the 9th Circuit Lawyer Representative, among other industry and community involvement outside Polsinelli.
About Polsinelli
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 875 attorneys in 21 offices nationwide. Recognized by legal research firm BTI Consulting as one of the top firms for excellent client service and client relationships, the firm's attorneys provide value through practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, intellectual property, middle-market corporate, labor and employment and business litigation. Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California.
Randye B. Soref
Christopher A. Ward


Say it with authority and style with Boppa Delux, a big, bold display font in four weights. In OpenType-savvy applications, Boppa Delux includes small caps, alternates, case sensitive forms, and a lot more. Styles range from Regular to Black to Heavy to Fat. Click here for a complete PDF showing. (Warning: Boppa Delux will use a lot of ink!) US$89.


Welcome to Lancia Auto Auction!
New and used Lancia cars for sale are selected on our site for all those who are interested in Italian vehicles. Lancia is an Italian automobile manufacturer that has a strong rally heritage and is noted for using letters of the Greek alphabet for its model names. It became of the Fiat Group in 1969.
Lancia vehicles provide all the specific advantages and the originality of Italian automobiles. Lancia produced a wide range of vans, trucks, buses and military vehicles from the beginning of its activity. In 2009, the British motoring television show Top Gear suggested that Lancia had more 'great' models than any other car company.
Our Auto Auction gives you the possibility to enjoy buying or selling used Lancia cars all over USA. Here you may find a variety of Lancia cars for sale from new Lancia Ypsilon to classic Lancia Zagato, from currently produced Lancia Delta to the nostalgic Lancia Stratos. You may also look in our listings for Lancia Thema, Lancia Voyager, Lancia Florida, Lancia Kappa, Lancia Thesis, Lancia Integrale, Lancia 037 for sale, Lancia Fulvia for sale, Lancia Beta coupe, Lancia Stratos Zero, Lancia HPE, Lancia Logo, Lancia Stratos for sale etc.
If you are looking for a great deal on a quality used vehicle or just want to turn your existing vehicle into quick cash, profit by the offers Lancia Auto Auction prepared for you! Join us!


text:
ZiraldoAerospace":2267jnns said:
What pisses me off is that NASA has just been sitting around wasting money while they were flying the shuttle yet they had no backup plan! As mentioned, they built the X-33, X-34, X-37, HL-20 and a couple of other viable alternatives only to cancel each one a couple years into development! If they had just gone through with one of those we wouldn't be in this situation, but they spent billions half producing several easily possible designs. Also, NASA seems to over complicate everything when it comes to manned flight. Why will it take them 4-5 years to man rate and build a capsule for a Delta IV or Atlas V? I don't understand, why the wait?
Remember that, despite all its good works and good intentions, NASA is still a huge Federal agency. It suffers from the same "program driven" short-comings that all government agencies have. This is the main reason so many of us believe that private industry will be the primary driver for the utilization of space.
neilsox
It seems to me we can gently boost the ISS to a higher orbit, or even a much higher orbit. We have not done this as the support craft such as the space shuttle suffer drastic payload reductions to higher orbits. Also the radiation dosage of the ISS crew increases at higher altitudes due to moving into the lower edge of the Van Allen belt. Neil
SciFi2010
After reading and seeing some of the interesting designs in this forum I think there's something missing in the equation here. Most of what I saw here are unique and complex designs, which are probably time consuming and expensive to develop and to manufacture. Even the Blended Wing Body is decades away from realisation (maybe never). The WhiteKnightTwo from Virgin Galactic is a step in the right direction but is still not large enough to launch orbital space vehicles. If a giant fuel-efficient lightweight airplane that can carry an orbital rocket or a future spaceplane on its back or under its belly to a height of 50,000 feet or more and is an efficient way into orbit, then why do we not build a flying "catamaran" with parts that are bought of the shelve from for example Boeing or Airbus? I think the main problem is that such a heavy carrier airplane has to able to do more then only space launch to be commercially viable. In the first instance it should be a simple design that is able to carry any heavy cargo as high as far and as fuel-efficient as possible, while its development-, manufacturing- and operational costs & time should be low. The main task of such an airplane should ofcourse be launching manned/unmanned space vehicles into orbit, but it should also be flexible enough to carry any heavy cargo around the world. Next to reliability, reusability and the possibility of multiple applications, a simple design should also be more replaceable. The dramatic accidents with the Challenger and Columbia for example showed us a Space Shuttle can't be replaced simply and quickly with a new Space Shuttle, because the Space Shuttle was a unique, complex and expensive design. At this moment I'd rather see a whole fleet of inexpensive flying catamarans that are able to carry 4 times the load of an Antonov airplane to a height of 60,000 feet than a few expensive supersonic/hypersonic airplanes carrying a moderate amount of load. If such a giant carrier airplane with a high flight-ceiling could also be sold outside the US for example to Europe and Japan, a constant operational production line could be possible, which would be essential in lowering the manufacturing costs. These carrier airplanes could be used:
1. To carry heavy cargo anywhere around the world (with for example a detachable aerodynamic container to carry airplane parts, goods, etc…)
2. For scientific research in the higher layer of the atmosphere or to launch experimental aerospace vehicles
3. To launch hypersonic manned vehicles for leisure or international transport
4. To carry rockets for unmanned launches into orbit. The next step would be to combine the concepts of a "WhiteknightX" airplane with a "FalconX"/DragonX" to lower manned access to space especially for civilian space transport. (See YouTube: t/Space Full Concept of Operations by deanfilip)*
5. To transport future (SSTO) spaceplanes or to support spaceplanes in the first stage of launch into orbit like the Skylon. (See YouTube: The Future of Space Travel by steamburn123)
This is not very much different what B. Rutan & R. Branson has in mind for the future I think, but a carrier airplane like the WhiteKnightTwo has to be scaled up in size and production first to become meaningful in the orbital space industry. This also has the advantage that such airplanes could accelerate the R&D of spaceplanes with Sabre-like rocket engines. Maglev ground launch systems to support the first stage of launch can always be introduced in a later stadium.
* I especially like the Russian designs although they have never been realized. Check it out!
http://www.ussr-airspace.com/index.php? ... cts_id=703
http://www.ussr-airspace.com/catalog/im ... 121248.jpg
The Russian "Project 52" aircraft were 80's design concepts (scale models). Actually building them is going to be expensive. It's interesting to note, though, that it took the private sector to use the concept. NASA and the Russian space agency have pretty much stuck to the same game plan for the past thirty years.
vulture4
Whether air-launch to orbit is feasible for human spaceflight is impossible to say without further development of the concepts and testing some actual designs. Most rocket-propelled launch vehicles have a lift/weight ration of greater than 1 and do not use wings to provide lift during the climb; even the Pegasus, which does, climbs at over 45 degrees. The main advantage of air launch is simply to reduce gravity and air drag losses.
The X-34 program would have resolved many of these issues if it hadn't been canceled in 2001, another NASA decision which seems to have been made on the NASA side with a rather arbitrary set of objectives and constraints, i.e. NASA decided "verification" of the autoland capability was needed and "single string" systems weren't acceptable, so rather then let the contractor accept theses "risks" that the contractor had judged acceptable they decided the cost would be too high to meet their own new requirements and so canceled the entire program! Since virtually all the costs were sunk at that time, this meant taking a program that required no additional funds and had a 90% chance of success and converting it into a program that had a 100% probability of failure!
Why was the program canceled when cancellation guaranteed failure? Why did NASA refuse to allow Burt Rutan to fly the prototypes at his own expense, as he oferred? I could be wrong. If anyone knows who actually made this decision for NASA and can persuade him/her to provide an explanation, I'd be very interested. But if no one can provide information to defend this decision, we can only conclude that the decision was wrong.
Although a reusable SSTO with low manufacturing and operational costs would be ideal I think the combination of a carrier airplane and a rocket and/or spaceplane would be the next best thing to lower the costs of manned access into LEO. While there's almost no funding and political will at the moment for the first option the last option can be developed by the commercial aerospace industry, because most of it is common technology. This makes the R&D and the funding required doable for even a small company like Virgin Galactic. For now it is unrealistic for a company like V. G. to develop a mega carrier airplane & (rocket&) spaceplane for orbital launches. The up-scaling of the size and production (& technology) of their carrier airplane & the spaceplane depends a lot on their business strategy and the future development of the aerospace market. To develop the commercial aerospace market all depends on:
•how cost efficient the commercial aerospace are now and will be in the future in developing & operating the means to travel into space and inhabit space (this also includes the R&D and manufacturing costs of the airplane industry)
•how many people (or countries) are able and willing to pay for these prices that are offered by this industry in the short and (middle-) long term
At the moment V. G. will have to be focused on surborbital leisure and point-to-point transportation, because the costs are relatively low compared with orbital launches and suborbital transportation doesn't need space destinations (like space-stations or colonies). If VG can keep their development and operational costs under control they could earn their investments back fast. Then the prices could drop and the demand for suborbital transportation could grow. When the demand for suborbital transportation grows VG will be able to attract more private and government funding (or VG could consider enlisting itself on the stock market). This will give VG the possibility to upscale the size, production of their carrier airplane & the spaceplane, which will drive prices even lower and attract more potential customers, etc…. If this process continuous the carrier airplane of VG could become large enough to launch an orbital (rocket &) spaceplane (for example with torodial/linear Aerospike or Sabre rocket engines). The emergence of multiple inflatable BA spacestations as possible destinations in LEO will certainly increase the demand and this would be an interesting cheap alternative. I also wonder if it is possible to design most of the heavy cargo in such in a way that it can be divided in parts small enough to fit these kinds of launch systems. The separate parts could then later be assembled in LEO or in a LEO spacestation with or without robots. A (robotic) assembly line in space…?
That is also why I think the X-33 or its technologies could appear again, but that will depend on the success of the commercial aerospace industry.
SciFi2010":2khzzm9u said:
Although a reusable SSTO with low manufacturing and operational costs would be ideal I think the combination of a carrier airplane and a rocket and/or spaceplane would be the next best thing to lower the costs of manned access into LEO....................
Thats one of the things i like about this. It doesnt require a HUGE jump in technology or manufacturing to produce. We have built essentually all of it in a different form at one time or another.
Valcan and others here. I do think that you have discovered the true path of the future of space travel from the Earth's' surface to at least LEO. Also, from everything I have seen about the man, Burt Rutan also shares your vision.
First he is at present starting to tests on the Spaceshiptwo configuration to take many (relatively wealthy at first, but the cost will come down over time) people up to the edge of space in a sub orbital flight, returning to the same place where they started.
Next (and I am equally certain that plans are already well underway for this step) there will be a Spaceship three that will take passengers not just back to the place where they entered sub orbital space, but very rapidly take them (in less than two hours I would think) to any prepared airport anywhere on the surface of the Earth. Such a project would be so huge that I am also certain that even the redoubtable Rutan will find himself probably working with the likes of Boeing to make it a reality within the next decade.
Then it would be a relatively small step to build and operate vehicles that would also be carried up by a carrier aircraft, but then go all the way into LEO at about 200 miles up. I think that I am being somewhat conservative by stating that this should take place within two decades from now, or by 2030 at the latest.
As a final step, I would think that eventually somebody is going to develop the true Holy Grail of such craft in a vehicle that can take off from any relatively prepared civil airport and either go rapidly to another such airport on the Earth's surface, or all the way to LEO without needing any boost from any other craft. This was the dream of NASP around the year 2000 or so, and should be fully operational by the year 2040 at the latest.
Such a craft would quite probably be of a wave rider type of design with small retractable wings for landing and take off. Be provided with conventional jet engines for landing and take off up to about 50,000 feet and a velocity of about Mach 2 to 3. where a form fitting relatively small thrust aerospike type of rocket engine would boost it to about Mach 4, then a hypersonic engine would take over up to Mach 15 or Mach 20 or so would be used. Where finally, the linear aerospike would finish the flight to LEO up to the 25 Mach of orbital flight.
While certainly not impossible, and even quite probably the future this scenario is a VERY challenging one! Especially when you place the restriction on it that it should bring the cost of placing a pound to LEO down to initially less than $1,000 per pound, and eventually much lower.
Even so, I see it happening in the time frame that I mention or even less as very powerful forces are at work in this direction right now. One of these is the pure drive created by the capitalistic drive to bring these costs down to open up the incredible financial gains to be made by doing this, and the other is the desire (for its own purposes of surveillance, if nothing else) of the US military to develop true hypersonic aircraft.
And other private capitalistic people such as Bigelow will be providing the destination space station(s) to take all of these people up to. We will open up the way to a true space faring civilization, of that I am the most certain of.
My only personal sadness in all of this is that at the age of 67 now, I probably will not live long enough on this Earth to see it.
But I will always have the great satisfaction of having been one of the 400,000 or so people that directly helped originally start all this by placing men on the moon with the incredible Apollo project!
May everybody have a truly wonderful and safe Fourth of July!!!
frodo1008":1foy1w9h said:
Statistically, i guess you have quite good chances for at leat 20 years more, and in that time medical technology might change so much, that living up to 100ths will be more common, which gives you another 20 years, and then ..
Just stay with us, and avoid meteors, spacecraft, or UFOs falling on your head, if possible
Thanks very much, I will try to do just that! I do hope to at least be around long enough to see the beginning of the true "age of space" for all mankind at the very least!
Once again, thanks for caring!
halman
scottb50":1xghfksy said:
Now, we do? Show me the existing facility or vehicle. Straight up is the least expensive and, if done right the safest approach. With a side mounted second stage, firing during launch anyway, escape would be pretty easy. A separate rocket motor for the crew module would allow zero-zero escape capability in a worst case.
A zero-zero escape capability requires sending the crew module over 1 mile away from the launch pad, while escape capability during ascent requires separation under extreme aerodynamic stress. These requirements add weight, in the form of structural reinforcement, additional engines, and recovery apparatus. My proposal does not need a zero-zero capability, because the system does not involve sitting on top of, or next to, a rocket powerful enough to lift itself and a payload straight up. At every point in the launch, there is abort capability, whether it be the launch catapult stopping the stack, or the orbiter lighting up its engines and flying off the back of the carrier wing, or the orbiter making a circular flight to land dead-stick at the point of origin. The orbiter could conceivably fly off the back of the carrier wing while the wing was still on the catapult, although that would require more powerful engines than I believe is needed.
The expense involved in launching people straight up is not so much the additional engineering, redundancy, and safety systems, but the number of people required to monitor all the systems, and to make instant decisions regarding go/no go, the demands for weather to be excellent, the range safety issues, and on and on. When an Atlas or a Delta rocket lifts off, there are about 1/4 as many people involved as there when a shuttle lifts off. The same was true back in the days of the Apollo program. Putting people on top of that much explosive propellant means taking every precaution possible.
If we can make a launch as routine as an airliner taking off, without concerns about the Thermal Protection System getting blasted by rain drops at 1 mile per second, or a boat being in the restricted zone, or a zillion other things that impact on a launch, we can cut the costs down. A lot.
SciFi2010,
Perhaps you have missed the point regarding the design of the carrier wing. It would never serve as a long-haul cargo aircraft, because the wing must be straight to achieve the greatest lift, which increases drag, so the vehicle would be terribly inefficient on long flights. Consider a semi-tractor: It is designed to do one thing, and one thing alone, and that is to pull and support a trailer which carries a lot of cargo. We can add a house to back of it, put lights all over it, and paint it wild colors, but it is still going to be a tractor, which handles poorly without the trailer, gets rotten fuel millage, and is uncomfortable to ride in.
Plus, the design I propose could never land with a large cargo, because the undercarriage would not support it. To be able to land with a payload of a million pounds, you will have to have an undercarriage which will weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds. Plus, the fuel capacity should be just enough to get the orbiter to launch altitude, plus a small reserve, as well as enough to fly back and land. Adding range would dramatically reduce the payload.
Yes, the design that I purpose is unique, but the application is also unique. However, it is not complex, quite the opposite, I believe. Instead of massive turbo pumps to fuel huge engines, pressurized fuel tanks could probably suffice. The wing would be extremely simple, compared to a 747, for instance. Everything in my proposal is based on technology that has been proven, and is understood. The single most challenging part is the Thermal Protection System, which needs to be more advanced than the one used on the shuttle, because having to hand fit every tile is too labor intensive. I believe that NASA has figured out how to get around that problem, although it was never applied to the shuttle because of cost.
The fundamental philosophy of my design is simplicity, based upon a narrowly defined mission. Yes, the system could be scaled up to haul cargo, and I believe that it ultimately would be. But first, we have to get people into orbit in numbers large enough to justify sending cargo up there. And this is going to require substantial funding, because the jump from sub-orbital to orbital is huge. We can get to space without having to go any faster than 1 mile per second, and we probably could do it going even slower. But to reach orbit we HAVE to go 5 miles per second, which means that coming back we have to get rid of a lot of energy. Re-entry is the hardest part, because we need to be able to fly the vehicle to a landing, instead of just dropping it in the ocean.
Probably I am wrong, but I believe that NASA abandoned the programs mentioned above because they would have required too much money to build up into a workable replacement for the shuttle. NASA has been hamstrung by a lack of funding since before the shuttle flew, and has constantly had to make a choice between flying and building something new. Perhaps Obama can force Congress to shake loose a few billion more, so that the agency can do both, but I am not holding my breath. If only we could get people to understand that the answers to the problems of pollution, climate change, and resource exhaustion lie right above our heads, not in learning to do without.
halman":19v5egnw said:
Hopefully it will be as routine as an airliner taking off but an airliner taking off is more of a risk then a horse drawn cart. A horse failure could lead to uncontrolled driving and a crash. Even with airplanes you think you have thought of everything and then something happens.
For manned flight I was thinking a Second stage, piggybacked on the First stage could power a vehicle to an altitude any shrouds could be separated and the vehicle could make a powered approach and landing. The First stage crew would need an ejection Module, like the F-111, but that pretty simple.
Like the X-37 put a shroud around the vehicle then conditions are not a problem, wings obviously cause problems so cover them.
Halman,
The (relative) fuel consumption and range of an airplane-flight is not only determined by the aerodynamic shape of an airplane, but also by its engines, weight (materials and design) and at what height and speed the airplane is flying. If a subsonic shaped airplane would have enough thrust to fly at supersonic speeds it would never be as fuel-efficient as a supersonic shaped airplane (and vice-versa of course), because of the larger drag (/airlift) of a subsonic wing. A carrier airplane with long straight wings flying at the right speed and height is almost floating in the air and should be able to reach long distances with the highest fuel efficiency. (Just take a look at for example the airplane of the late Steve Fossett or the U2 spy plane.) The only disadvantage is the slow speed and the longer ride.
Besides that I wasn't suggesting that we should build a flying carrier wing that is shaped like a stretched out surf-board and is only able to fly at low subsonic speeds. (Although the wings of the Whiteknighttwo are almost straight and they are functioning fine.) The Russian designs and the multiple purposes I mentioned are just examples. I do have to admit that a carrier airplane that is able to take full advantage of airlift at subsonic speed in the first 10 km of the atmosphere and is able to fly at supersonic speed above the 10 km of atmosphere (10% airpressure) is a more realistic approach to achieve cost-efficient air-launch into orbit, if we imagine that the Space Shuttle uses almost half of its fuel just to reach 1000 mph (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_sled_launch). The question is then what kind of paths can be taken to realize a carrier airplane and an orbital spaceplane, both technically and financially. I think a carrier airplane (with parts that are bought of the shelve) that can be used for multiple purposes (with some adjustments) is less dependent on government funding. If it is a unique design with a unique application it may even be more difficult to gather the (private/government) funds than to do the the R&D. That was my main criticism actually. Not that the idea itself was wrong. That is why I also think Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic have the potential to design a HTHL (Horizontal Takeoff and Landing) 3- or 2-STO RLV by expanding their business opportunities, but it will take time. The aerospace industry just can not expect for government to come with more money. Every time the government spends more it has to borrow more from the money market and leaves less "space" for private companies to borrow. This government has to cut spending to cut the deficit, without harming the economy too much. It is very clear now that the consumers (who are able to spend) will not spend and the business community (, who now have vast reserves) will not invest if the deficit keeps on growing. Economy is also psychology and confidence has to be restored. That's why I also think aerospace should contribute to the economy and society instead of being another government expense.
Maybe I am being naive, but I don't think that the carrier wing will be all that expensive to build. And only a few need to be built, as the turn around time will not be very long, so one carrier wing could support 5 or 6 orbiters. The majority of the expense in the system that I purpose would be in the fleet of orbiters, which eventually would number close to 20, if the system works as I envision it. But we don't need to build more than 2 or 3 to begin with, and a single carrier wing, as well as the catapult and landing strip. Once the system is proven, I think that the private sector would be more than willing to invest in building more components.
But this system will only be viable if a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle is available to boost the big stuff, or lots of small stuff all at once. We need the capability to launch a decent sized portion of a space station in one shot, so that it can be brought up to operational status in a short time. Bigelow's inflatable station elements would compliment what I purpose, because a 120 ton launch would orbit a station needing 10 to 15 people to operate properly. The whole idea of my proposal is to make it possible for the private sector to build and operate their own space stations.
There is several trillion dollars in capital chasing profit, any profit, in the world right now. Diverting a few hundred billion of that into space would be easy, if we could convince the investors that there is a way to make a profit. Right now, they look at the International Space Station and shudder, because it has taken a decade just to build, and numerous launches, and no real science has been done on it until just recently. Only a few people can travel to it at one time, and that will continue to be true for the foreseeable future.
The private sector wants to see the capability to launch a space station and bring it up to operational status in less than a year, as well as the ability to send 10 to 15 people to it at a time. The private sector wants to see space stations that are operated by a single company, so that results can be kept secret. The private sector has been sitting on its hands because the government has refused to provide the leadership that is required to prove that space can be profitable. BP will spend billions of dollars developing off-shore, deep water wells, because they know that they can sell the oil and make a profit. The money is there, but the leadership to show the way is not.
www.nasa.gov : Emerging Technologies May Fuel Revolutionary Launcher
As NASA studies possibilities for the next launcher to the stars, a team of engineers from Kennedy Space Center and several other field centers are looking for a system that turns a host of existing cutting-edge technologies into the next giant leap spaceward.
An early proposal has emerged that calls for a wedge-shaped aircraft with scramjets to be launched horizontally on an electrified track or gas-powered sled. The aircraft would fly up to Mach 10, using the scramjets and wings to lift it to the upper reaches of the atmosphere where a small payload canister or capsule similar to a rocket's second stage would fire off the back of the aircraft and into orbit. The aircraft would come back and land on a runway by the launch site.
Engineers also contend the system, with its advanced technologies, will benefit the nation's high-tech industry by perfecting technologies that would make more efficient commuter rail systems, better batteries for cars and trucks, and numerous other spinoffs.
This artist's concept shows a potential design for a rail-launched aircraft and spacecraft that could revolutionize the launch business. Early designs envision a 2-mile-long track at Kennedy Space Center shooting a Mach 10-capable carrier aircraft to the upper reaches of the atmosphere. then a second stage booster would fire to lift a satellite or spacecraft into orbit. Credit: NASA/Artist concept
Different technologies to push a spacecraft down a long rail have been tested in several settings, including this Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) System evaluated at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Engineers have a number of options to choose from as their designs progress. Photo credit: NASA
EarthlingX":1i6gwmdx said:
http://www.nasa.gov : Emerging Technologies May Fuel Revolutionary Launcher
I don't see this fitting in with a cheap and easy way to Space. You could probably build a hundred conventional TSTO vehicles for the cost of the MagLev system.
The approach I favor for the immediate future is that of a carrier wing coupled with an orbiter. Neither of these components require any huge leap in technology or even extensive R&D. The carrier wing concept has already been proven by many successful launches of the Pegasus rocket from aircraft as well as Burt Rutan's famous sub-orbital flights from White Knight One.
The Russians have for some time been trying to find a customer to finance the construction of their heavy lift HERACLES carrier wing proposed by Molniya Corporation, which can be found here: http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm (Molniya Triplane Aircraft - HERACLES)
This carrier wing has a purported payload of 450 tons. The British (Reaction Engines Ltd.) have been developing their Skylon concept, which is intended to be a single-stage-to-orbit horizontally launched spaceplane. They're projecting that the take-off weight of this vehicle (the C-2 variant), fully fueled and with a 15 tonne payload, will be 345 metric tonnes. Their site can be found here: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html
It should be noted that the Skylon's proposed take-off weight and payload is based on the vehicle climbing to orbit from a standing start on a runway. Presumably the payload capacity and achievable orbital altitudes would be improved by an air launch at ~40,000 ft from a carrier wing cruising at ~500 mph. An air launch will virtually eliminate the Skylon's fuel requirement to get to the air launch altitude and speed, leaving more fuel for high altitude acceleration to orbital speeds. Also, there should be reduced landing gear structural (and weight) requirements - the fully laden Skylon at take-off (345 tonnes) would be in "captive-carry" mode. This should allow the landing gear to be designed more specifically to its weight on an Earth-return landing (~53 tonnes).
I believe a marriage of these two concepts can produce an affordable and fully reusable space taxi to and from LEO without having to "re-invent the wheel". If this approach is coupled with our established capability to produce heavy lift cargo rockets, we will have in our grasp the means by which to start building the infrastructure needed to go to the moon and elsewhere.
As far as I can see, the major problem we face is not lack of technology, but lack of funding. If this sort of project could be sold on the premise that it's needed for "national defense" it would be a lot easier. Unfortunately, the "space race" no longer seems to as important as it once was to the super powers.
annodomini2
csmyth3025":ctgwzdzi said:
There's some abiguity over the Takeoff mass, the main page is saying 275 tonnes, the C2 version manual is saying 345 tonnes.
Sorry but relative to the cost of the vehicle and its development fuel is cheap, spending another $10-20Bil developing a 2nd aircraft to save maybe 20tons of fuel (its probably less and it's from the orbiters perspective) is naive.
The 2nd aircraft would use more fuel, simply due to the extra mass, there would need to be more ground support and maintenance such as the runway to allow this enormously heavy vehicle to take off. Which increases overheads.
Adding more complexity to the Skylon idea is pointless, as has been mentioned a fully reusable TSTO would be more cost effective than this idea.
I like where they are going with Skylon and with all new technologies there are risks, but they are answering the questions now with low cost research rather than wasting hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds/Euros (choose your preference) building the whole thing to find some unsolvable (perceived) technical challenge, e.g. X33.
annodomini2":36q5dim5 said:
There's some a[m]biguity over the Takeoff mass, the main page is saying 275 tonnes, the C2 version manual is saying 345 tonnes.
The 2nd aircraft would use more fuel, simply due to the extra mass, there would need to be more ground support and maintenance such as the runway to allow this enormously heavy vehicle to take off. Which increases overheads...
The C-2 variant is the most recent design iteration of the original (275 tonne) Skylon concept.
I think that I wasn't clear about value of the fuel and undercarriage weight savings. The Skylon, as proposed, has a limited deliverable payload to altitudes compatible with rendezvous with the ISS or other (future) space facilities at higher orbits. Any fuel and weight savings would presumably be applied towards extending its payload capacity and/or its maximum achievable orbit.
The object is to provide a vehicle that works well in the lower atmosphere (the carrier wing) and a vehicle that works well in the upper atmosphere and in space (Skylon). I think trying to design a vehicle that can do both will result in a compromise vehicle that that will not do either very well.
defiant101
how about mass driver? honestly anything other than a rocket, if we stick with rockets then i do not see how cheap access to space can happen........rockets in general will not help bring costs down in a huge way........maybe nasa should look into totally different methods or work and build upon ideas like mass drivers, or maybe x-prize can start a new competition where people submit ideas of how to make cheap access to space happen and then they will have to make a little demonstration of the concept.....i just do not see how rockets can open up space for everyone and everything....hopefully something good happens
Defiant 101,
A cheap and easy way to space has not much to do with focusing on a specific kind of technology, but tries to combine and/or integrate the advantages of different kinds of technologies to lower the launch cost costs exponentially. Rockets are not a part of the problem, but a part of the solution (with the focus on part). The main problem of orbital launch is we have not focused on any possible alternatives than the use of VT rockets alone until recently, although most of these other technologies have existed for decades or longer. As if there was a curse, most of the projects to combine rocket technology with other technologies have been cancelled out of short-sightedness, political gains or events (with the lowest point the assassination of Gerald Bull, the founder of the HARP project). Aerospace has always been a tool for the military and a showpiece for politicians. Projects to really lower the launch-costs into orbit never had the same glamour and appeal as for example the Apollo-project (and now Constellation). Although these smaller projects require relatively lower investments and are of strategic importance to the economy they are "expandable" for most politicians (unlike Constellation), because the public will not even notice when they are "terminated". In this case we want government support and not its guidance. That's why the development of these kinds of technologies can not stay in government hands alone and have to be fully privatized on the long run if we want those alternatives to come to fruition. That is also the reason why we never had a coherent space program for LEO: these kinds of smaller projects would also have pointed out that manned launch into orbit can be roughly divided in:
1. Ground-launch (launch assist for example a rocket sled launch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_sled_launch can be combined with airplane/rocket engines, Maglev and lasers),
2. The flight in the "blue" and "dark" sky (supersonic airplane & turboramjet technology)
3. The launch from "dark" sky into LEO (rocket technology and nowadays LACE or SABRE engines – airbreathing & altitude compensation).
It would not only have meant the combination of fairly common (old) technologies, but also would have meant that the transition from civilian airplane industry into the civilian aerospace could have taken place decades ago with a viable business/R&D model. What we don't need is an Apollo project on steroids, but a supersonic airplane industry on steroids. Imagine that all the air/spaceports have runways with a launch assist, which decreases the need of large wings (weight & drag) and allows supersonic carrier airplanes to be fuel-efficient even during take off speed. The carrier airplanes for orbiters would only be needed in spaceports that are close to sea-level. Spaceports that are situated at least 2 miles above sea-level (with lower air-pressure) can have a more powerful launch assist and could allow the orbiters to become reusable SSTO's especially when those spaceports are situated near the equator. Cargo-launch into orbit for water, fuel, food and small satellites could even be easier by combining canon, (laser-) and rocket-technology (for example the HARP and SHARP project). If we take into account that most of the future space-stations and lunar colonies in the first instance will be heavily depended on supplies from mother earth then these kinds of systems whether chemical or laser could resupply future space-station and colonies regularly at a small fraction of current prices.
Interesting to see the Skylon launching from KSC, given the cool reception NASA gave the original HOTOL! However in reality airbreathing systems for space launch face a significant disadvantage in that the efficiency of an airbreathing system is highly dependent on speed and altitude, while a launch vehicle accelerates continuously and gets out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible. At the moment a two-stage rocket with both stages liquid fueled, capableof runway landing and fully reusable seems more feasible.
vulture4":2omd20ex said:
Interesting to see the Skylon launching from KSC, given the cool reception NASA gave the original HOTOL!...
Did you read somewhere that there are plans to launch the Skylon from KSC? As far as I know, the Skylon only exists on paper.
neutrino78x
You could do a balloon and/or airship (zepplin) launched rocket too!!!
YouTube of a balloon rocket.
--Brian


I am looking forward to the power of the full moon shortly, can you feel the energy increasing? Here are the moon phases for June 2015 for you so that you can plan your month accordingly. Living life within the phases of the moon allows your life to flow with much greater eases. As the moon wanes during the first week in June try to spend the time withdrawing a little, contemplating more and perhaps de cluttering your life a little. At the new moon on the 18th June this is a perfect time to start new projects and as the moon waxes during the second half of June you may find you have more energy so use that energy to push projects forward, connect with friends and family and be creative.
This moon in June was popularly called the Strawberry Moon or Rose Moon because of the time of the year. This full moon was seen as very spiritual by Buddhists as it was the full moon when Buddha died and received enlightenment. Bright Moon, Seed Moon and Planting Moon are other popular names. Our ancestors lived their lives a lot more in tune with the moon and we have much to learn from their cultures.


text:
Home Arts & Culture Todd About Town: January 2018 Edition
Todd About Town: January 2018 Edition
Entertainment reporter Todd Walker gives the scoop on the social scene in the Twin Cities.
by Todd Walker
Illustration by Randall Nelson
That's a wrap . . . 2017 is in the books and we've closed out another year. We're a philanthropic community, but we also know how to celebrate our Bold North spirit.
Recently, Dawn of a Dream, a gala benefitting Children's Cancer Research Fund, was held at The Minneapolis Depot, adjacent to the newly renovated Renaissance Hotel. CNN correspondent Ed Lavandera was the emcee for the evening. Karen Sorbo, our local auctioneer superstar who has risen to national prominence, led the live auction. Former Minnesota Vikings linebacker Chad Greenway, and his charming wife Jennifer, worked the room, sharing insights and fielding questions from guests about Super Bowl LII at U.S. Bank Stadium. Chad would be the guy to ask—he's the volunteer ambassador for Super Bowl LII Crew 52. The gala raised more than $950,000.
If you've been seeing global prints, skin illusion effects in clothing, and red taking over the Twin Cities, it's probably because these fashionistas attended Fashionopolis, Mpls.St.Paul Magazine's annual fashion event. The show's brainchild and emcee for the evening was style maven Allison Kaplan. Eleven local designers created a T-shirt and street wear ensemble supporting this year's focus: global street fashion. The demise of Nicollet Mall's Macy's brought back memories of past fashion event Glamorama, which hit Minneapolis every August until 2014. However most would agree that it had begun to diminish as the Macy's brand began its eminent decline. Lament no more, I say. The show's fashion and style catalyst Grant Whittaker brought back the original razzle and dazzle that most remember from the early days when Dayton's department store introduced us to a little charity/fashion event called A Cause for Applause.
See you on the scene!
Entertainment reporter Todd Walker covers the gala a social circuit for Mpls.St.Paul Magazine. Look for him at events and weekly on FOX 9 News.
Read more by Todd Walker
More Art & Culture
The arts and entertainment blog. Read more


text:
Boys Development Squad
Girls Development Squad
Under 10's
Joins Girls Football
Football is the world's most popular team sport and a great way of having fun and keeping fit with friends, old and new. Whilst football can be played in different formats, from 5-a-side to futsal to 11-a-side, indoors and out, it must always be about having fun.
As football is a game of teamwork and individual skills, offering a rewarding experience for all who participate, The Badgers have learnt that girl's prefer to play with, girls. We tailor our training sessions to suit girls because we know FA studies suggest that girls generally tend to think faster and further ahead than boys.
Over the years we have realised that most girls prefer to play football amongst themselves, separate from the boys, which is why within L&BBFC we created a Girls Development Squad, to run alongside that of the Boys. However, we also realise that not all girls would agree with this, which is why we also continue to offer girls the opportunity to join in with our boys' squads, within current FA guidelines!
We hope that by introducing football to girls in this way, they will feel more comfortable in participating, and therefore, hopefully join and remain a part of our set up for some time thereafter. In time we hope that sufficient girls will join us, and with the help of parental volunteers, we also hope to then be able to enter and sustain girls' football squads, in local girls' leagues and other competitions.
If you are aged four years or over and would like the chance to learn, play, and enjoy football, no matter what your ability, in a safe and structured environment, then why not come and join our Girls Development Squad at our Ralph's Field Stadium, 9.00a.m. till 10.15 a.m., every Saturday morning? To find us, check out the directions given via our 'Venues' page, or, if you want to find out more about what we can offer girls, please contact the relevant club coaching staff via our 'Who's Who' page.
All ages and abilities are welcome, because it really does not matter how good you are or even if you have never played football before. Come along and have a go!
Interested to Join?
Please use below form to contact us & our member of staff will contact you shortly!
I agree for LBBFC to store my data
GIRLS TEAM COACH
Danielle Miles-Ranger
badgerfamily@lbbfc.com
Ralph's Field Stadium, 9.00a.m. – 10.15 a.m, Saturdays
Typically Wednesday & Thursdays – 1830 – 2030
Welcome to the website of Leigh and Bransford Badgers Football Club. Established in 2001 by parents who wanted a new football adventure for their children, and the youngsters in and around the area of Leigh in Worcestershire.
Ralph's Field Stadium, Leigh Sinton Nr Worcester, WR13 5EQ
Copyright (c) 2018 , L&BBFC
Terms & conditions GDPR Compliance Privacy Policy


text:
A Subservient S4C
Labels: BBC, Broadcasting, Language, S4C
I am not entirely surprised by the reaction of S4C to the funding deal that has recently been announced, but I am very disappointed by it. To me, the S4C Authority has lost all backbone in standing up for itself. The change of Chair and the announcement of a new Chief Executive seems if anything to have given it a more supine attitude. This is an organization that has not only accepted a position of subservience to the BBC, but seems satisfied with it.
I've written about S4C on may occasions (click here for the posts), but reducing this to three bullet points:
• S4C should not have escaped cuts to funding, but those cuts should not have been more severe than for the BBC
• a replacement funding formula needed to be agreed and set out in law
• S4C should have complete independence from the BBC
Against each of these criteria, S4C has come out badly.
Proportionate cuts
As I noted in this post in May, S4C has suffered a cut in funding of about 24% compared with the BBC's cut of 16% [as Dai Toms notes in the comments below, the actual BBC cut is less than this, making the discrepancy worse than I thought]. Nothing has happened to change this fundamental unfairness in the way the two public service broadcasters have been treated. When I wrote that post, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee had just published its report, in which they made exactly the same point:
98. Any reduction in S4C's funding should be comparable to other public service broadcasters. We call on the DCMS to ensure that this is the case.
As I said at the time, the deal had been agreed between the BBC and DCMS, so the best way of dealing with the shortfall would be to increase the DCMS subvention. I reckoned this would be in the order of £10m, but the Tories and LibDems on the WASC failed to get even this concession from their government.
A replacement funding formula
In the BBC/DCMS agreement, funding for S4C was only set out until 2015. It did not address long-term funding. I agree entirely with what the WASC had to say on the matter in their report:
100. We recommend that the Government confirms the funding of S4C beyond 2014-15 as soon as possible. Without this certainty, S4C will not reasonably be able to develop its future strategy. Therefore, we believe that it is essential that there is a long term funding formula enacted in primary legislation.
Again, the Westminster government has completely ignored this recommendation. What we have is a situation in which the proportion of S4C's funding received from the television licence fee after 2015 will be entirely determined by the BBC without reference to anyone else.
There is no reason for S4C to have accepted this as passively as they have. The sanction open to S4C was that if it could not agree a funding arrangement with the BBC it could refuse it and the licence fee would be reduced by an equivalent amount. This would mean that the BBC would not get an unfair windfall by using S4C's money for something else; but would have meant that S4C would need to be funded by the Treasury through general taxation as it has been up to now. Of course there might be disagreement on what that sum should be, but it would at least have been decided by a democratically elected government rather than an unelected BBC.
Yet S4C has rolled over and agreed to give this up and put itself entirely at the mercy of the BBC for the bulk of its future funding. I think they are complete fools to do this. Of course the figures announced for 2016 and 2017 are not too bad (although they're not too good either, for although the licence fee is frozen the number of licences increases by about 100,000 each year) but there is absolutely no guarantee what the BBC will do when its next funding settlement is agreed for the period after 2017.
As I've said before, I think the idea of S4C getting the bulk of its funding from the television licence fee is a clever idea, for if done with the right safeguards it would ensure that the BBC and S4C, as publicly funded public service broadcasters, would in future be treated equally. In my opinion what should have been agreed was that S4C would receive a fixed percentage of the licence fee income. S4C have now contracted themselves into a future funding relationship with the BBC without having any idea what the BBC will do after 2017. They've shown all the gullibility of someone suckered into a long term contract purely on the basis that they get a good deal for the first few months.
Independence from the BBC
The consequences of letting the BBC decide S4C's funding are severe. If the television licence fee had been top-sliced as recommended by the WASC, S4C would have been free to do what it wanted with the money, subject only to its proper democratic accountability to government. But because S4C has now allowed the BBC to determine its income, it becomes necessary for the BBC to have representation within S4C to see that what it will now regard as its own money is well spent. The idea is as ridiculous as letting representatives from rival television channels such as ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky have representation on the board of the BBC. And although the details are not entirely clear, the BBC will also have a say on the appointment of the other members of the Authority.
If the BBC are allowed to put their own representative on the S4C Authority and influence the make up of the remainder of the S4C authority, then S4C is no longer independent, irrespective of the funding arrangements.
For all the BBC's protestations about allowing S4C to be independent, what the BBC mean is operational independence, in BBC-speak, that's the same sort of independence that, say, BBC2 has within the BBC. That's not independence, that's a very short leash.
At this point I should perhaps touch again on cooperation between the BBC and S4C. I am all in favour of cooperation, especially when it has the potential to reduce overheads and duplication. But cooperation should be something that is agreed rather than imposed. S4C will not be able to stand up for itself and its interests in the sort of relationship that has now been agreed.
The sad fact is that the BBC is no good friend of the Welsh language. In fact it has a very poor track record. To repeat what I said in this post, we need to be under no illusions that the BBC can be particularly ruthless in pursuit of its ends, especially when its own back is against the wall. In October last year, it made the unilateral announcement that it would cut spending on the Welsh language programmes it provides to S4C from £23.5m to £19.5m.
The BBC would no doubt say that is was at that time providing about 12 hours a week of Welsh language programming to S4C, and that it was only legally obliged to provide 10. But when S4C was first set up in 1982 there were only three other free-to-air channels available (BBC1, BBC2 and ITV) plus non-peak Channel 4 programming. In 1982, the BBC could not have broadcast more than about 36 hours a day; but now, on a typical day, the BBC broadcasts about 140 hours of programming to Wales, i.e. about four times as much as it broadcast in 1982. When repeats are taken into account the amount of original programming will be rather less, but I'm sure the BBC is producing or commissioning at least three times more English language output than it was in 1982. If they had treated English and Welsh on the basis of equality, it would mean they should now be providing about 30 hours a week of original programming to S4C. This would cost them about £60m a year.
So yes, the BBC does need to have a significant input into how more television programmes in Welsh are made, but a more equitable arrangement would be for them to have full control over how their 30 hours of programming a week, paid for out of the share of the licence fee that is given to them, is produced; but for S4C to have full control over how the percentage of the licence fee that is given to them is used.
But what hope is there of that now? As the BBC reported in the first link I gave everyone is falling over themselves to say how good a deal it is ... but that is of course understandable, for the BBC are the big winners. Yet this puts those of us who want to see a strong, independent S4C into an awkward position.
What's the point of fighting for something better if S4C themselves are not prepared to sound one note of disappointment with either the deal, or with the government in Westminster that has refused to make the changes recommended by even its own MPs on the WASC? We could have taken this crisis in Welsh language broadcasting as an opportunity to improve S4C, but we seem to have ended up with something even worse than before: bigger cuts than at the BBC resulting in less programming, an S4C that is now firmly under the control and in the pocket of a BBC with a track record of treating Welsh less favourably than English, and an S4C that isn't prepared to kick up a fuss about the unfairness.
Dafydd Tomos said...
I agree completely. What's worrying is that the BBC also state that the expect more 'efficiencies' to be taken with S4C similar to what has happened within the BBC, even though S4C will already be making that 24% cut (which is a direct cut in programming, since you can't get that just through reducing administrative overheads).
The BBC wastes no time in building its empire, and I fear it will slowly absorb much of the technical and administrative aspects of running S4C as a broadcaster (and as a multimedia entity as well). S4C may have an independent board and commissioners, but in company terms, its majority shareholder is now the BBC. S4C may remain as a brand, but I think it will be difficult in future to call it an independent broadcaster.
Dai Toms said...
"As I noted in this post in May, S4C has suffered a cut in funding of about 24% compared with the BBC's cut of 16%."
These figures are incorrect. The BBC's budget is being frozen in cash terms. The 16% cut referred to is based on the effect of inflation. S4C is facing a cash cut of 24%, in real terms the cut is over 40%. In other words, the disparity between the S4C and BBC cuts is even greater than you have reported.
To give a shamless 'plug', Menna Richards, former Head of BBC Wales will give the annual Welsh Political Archive Lecture at The National Library of Wales at 5.30 Friday evening, 4 November.
The title of her talk will be:
'"I settled Wales last Thursday" - a view from the frontier of broadcasting'
Apparently, the quote is by Lord Reith.
Should be an interesting lecture. All welcome.
http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=158
Siôn
Dai, the 16% cut for the BBC was based on what used to be funded from general taxation but will now be funded from the licence fee, such as the World Service and S4C. Inflation was not taken into account in either figure. But of course you're right to say that in real terms the cuts are greater.
Also, as I said, the income from the licence fee will keep rising (by maybe £15m a year) because of the increase in the number of households. So while the money the BBC is giving S4C is going down from £76.3m in 2013/14 to £74.5m in 2016/17, the money the BBC will get from their share of the licence fee will actually be going up, at least in cash terms. That is blatantly unfair.
Thanks, Siôn. I wonder if it's the equivalent of "If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium." For those who can't make it, I'm sure the transcript will be online in due course, as the past lectures are. Perhaps you could persude the powers that be to record it and put that online too.
No MH, you're wrong.
"The BBC's funding is being cut by 16% in real terms."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/20/bbc-licence-fee-spending-review
The extra funding commitments amount to approx 8% of the BBC's budget.
Also, read this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/neilmidgley/100009244/the-day-the-bbc-trust-got-its-figures-wrong/
OK, Dai. It clearly isn't true that the 16% is based wholly on inflation, which was the point I thought you had made. At least some of the effective cut is due to S4C, the World Service and BBC Monitoring, and according to the Guardian link the total of these three is just short of £400m. Therefore with a licence fee income of just less than £3.6bn the cut would be about 11%, though less if less is allocated to the three.
So thank you. It makes the 24% cut to S4C even less justifiable. I'm very disappointed that no-one on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee is kicking up a fuss ... after all, it was their recommendation that S4C's cut in funding should be comparable to that of the BBC.
Wales takes the biggest hit
20% margin in favour of Catalan independence
HMS Blighty sinking low in the water
Salmond's Speech
What sort of kittens?
Correcting Confusion on Ynys Môn
What is Plaid Cymru for?
Beware the Ides of March
A formal end to violence in Euskadi
Half-hearted Unionism
How many questions will the Scots be asked?
Tri chais i Gymru
Follow the Tories on the NHS ... just this once
The Arc of Prosperity
David W D Cameron
L'asstjador de Paula Bonet és exculpat d'un altre cas d'assetjament a una dona
Boris Johnson on the chicken run?


In order to meet the customer requirement, we had prepared the slewing bearing E.950.20.00.as stocks to decrease the delivery time. You can choose the shipping sea or by aire terms.
and check whether there is any pollutant such as sand, coal dust or metal particle.


What does it feel like, to be missed?
What does it feel like, when someone asks you to please stay? To please not go away? And please hurry home?
What does it feel like to have someone who wants to be with you, just to be with you?
I want to feel like I will be missed.
I want to feel like I am missed.
I want someone to say, please stay.
When are you coming home? I miss you.
These are all the things I can't experience as a singleton and all the reasons I want to fall in love. To fall in love with someone who will love me back so much they miss the absence of me, even if it's only for a moment.
A reciprocal love, a love that is not to be missed.


Salva is dying help him!!!!!!
"The sun is too relentless and eternal"(Park52).
Quote"Now that Salva was without Uncle's care and protection , the group's attitude toward changed.Once again,they grumbled that he was too young and small,that he might slow them down or start crying again, as he had in the desert"(Park 65-66).
"There is no one left to help me.They think i'm weak and useless"(Park66).
Quote"The walking began again. Salva shook with terror inside and out .He clung to Uncle like a baby or a littlle boy,hanging on to his hand or shirtail when he could, never letting Uncle get farther than an arm's lenght away.He looked around constantly:Every movement in the grass was a lion stalking,every sillines a lion waiting to spirng"(Park40).
"Salva, i have a gun.I will shoot any lion that comes near"(Park41).
External Conflict (Man vs Nature) Setting: Akobo Desert Characters:Salva We Salva struggling in the desert.This conflict is external because it's Man vs Nature and the reason why it's Man vs Nature is because Salva is literary dying and is trying to survive in those extreme conditions which is desert and desert is part of the nature and Salva is man so this why it's Man vs Nature.
External Conflict (Man vs Nature) Setting: Akobo Desert Characters:Salva,Group We see that Group's attitude towards Salva is changed after Uncle's death became much worse they think he is useless and weak and they don't considered him an equal member of their group.It's an extrenal conflict because it's Man vs Society and it's Man vs Society because Group's attitude towards Salva is very bad you can celarly see that they are against Salva and group is considered society so this why it's Man vs Society.
Internal Conflict (Man vs Self) Setting: Southern Sudan Characters:Slava,Uncle We see that after Marial's death Salva is in very bad state of mind and he is trying not to go crazy and Uncle is trying to calm him down.It's an Internal Conflict because it's Man vs Self and it's Man vs Self because after Mariel's death Salva is in horrible state of mind and is trying not to go insane while Uncle is trying calm him down so we Salva struggling mentally which considered Man Vs Self.


"This is a criminal proceeding and not a public-relations campaign," declared the federal judge presiding over Roger Stone's arraignment last week. But the evidence indicates otherwise—and that's one reason why the conspiracy theories Stone and others are promoting may prove so difficult to dispel.
Leaving the courthouse that day, Stone flung his arms out into a Nixonian V for victory—the second time he had made use of the former president's signature gesture in recent weeks, after striking the pose on the steps of the federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, following his arrest. The Daily Caller—where Stone writes as the "men's fashion correspondent"—soon uploaded a video of Stone providing winking advice on "how to dress for your arraignment." Meanwhile, Stone has continued to make appearances on cable-news outlets from Fox News to CNN, and found time to sit down with his colleagues at the fringe website Infowars. He is selling T-shirts that read Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong! along with "Roger Stones" (pieces of rock with his signature on them), and aggressively soliciting donations for his legal-defense fund.
These are good times to be Roger Stone—which might seem like a strange thing to say about someone indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But Stone is only the most recent person to treat ending up on the wrong side of the Mueller investigation as a star turn. In November 2018, Stone's former Infowars colleague Jerome Corsi leaked what appeared to be documents relating to a draft plea agreement between himself and the special counsel's office, and is now selling a book on How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller's "Witch Hunt." George Papadopoulos, a Donald Trump–campaign foreign-policy adviser and the first person to plead guilty in the Mueller investigation, went straight from expressing remorse before a judge to spinning murky conspiracy theories on Twitter about his persecution at the hands of the deep state. He, too, has a book coming out.
Despite what the judge in Stone's case might argue, in other words, being charged with a crime—or, in Corsi's case, almost charged with one—does actually turn out to be an excellent public-relations opportunity. For people in the greater Trump orbit, the publicity of a legal clash with Mueller provides a chance to tap into the thriving marketplace of fringe pro-Trump media. Disinformation in America is a business. And the profit to be turned from that business is a warning sign that the alternative stories of the Mueller investigation spun by the president's supporters will have a long shelf life.
The connections between Jones, Stone, Corsi, and the president are well documented. Trump appeared on Jones's show during the 2016 election, declaring, "I will not let you down." In 2011, he spoke with Corsi regarding President Obama's birth certificate, Mother Jones reported. While the extent to which Corsi and Jones remain in touch with Trump is unclear, they don't have to be communicating personally in order to influence the president. As Warzel writes, the "conservative media food chain … frequently aggregates and propagates Infowars stories." A study from the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University refers to this as an "attention backbone," through which material from Infowars and other fringe outlets travels through outlets such as The Daily Caller and Breitbart News to end up on Fox News. Corsi's and Stone's complaints about mistreatment by Mueller's team—originally aired, in Stone's case, on Infowars—were both picked up by Fox. If there is good business in misinformation, in other words, there is also good business in laundering that misinformation into quasi-respectable shape for the consumption of viewers, including the president.
Crucial to Papadopoulos's success is his apparent grasp of a foundational principle of the pro-Trump media universe: "The only rule seems to be not to let yourself disappear," Warzel told me, describing the playbook he views as popularized by Jones. "All press is good press, and scandal is the best possible." In this view, the ultimate aim of these grifts may be not only money but also attention. Whatever the immediate financial rewards they've achieved, Stone and Corsi have succeeded in keeping themselves on television.
According to the special counsel's sentencing memo, Papadopoulos seems to have been little more than a bit player in a much larger story. But his portentous tweets have made him a minor star on the fringes of right-wing media. The self-styled victim of the conspiracy of the moment—the deep-state plot, spearheaded by Mueller, to take down Trump—can do, it seems, quite well for himself.
Anyone can read the court documents spelling out the cases against the three men, and yet Stone has been able to sell the idea that, according to his T-shirts, he "Did Nothing Wrong!" and is accused of mere "process crimes" engineered by an overaggressive prosecutor. (In a flourish of showmanship, he appears to have been wearing one of the T-shirts announcing his innocence when arrested by the FBI.) Despite Mueller's detailed account of Papadopoulos's interactions with a Russian government agent promising "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," Papadopoulos has told a parallel story in which the real collusion involves some opaque and dreadful conspiracy between the U.S. deep state, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Corsi has gone further, preemptively leaking his draft plea agreement and hawking a book detailing his version of events.
Whatever form any report issued by the special counsel's office eventually takes, it's anyone's guess whether it will have the narrative weight to counteract the pull of conspiracy theories. Perhaps the moment when Stone faces consequences and enters prison, or begins to cooperate with Mueller, is the moment when the grift falls to Earth. Or perhaps he's good enough at selling himself as a martyr to keep his version of the story going. After all, he's spent the past 45 years turning Watergate from blemish to selling point. In a sense, he's been preparing for this his entire life.


text:
Q: How do I partition a new hard drive with no OS? Windows 7 I have an Acer Aspire desktop whose hard drive went bad. I installed a new 1T Seagate Barracuda (which replaced a 750M Barracuda). I made recovery disks when I first got the desktop, but when I put disk 1 in, it gets to the recovery options page and won't let me select an option (one is to format the disk and the other is to format it and retain the user files). All I can select is "Exit," which of course restarts the whole process. Is this because it's not partitioned? If so, how do I partition a disk that doesn't yet have a functioning OS on it? Thanks!

A: As was found out in the comments to the question in discussion between Jason and McScribble, the problem was caused by the hard disk drive not being connected.

A: The Acer Recovery Management software will partition the drive automatically.
The fact that it's not giving you a recovery option is an indication that it's not detecting a hard drive being present.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
<?php

namespace AppBundle\Form;

use Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType;
use Symfony\Component\Form\FormBuilderInterface;
use Symfony\Component\OptionsResolver\OptionsResolverInterface;

class AnnuncioType extends AbstractType
{
    /**
     * @param FormBuilderInterface $builder
     * @param array $options
     */
    public function buildForm(FormBuilderInterface $builder, array $options)
    {
        $builder
            ->add('referente',null,array("label"=>"Nome e Cognome"))
            ->add('titolo')
            ->add('email')
            ->add('telefono')
            ->add(
                'tipo',
                'choice',
                array('choices' => array('COMPRO' => 'COMPRO', 'VENDO' => 'VENDO'))
            )
            ->add('descrizione','textarea');
    }

    /**
     * @param OptionsResolverInterface $resolver
     */
    public function setDefaultOptions(OptionsResolverInterface $resolver)
    {
        $resolver->setDefaults(
            array(
                'data_class' => 'AppBundle\Entity\Annuncio'
            )
        );
    }

    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getName()
    {
        return 'appbundle_annuncio';
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
War Without Victory
Read the Book
Words blow away Pentagon smokescreen
about Sara Flounders
Articles by Sara Flounders
Interviews with Sara Flounders
Events featuring Sara Flounders
The Pentagon — the climate elephant
by pault on September 17, 2014
Expose the Pentagon, the world's largest & most dangerous climate criminal!
By Sara Flounders on September 14, 2014
Originally published at http://www.iacenter.org/environment/pentagon-climate091614/
download this article as a PDF
There is an elephant in the climate debate that by U.S. demand cannot be discussed or even seen. This agreement to ignore the elephant is now the accepted basis of all international negotiations on climate change.
It is well understood by every possible measurement that the Pentagon, the U.S. military machine, is the world's biggest institutional consumer of petroleum products and the world's worst polluter of greenhouse gas emissions and many other toxic pollutants. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.
Ever since the Kyoto Accords or Kyoto Protocol negotiations in 1998, in an effort to gain U.S. compliance, all U.S. military operations worldwide and within the U.S. are exempt from measurement or agreements on reduction. The U.S. Congress passed an explicit provision guaranteeing U.S. military exemptions. (Interpress Service, May 20, 1998)
The complete U.S. military exemption from greenhouse gas emissions calculations includes more than 1,000 U.S. bases in more than 130 countries around the world, its 6,000 facilities in the U.S., its aircraft carriers and jet aircraft. Also excluded are its weapons testing and all multilateral operations such as the giant U.S. commanded NATO military alliance and AFRICOM, the U.S. military alliance now blanketing Africa. The provision also exempts U.S./UN-sanctioned activities of "peacekeeping" and "humanitarian relief."
After gaining this giant concession the U.S. government still refused to sign the Kyoto Accord, thus sabotaging years of international effort at an agreement.
The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol nevertheless became the basis of all future proposed international meetings on a climate treaty, including Copenhagen 2009, Cancun, 2010, Durban 2011, Doha 2012 and the United Nations upcoming 21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change meeting in Paris in 2015.
In all past international conferences it was again and again the U.S. government that sabotaged the meetings and refused to be bound by any treaty. The Obama Administration on Aug. 27 again confirmed that at the UN meeting in New York in September to prepare for the 2015 Paris meeting that only a non-binding agreement could be put forward.
Role of grassroots activists
Unless the climate activists at the grassroots level challenge this exemption of the U.S. military and begin to focus a laser light on the most dangerous source of global warming and climate change, the movement will be lost in vague generalities, utopian hopes and toothless accords.
The only hope that the mass outpouring in September in New York will have an impact is if independent voices can begin to consciously challenge the greatest global polluter.
Exposing the horrendous social costs of U.S. militarism must also be part of the challenge. Washington's military role acts to constantly reinforce at every level the repressive state apparatus.
For decades, and at an accelerated pace since 2001, the military has provided an endless stream of free war equipment to local city and state police, National Guard units and sheriffs' offices. Youth of oppressed nations within the U.S. become targets of a vastly expanded police state. The fresh images of tanks and armored police in Ferguson confirmed for millions the results of this racist policy.
Exposing the devastation of U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya is essential. These U.S. wars have contaminated the soil and water of vast regions under U.S. occupation with depleted uranium, benzene and trichloroethylene from air base operations and Perchlorate, a toxic ingredient in rocket propellant.
More than 1,000 military sites in the U.S. are filled with these toxins, topping the Superfund list of contaminated sites. The poorest communities, especially communities of color, are the most severely impacted by this continuing military poisoning.
It is essential to connect the Pentagon exemption from international negotiations to its primary role as the protector and expander of corporate power on a global scale. The most powerful and profitable corporations are the oil and military corporations; these are the other primary polluters.
Pentagon admits climate change
Unlike the climate change deniers, the Pentagon's own published studies confirm the danger to the planet. But U.S. officer corps is committed to what they call full spectrum dominance. So every study of climate change by the military planners is based on evaluating how to take advantage of the future crisis to more firmly entrench U.S. corporate power and protect the irrational capitalist system that has created this crisis.
The Pentagon studies are not on plans to deliver emergency aid in the face of climate disasters such as floods, droughts, famines, epidemics, typhoons, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, water shortages and damage to infrastructure. Their war colleges and think tanks' plans are on how to extract political concessions on docking rights and future military access during a besieged countries' hour of greatest emergency need.
For example the U.S. Department of Defense releases every four years a broad outline of U.S. military strategy. The 2014 Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review describes the threat of climate change as "a very serious national security vulnerability." This QDR discusses how to maintain global U.S. military hegemony in the face of ever worsening global climate disruptions. (tinyurl.com/pn4awm8)
The military officer caste is focused on maintaining Wall Street rule and capitalist property relations during a crisis. There is concern with preserving the authority of their puppets, allies and collaborators.
"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating."
"The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities… The Department's operational readiness hinges on unimpeded access to land, air, and sea training…"
Military and corporate planning is callously focused on how to take advantage of the life-threatening changes.
A most frightening example is the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. This White House Report opens by praising the Arctic as "an amazing place." But then quickly defines the need for focusing on strategic priorities to meet the challenges and opportunities ahead.
The essence of the report is that the melting of the polar ice cap and the "new Arctic environment" means "ocean resources are more readily accessible as sea ice diminishes." This is an opportunity to access the vast untapped oil, gas and mineral resources and increase the flow of fossil fuels — big profits for big oil. (tinyurl.com/cw2dvhk)
In 2014 the Center for Naval Analysis issued a study titled: "National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change." This report, a follow-up report to their 2007 report, prepared by eleven retired generals and admirals sees climate change as the source of international instability and the greatest threat to the established capitalist order.
This study is not on how to use the enormous technological ability of the U.S. military machine to provide solutions or emergency assistance. Everything is posed in terms of national security in the face of alleged potential terror threats. (tinyurl.com/lreswx8)
Based on these reports and on the U.S. role in every climate meeting in over 20 years it is clear that U.S. corporate power and the monstrous military machine it has funded must become a focus of class-conscious climate activists. This would contribute greatly to an understanding of the source and the real solutions to this global crisis.
Pages:«1234567891011121314»
We want to make the ideas in this book available as widely as possible. Any properly attributed selection of part of a chapter within "fair-use" guidelines may be used without permission.


The North Dakota landscape is occasionally described as a stairway rising westward. It is not a long stairway, and each step certainly differs in height. Nevertheless, the stairway metaphor is a good descriptor.
Bird watchers of all ages and knowledge levels are helping ornithologists better understand the populations dynamics and movements of birds around the world, and you can be a part of the effort.
The Missouri River. The Wild Missouri. The big muddy! It is the longest river in North America and was the main artery in the Great Plains for Native Americans, and early traders and trappers.
Hope for a clear sky this next Wednesday the thirty-first. That is because there will be a full moon. But this is not your typical full moon.
Some of you may have heard that the first river otter trapping season of modern times in North Dakota closed in early December. The season opened back on November 27 and closed on December 4 when the statewide limit of 15 animals had been taken.
It is often this time of year, when the days are short, and temperatures are often below zero that the outdoors is not as inviting as we would prefer. That is when we often look to the bookshelf to help us out.
I recently saw a falcon-like bird. The sky was overcast, with poor lighting, so I was unable to get any good markings, but I suspect it may have been a merlin.
A few years ago, I was involved with an ecology exercise for elementary students. We waded out into a lake, scooped up some of the substrate with pie plates, and observed all the little critters that were hidden among the substrate and overlying detritus.
We have a fox living in our neighborhood. I haven't seen it now for several weeks. But I assume it is still in the area, because I have occasionally seen its tracks in the snow.
The landscapes in most areas look quite bare this time of year with all the leaves off the trees.


text:
Leisure, parks and culture
Basingstoke & Deane Today
Love Basingstoke
Planning and environment
Roads, parking and transport
Own home dream to become a reality
News release 9725, published on 18 Jun 2020
The dream of owning your own home is set to become reality for a number of the borough's residents thanks to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council's equity loan scheme.
Earlier this year the borough council launched its landmark Own Home Loan scheme, enabling those on the housing register to make that next step and buy their own home.
Using £580,000 of council money allocated to provide affordable housing, the loan scheme aims to support younger people living or working in the borough, with loans of up to £30,000 to reach the deposit required for a mortgage or to bridge the gap between their maximum mortgage offer and property purchase value.
A total of 20 loans have now been offered unlocking the opportunity for those successful applicants to move forward and buy their own home.
Those who were under 35 were given priority along with those who have been on the housing register for the longest period of time. It was available for single people, couples and those with children and can be used to purchase a new build or existing home.
Cabinet Member for Homes and Families Cllr Tristan Robinson said: "Home ownership is a dream and an aspiration for many young people across our borough who want to stay in the area where they grew up. For those working hard and struggling to save towards a deposit, the market can seem just that bit too far out of reach, and yet they do not qualify for any support.
"I know it's been a testing time over the past three months for many whose plans to move may have been halted as a result of the pandemic. I'm delighted we are able to play an important role in helping our residents to secure their own homes by offering 20 separate loans during these challenging times."
For more information on Basingstoke and Deane Own Home Loan visit www.basingstoke.gov.uk/own-home-loan


Rise and Energize! Amp up shower time with this light, airy foam made with 100% naturally sourced extracts. Now cleanse and glow!
I've never tried shower foam before and this was a nice surprise!! The foam feels so luxurious and soft! It lathers so well while keeping my skin hydrated. The smell is amazingly refreshing. Overall it's such a great product with great price.
So I was sampled this today and just tried it! It is so good and smells amazing it really work! I would definitely recommend this to use. It is also very lightweight.
I had the chance to try this amazing Shower Foam by St.Ives and I am in love with it! First of all, the smell is incredible! Also, it made my skin really soft and the texture is really nice! I will try the other fragrances for sure!
J'adore les nettoyant pour le corps St-Yves🌸 . Celui-ci sent vraiment l'été parfait pour le matin, c'est un petit boost pour bien commencé la journée, très vivifiant !! et il rend la peau très douce🍀🌱. On en a pas besoin de beaucoup, donc la bouteille (400 ml ) dur assez longtemps. Celui-ci n'est pas mon favorit, je préfère celui qui est fait avec le noix de coco 🥥 et l'orchidée PS: " je l'ai déjà essayé chez mes parents ", mais reste que je l'aime assez bien je vous le recommande si vous aimez les agrumes 🍊🍋 .
This product has a Lovely scent. It is Non irritating to my sensitive skin. I love shower products and this has become one of my very favourites. Love it.
It is such a nice change from the usual foaming and soaps because it's so different..the foam seams softer and fluffier. U get more produc with only one pump... and the smell is amazing.. so fresh.. not too powerful. Just right. I'll buy it again and again .
The quality is execellent, really loved everything about it!! Also, the smell was super great. I would definitely recommend it to friends and family!!


CalGETS services are offered at no cost to problem gamblers and affected individuals. Treatment services are provided as a stepped-care approach from brief interventions, self-help workbooks, one-on-one counseling and even residential care. Clients have the ability to choose the services that best fits their needs. All treatment services are confidential, and provided by licensed mental health providers specially trained in the treatment of problem gambling behavior.
A Whole New You - All rights reserved.


There are times I think I may need to have my head examined.
Tonight Dave Castro and Friends will meet in a guy's home garage gym, to announce and kick-off CrossFit Open 16.2.
Do you remember where were you 3 years ago, for 13.2? I wrote about it in detail, so I have a vivid recollection.
2013 was my first experience with the CrossFit Open. I had only been doing CrossFit about 6 months. I was totally enthralled by how my health and fitness had been transformed.
There was no scaled option back then. Every division has Rx, or Rx. I had no idea how emotional this first Open would be for me. I never considered myself a competitor, and little did I know that my nemesis was looking back at me from the mirror.
This post shares how I faced failure in 13.2 and how the community of CrossFit helped me overcome that failure, to rise to the challenge a couple days later.
My first attempt at this WOD was a colossal meltdown.
I went back to the box on Friday and worked on form with nothing but PVC pipe. Even with that, I was in pain. My wrists, elbows and shoulders were toasted the day before. I rested on Saturday.
On Sunday, I came back for more. I was determined to better my performance and through coaching and encouragement, I was able to increase my score by 300%.
With every Open workout I do seek to benchmark my improvement from previous years. But the primary reason I do the Open is my hope to rekindle that passion that I experienced that first year. Perhaps I will on Friday evening. How about you? Why do you do it?