text:
\section{Introduction}

In combinatorics on words, it's common to study repetitions in words. Three kinds of repetition are squares, overlaps, and cubes. A \emph{square} is a word of the form $XX$, where $X$ is a nonempty word; an example in English is ``hotshots''. An \emph{overlap} is a word of the form $xYxYx$, where $x$ is a letter and $Y$ is a possibly empty word; an example in English is ``alfalfa''. Finally, a \emph{cube} is a word of the form $XXX$, where $X$ is a nonempty word; an example in English is ``hahaha''.

A \emph{factor} of a word is a contiguous subword. For instance, every cube contains an overlap as a factor, and every overlap contains a square as a factor. We say that a word is \emph{squarefree} (respectively, \emph{overlap-free}, \emph{cubefree}) if none of its factors is a square (respectively, overlap, cube).

It's natural to ask over which alphabets there exist arbitrarily long squarefree, overlap-free, or cubefree words. It's easy to see that every binary word of length at least 4 contains a square. At the same time, over 100 years ago, Thue \cite{Thue1906, Thue1912} (see also \cite{Berstel1995}) proved that there are arbitrarily long overlap-free binary words and arbitrarily long squarefree ternary words. Thus, when studying squarefree words, we use a ternary alphabet, and when studying overlap-free and cubefree words, we use a binary alphabet, since these are the smallest alphabets for which the questions are interesting.

Recently, there has been interest in studying words that are only barely squarefree, overlap-free, or cubefree, for several senses of ``barely''. To this end, Grytczuk, Kordulewski, and Niewiadomski \cite{Grytczuk2020} introduced the notion of extremality. Namely, they defined an \emph{extremal} squarefree word to be a squarefree word such that inserting any letter from the alphabet into the word (possibly at the beginning or end) creates a square. The definition analogously extends to overlap-free and cubefree words. The same authors proved that there are infinitely many extremal squarefree ternary words. Mol and Rampersad \cite{MolRampersad} refined this result by determining for which lengths extremal squarefree ternary words exist; in particular, such words exist for all lengths at least 87. In the same vein, Mol, Rampersad, and Shallit \cite{MolRampersadShallit} determined for which lengths extremal overlap-free binary words exist. While there are infinitely many such words, they do not exist for all sufficiently large lengths. It remains unknown whether there are extremal cubefree binary words.

Harju \cite{Harju2021} introduced the notion of irreducibility as a dual to extremality. First, we say a letter in a word is \emph{interior} if it is not the first or last letter of the word. Then an \emph{irreducible} squarefree word is a squarefree word of length at least 3 such that removing any one of its interior letters creates a square. The definition again analogously extends to overlap-free and cubefree words. Notice that requiring the letter one removes to be interior is essential, because any squarefree, overlap-free, or cubefree word will remain so after removing the first or last letter. Harju proved that there is an irreducible squarefree ternary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 13\}$. We solve the analogous problems for irreducible overlap-free binary words and irreducible cubefree binary words with the following theorems, which are proved in Section~\ref{sec-irr}.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm-irr-over}
    There is an irreducible overlap-free binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{6, 8, 9, 10\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 12\}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem} \label{thm-irr-cube}
    There is an irreducible cubefree binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{10, 14, 18, 19, 20\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 22\}$.
\end{theorem}

As a third sense in which a word can be barely squarefree, overlap-free, or cubefree, we introduce the notion of delicacy. A \emph{delicate} squarefree word is a nonempty squarefree word such that changing any one of its letters to another letter from the alphabet creates a square. The definition again analogously extends to overlap-free and cubefree words. We determine the possible lengths of delicate squarefree ternary words, delicate overlap-free binary words, and delicate cubefree binary words with the following theorems, which are proved in Section~\ref{sec-del}.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm-del-sq}
    There is a delicate squarefree ternary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{5\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 7\}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem} \label{thm-del-over}
    There is a delicate overlap-free binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{m \mid m \geq 7\}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem} \label{thm-del-cube}
    There is a delicate cubefree binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{20, 21, 22, 29, 33, 34, 35\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 38\}$.
\end{theorem}

In Section~\ref{sec-ex-irr-del}, we exhibit an infinite family of overlap-free binary words that are simultaneously extremal, irreducible, and delicate.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm-ex-irr-del}
    There are infinitely many simultaneously extremal, irreducible, and delicate overlap-free binary words.
\end{theorem}

Finally, in Section~\ref{sec-k-del}, we conclude by introducing a natural generalization of delicacy and raising a question about it for further study.

\section{Irreducible Words} \label{sec-irr}

Let $\mu$ be the binary morphism defined by $\mu(0) = 01$ and $\mu(1) = 10$, and let $\mathbf{t} = \mu^\omega(0)$ be the Thue--Morse word, which is known to be overlap-free \cite{Thue1912}. For Theorem~\ref{thm-irr-over} we need the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}
    $010110 \mathbf{t}$ and $101001101001 \mathbf{t}$ are overlap-free.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Thue \cite{Thue1912} proved that for any word $w$, $w$ is overlap-free if and only if $\mu(w)$ is. Since $010110 \mathbf{t} = \mu(001 \mathbf{t})$ and $101001101001 \mathbf{t} = \mu(110110 \mathbf{t})$, it suffices to know that $001 \mathbf{t}$ and $110110 \mathbf{t}$ are overlap-free, which was proven by Allouche, Currie, and Shallit \cite{Allouche1998}.
\end{proof}

We now prove Theorem~\ref{thm-irr-over}, which says that there is an irreducible overlap-free binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{6, 8, 9, 10\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 12\}$.\footnote{Jeffrey Shallit has pointed out that this theorem can also be proven using the automated theorem prover Walnut.}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-irr-over}]
    First, suppose $n \in \{6, 10\}$. In this case we use one of the following words:
    \[
    \begin{tabular}{ c | l }
        6 & 010010 \\
        10 & 0100101101.
    \end{tabular}
    \]

    Now suppose $n \in \{8, 9\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 12\}$. Let $\mathbf{t}_k$ be the first $8k$ letters of $\mathbf{t}$. We claim that $\mathbf{t}_k$ is irreducible overlap-free. Observe that $T_0 = 01101001$ and $T_1 = 10010110$ are irreducible overlap-free. Since $\mathbf{t}_k$ is a concatenation of copies of $T_0$ and $T_1$, it suffices to verify that $T_0 T_0$, $T_0 T_1$, $T_1 T_0$, and $T_1 T_1$ are irreducible overlap-free. (We have incidentally proven that $\mathbf{t}$ is irreducible overlap-free.)

    We first prove the theorem when $n \not\equiv 7 \pmod 8$. We denote the length of a word $w$ by $|w|$. Let $k$ be the largest integer $k$ such that $|\mathbf{t}_k| \leq n$. If $n - |\mathbf{t}_k| = 0$, we're done. Otherwise, based on $n - |\mathbf{t}_k|$, we choose the word of the desired length from the following table.
    \[
    \begin{tabular}{ c | l }
        1 & $1 \mathbf{t}_k$ \\
        2 & $1001101001 \mathbf{t}_{k-1}$ \\
        3 & $01001101001 \mathbf{t}_{k-1}$ \\
        4 & $1001 \mathbf{t}_k$ \\
        5 & $01001 \mathbf{t}_k$ \\
        6 & $010110 \mathbf{t}_k$
    \end{tabular}
    \]

    The irreducibility of these words can be verified by removing the interior letters at the beginning one at a time and finding the overlaps in the resulting words. It follows from the lemma that these words are overlap-free.

    Next, we prove the result when $n \equiv 7 \pmod 8$ by giving a family of words that are irreducible overlap-free for $n \geq 39$ and $n \equiv 7 \pmod{16}$ and a family of words that are irreducible overlap-free for $n \geq 15$ and $n$ congruent to 15, 23, or 31 modulo 32. The first family is obtained by removing the first 14 letters of $\mathbf{t}$ and then taking prefixes, while the second is obtained by removing the first 15 letters of $\mathbf{t}$ and then taking prefixes. The words in these families are overlap-free since $\mathbf{t}$ is, so we only need to prove irreducibility.

    We prove irreducibility by induction on the length. The base cases can be verified. For the first family, we now show that appending the next 16 letters to a word in the family creates another irreducible overlap-free word. Notice that the next 16 letters must be of the form $z = X_1 T_i X_2$, where $X_1 \in \{001, 110\}$, $X_2 \in \{01101, 10010\}$, and $i \in \{0,1\}$. Not every combination of these is a possible value of $z$, however. First, $z \neq 001 T_0 01101$ and $z \neq 110 T_1 10010$ because they require $z$ to be from a factor of the form $T_0 T_0 T_0$ or $T_1 T_1 T_1$, respectively. Further, $z \neq 001 T_0 10010$ and $z \neq 110 T_1 01101$ because they require $z$ to be from a factor of the form $T_0 T_0 T_1$ or $T_1 T_1 T_0$, respectively, and such factors can only occur in $\mathbf{t}$ starting at an index congruent to 8 modulo 16. Thus, the only possibilities for $z$ are $001 T_1 01101$, $001 T_1 10010$, $110 T_0 01101$, and $110 T_0 10010$. In the first two cases, the 5 letters preceding them must be 01101, and these suffixes of length 21 are irreducible overlap-free. Similar reasoning holds for the latter two cases, in which case the 5 letters preceding them must be 10010.

    We now prove the induction hypothesis for the second family by showing that appending the next 32 letters to a word in the family creates another irreducible overlap-free word. The next 32 letters must be of the form $z = X_1 T_i T_j T_k X_2$, where $X_1 \in \{01, 10\}$, $X_2 \in \{011010, 100101\}$, and $i, j, k \in \{0,1\}$. Again, not every combination of these is a possible value of $z$. First, any combination that requires $z$ to be from a factor containing an overlap is impossible. Further, the combinations that require $z$ to be from a factor of the form $T_0 T_1 T_0 T_1 T_1$ or $T_1 T_0 T_1 T_0 T_0$ are impossible because such factors can only occur in $\mathbf{t}$ starting at an index congruent to 16 modulo 32. Finally, $\mathbf{t}$ contains no factors of the form $T_0 T_0 T_1 T_0 T_0$ or $T_1 T_1 T_0 T_1 T_1$. This leaves 10 possibilities for $z$. For each possibility, we can deduce the 6 letters preceding them (either 011010 or 100101), and the resulting suffixes of length 38 are irreducible overlap-free.

    For $n \not\in \{6, 8, 9, 10\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 12\}$, a computer search shows there are no irreducible overlap-free binary words of length $n$.
\end{proof}

For Theorem~\ref{thm-irr-cube}, we need the following lemmas due to Richomme and Wlazinski \cite[Corollary~1]{Richomme2000} and Shur \cite[Proposition~2.1]{Shur2012}, respectively.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem-cubefree-morph}
    A binary morphism preserves cubefreeness if and only if the images of all cubefree binary words of length 7 are cubefree.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma} \label{lem-tm-sq}
    No prefix of $\mathbf{t}$ is a square.
\end{lemma}

We now prove Theorem~\ref{thm-irr-cube}, which says that there is an irreducible cubefree binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{10, 14, 18, 19, 20\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 22\}$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-irr-cube}]
    First, suppose $n \in \{10, 14, 20, 24, 28\}$. In this case we use one of the following words:
    \[
    \begin{tabular}{ c | l }
        10 & 0100101101 \\
        14 & 01001011010010 \\
        20 & 01001010011001010010 \\
        24 & 010010100110010100101101 \\
        28 & 0100101001100101001011010010.
    \end{tabular}
    \]

    Now suppose $n \in \{18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 29\}$. Consider the following morphisms:
    \begin{align*}
        \varphi_1(0) &= 01100100101101001011010010 \\
        \varphi_1(1) &= 0110101100110101100101001100101001 \\
        \varphi_2(0) &= 01001011010010110100100110 \\
        \varphi_2(1) &= 1001010011001010011010110011010110.
    \end{align*}
    Notice that $\varphi_2(0)$ and $\varphi_2(1)$ are the reversals of $\varphi_1(0)$ and $\varphi_1(1)$, respectively. The images of all cubefree binary words of length 7 under $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ are cubefree, so by Lemma~\ref{lem-cubefree-morph}, $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ preserve cubefreeness. Further, $\varphi_i(0)$, $\varphi_i(1)$, $\varphi_i(00)$, $\varphi_i(01)$, $\varphi_i(10)$, and $\varphi_i(11)$ are irreducible cubefree for $i \in \{1, 2\}$, so applying $\varphi_1$ or $\varphi_2$ to a prefix of a cubefree binary word results in an irreducible cubefree binary word. Let $w_1$ and $w_2$ be the images of $\mathbf{t}$ under $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$, respectively, and let $w_{1,k}$ and $w_{2,k}$ be the images of the first $k$ letters of $\mathbf{t}$ under $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$, respectively. Notice that $|w_{1,k}| = |w_{2,k}|$.

    Let $k$ be the largest integer $k$ such that $|w_{1,k}| \leq n$. If $n - |w_{1,k}| = 0$, we're done. Otherwise, based on $n - |w_{1,k}|$, we choose a word of the desired length from the following table.
    \begin{longtable}{ c | l }
        1 & $1 w_{1,k}$ \\
        2 & $0100101001100101001011001010 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        2 & $010010100110010100101101001011010010 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        3 & $10110100101100101001100101001 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        3 & $0100101101100100101100101001100101001 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        4 & $0110 w_{2,k}$ \\
        5 & $01001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        6 & $10010100110010100101001100101001 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        6 & $0100101100100101101001011001001011010010 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        7 & $1001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        8 & $01001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        9 & $101101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        10 & $010010100110010100101101001011010010 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        10 & $01001011001001011010010110100101001100101001 w_{1,k-1}$ \\
        11 & $10010100110 w_{2,k}$ \\
        12 & $101101001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        13 & $0100101101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        14 & $01001011001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        15 & $101101011001101 w_{1,k}$ \\
        16 & $0100101101001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        17 & $01001010011001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        18 & $100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        19 & $0100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        20 & $01001011011001001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        21 & $100101001010011001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        22 & $0100101101001011010010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        23 & $10110100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        24 & $010010110100101101001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        25 & $0100101100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        26 & $01100100101101001011010010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        27 & $010010110100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        28 & $0100101001100101001011001010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        29 & $10110100101100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        30 & $100110110100101101001011011001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        31 & $0100101100100101101001011010010 w_{1,k}$ \\
        32 & $10010100110010100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$ \\
        33 & $010010100110010100101001100101001 w_{1,k}$
    \end{longtable}

    The irreducibility of these words can be verified by removing the interior letters at the beginning one at a time and finding the cubes in the resulting words. To prove that these words are cubefree, we need the following claim.

    \begin{claim}
        No prefix of $w_1$ or $w_2$ is an overlap.
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        We prove the stronger result that no prefix of $w_1$ or $w_2$ is a square. Suppose $w_1$ has a square prefix $XX$. Then $|X| \geq 8$. But in $w_1$, 01100100 occurs only at the beginning of $\varphi_1(0)$, so $XX$ must be the image of a square prefix of $\mathbf{t}$ under $\varphi_1$, which contradicts Lemma~\ref{lem-tm-sq}. Similarly, suppose $w_2$ has a square prefix $XX$. Then $|X| \geq 9$. But in $w_2$, 010010110 occurs only at the beginning of $\varphi_2(0)$, so we again have a contradiction.
    \end{proof}

    Now suppose one of the words in the above table contains a cube $XXX$. Then $XXX$ must start in the prefix (before $w_{1,k}$, $w_{1,k-1}$, or $w_{2,k}$), since $w_1$ and $w_2$ are cubefree. But one can verify that $X$ also can't be entirely within the prefix, so $X = PY$, where $P$ is a suffix of the prefix and $Y$ is a prefix of $w_1$ or $w_2$. Thus, $XXX = PYPYPY$, and $YPYPY$ is a prefix of $w_1$ or $w_2$, which contradicts the claim.

    For $n \not\in \{10, 14, 18, 19, 20\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 22\}$, a computer search shows there are no irreducible cubefree binary words of length $n$.
\end{proof}

\section{Delicate Words} \label{sec-del}

Let $\tau$ be the ternary morphism defined by $\tau(0) = 012$, $\tau(1) = 02$, and $\tau(2) = 1$, and let $\mathbf{v} = \tau^\omega(0)$ be the ternary Thue--Morse word, which is known to be squarefree \cite{Istrail1977}. For Theorem~\ref{thm-del-sq}, we need the following lemma.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem-2v}
    $2\mathbf{v}$ is squarefree.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Berstel \cite{Berstel1978} proved that $\mathbf{v}$ is equivalently characterized by letting the $i$-th letter be the number of 0s between the $i$-th and $(i+1)$-th 1s in $\mathbf{t}$. Thus, $2\mathbf{v}$ is defined by letting the $i$-th letter be the number of 0s between the $i$-th and $(i+1)$-th 1s in $10\mathbf{t}$. Since $10\mathbf{t}$ is overlap-free by a result of \cite{Allouche1998}, $2\mathbf{v}$ is squarefree.
\end{proof}

We also need the following lemma due to Crochemore \cite[Corollary~5]{Crochemore1982}.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem-squarefree-morph}
    A ternary morphism preserves squarefreeness if and only if the images of all squarefree ternary words of length 5 are squarefree.
\end{lemma}

We now prove Theorem~\ref{thm-del-sq}, which says that there is a delicate squarefree ternary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{5\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 7\}$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-del-sq}]
    Consider the following morphism:
    \begin{align*}
        \varphi(0) &= 01202120102 \\
        \varphi(1) &= 01210201021 \\
        \varphi(2) &= 01210212021.
    \end{align*}

    The images of all squarefree ternary words of length 5 under $\varphi$ are squarefree, so by Lemma~\ref{lem-squarefree-morph}, $\varphi$ preserves squarefreeness. Further, $\varphi(a)$ is delicate squarefree for $a \in \{0, 1, 2\}$, so applying $\varphi$ to a prefix of a squarefree ternary word results in a delicate squarefree ternary word. Let $w$ be the image of $\mathbf{v}$ under $\varphi$, and let $w_k$ be the image of the first $k$ letters of $\mathbf{v}$ under $\varphi$.

    Let $k$ be the largest integer $k$ such that $|w_k| \leq n$. If $n - |w_k| = 0$, we're done. Otherwise, based on $n - |w_k|$, we choose a word of the desired length from the following table.
    \[
    \begin{tabular}{ c | l }
        1 & $010210120102 w_{k-1}$ \\
        2 & $02 w_k$ \\
        3 & $102 w_k$ \\
        4 & $0121 w_k$ \\
        5 & $12021 w_k$ \\
        6 & $012102 w_k$ \\
        7 & $0212021 w_k$ \\
        8 & $02120121 w_k$ \\
        9 & $021012102 w_k$ \\
        10 & $1202120121 w_k$
    \end{tabular}
    \]

    The delicacy of these words can be verified by changing the letters at the beginning one at a time and finding the squares in the resulting words. We prove that these words are squarefree with the following claims.

    \begin{claim}
        $010210120102 w$ and $021012102 w$ are squarefree.
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        Suppose one of these words contains a square $XX$. Then $XX$ must start in the prefix (before $w$), since $w$ is squarefree. Further, one can verify that $X$ must contain the factor 20120, which is a contradiction, since $w$ does not contain this factor.
    \end{proof}

    \begin{claim}
        $0212021 w$ is squarefree.
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        This follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-2v}.
    \end{proof}

    \begin{claim}
        $1202120121 w$ is squarefree.
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        Suppose this word contains a square $XX$. Since $w$ does not contain 12101 as a factor, $XX$ is contained in $21 w$. But $21 w$ is squarefree by Lemma~\ref{lem-2v}, which is a contradiction.
    \end{proof}

    For $n \not\in \{5\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 7\}$, a computer search shows there are no delicate squarefree ternary words of length $n$.
\end{proof}

We now prove Theorem~\ref{thm-del-over}, which says that there is a delicate overlap-free binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{m \mid m \geq 7\}$.\footnote{Jeffrey Shallit has pointed out that this theorem can also be proven using the automated theorem prover Walnut.}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-del-over}]
    If $n = 9$, we use the word 001011001. Now suppose $n \in \{7, 8\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 10\}$. We use a construction for each residue class modulo 8. Based on the residue class, we use a prefix of $\mathbf{t}$ after removing the first $k$ letters, where $k$ is given by the following table.
    \[
    \begin{tabular}{ c | l }
        0 & $k = 0$ \\
        1 & $k = 7$ \\
        2 & $k = 6$ \\
        3 & $k = 13$ \\
        4 & $k = 12$ \\
        5 & $k = 3$ \\
        6 & $k = 10$ \\
        7 & $k = 1$
    \end{tabular}
    \]

    As factors of $\mathbf{t}$, these words are overlap-free. Their delicacy is shown by induction. The base cases can be verified. The induction hypothesis is simple because both $T_0$ and $T_1$ are delicate overlap-free.

    For $n \not\in \{m \mid m \geq 7\}$, a computer search shows there are no delicate overlap-free binary words of length $n$.
\end{proof}

We now prove Theorem~\ref{thm-del-cube}, which says that there is a delicate cubefree binary word of length $n$ if and only if $n \in \{20, 21, 22, 29, 33, 34, 35\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 38\}$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-del-cube}]
    First, suppose $n \in \{20, 33\}$. In this case we use one of the following words:
    \[
    \begin{tabular}{ c | l }
        20 & 00101001101001101011 \\
        33 & 001010011010011010110010110010100.
    \end{tabular}
    \]

    Now suppose $n \in \{21, 22, 29, 34, 35\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 38\}$. Consider the following morphism:
    \begin{align*}
        \varphi(0) &= 0110101100101100101001 \\
        \varphi(1) &= 1001010011010011010110.
    \end{align*}

    The images of all cubefree binary words of length 7 under $\varphi$ are cubefree, so by Lemma~\ref{lem-cubefree-morph}, $\varphi$ preserves cubefreeness. Further, both $\varphi(0)$ and $\varphi(1)$ are delicate cubefree, so applying $\varphi$ to a prefix of a cubefree binary word results in a delicate cubefree binary word. Let $w$ be the image of $\mathbf{t}$ under $\varphi$, and let $w_k$ be the image of the first $k$ letters of $\mathbf{t}$ under $\varphi$.

    Let $k$ be the largest integer $k$ such that $|w_k| \leq n$. If $n - |w_k| = 0$, we're done. Otherwise, based on $n - |w_k|$, we choose a word of the desired length from the following table.
    \[
    \begin{tabular}{ c | l }
        1 & $00101001101001101011001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        2 & $011001001100110110011001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        3 & $0010100110100110101101001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        4 & $00101001101001101011001010 w_{k-1}$ \\
        5 & $001010011010011010110010110 w_{k-1}$ \\
        6 & $0010100110100110101100101001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        7 & $01100100110011011001100100110 w_{k-1}$ \\
        8 & $001010011010011010110100101001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        9 & $0010100110100110101100101001010 w_{k-1}$ \\
        10 & $00101001101001101011001010011010 w_{k-1}$ \\
        11 & $001010011010011010110010110011001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        12 & $001010011010 w_k$ \\
        13 & $1001010011010 w_k$ \\
        14 & $001010011010011010110010100101001101 w_{k-1}$ \\
        15 & $0010100110100110101100100110011011001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        16 & $01100100110011011001100100110011011001 w_{k-1}$ \\
        17 & $00101001101001101 w_k$ \\
        18 & $100101001101001101 w_k$ \\
        19 & $1101011001011001010 w_k$ \\
        20 & $01101011001011001010 w_k$ \\
        21 & $001010011010011010110 w_k$
    \end{tabular}
    \]

    The delicacy of these words can be verified by changing the letters at the beginning one at a time and finding the cubes in the resulting words. To prove that these words are cubefree, we need the following claim.

    \begin{claim}
        No prefix of $w$ is an overlap.
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        We prove the stronger result that no prefix of $w$ is a square. Suppose $w$ has a square prefix $XX$. Then $|X| \geq 12$. But in $w$, 011010110010 occurs only at the beginning of $\varphi(0)$, so $XX$ must be the image of a square prefix of $\mathbf{t}$ under $\varphi$, which contradicts Lemma~\ref{lem-tm-sq}.
    \end{proof}

    Now suppose one of the words in the above table contains a cube $XXX$. Then $XXX$ must start in the prefix (before $w_k$ or $w_{k-1}$), since $w$ is cubefree. But one can verify that $X$ also can't be entirely within the prefix, so $X = PY$, where $P$ is a suffix of the prefix and $Y$ is a prefix of $w$. Thus, $XXX = PYPYPY$, and $YPYPY$ is a prefix of $w$, which contradicts the claim.

    For $n \not\in \{20, 21, 22, 29, 33, 34, 35\} \cup \{m \mid m \geq 38\}$, a computer search shows there are no delicate cubefree binary words of length $n$.
\end{proof}

\section{Extremal, Irreducible, and Delicate Overlap-free Binary Words} \label{sec-ex-irr-del}

For Theorem~\ref{thm-ex-irr-del}, we need the following lemma due to Mol, Rampersad, and Shallit \cite[Lemma~6]{MolRampersadShallit}.

\begin{lemma}
    If $w = w^\prime w^{\prime\prime}$ is an overlap-free binary word with $|w^\prime|, |w^{\prime\prime}| \geq 5$, then every extension $w^\prime a w^{\prime\prime}$ for $a \in \{0, 1\}$ contains an overlap.
\end{lemma}

We now prove Theorem~\ref{thm-ex-irr-del}, which says that there are infinitely many simultaneously extremal, irreducible, and delicate overlap-free binary words.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-ex-irr-del}]
    We define the following infinite family of words:
    \begin{align*}
        w_0 &= 01100110100110010110011010011001 \\
        w_{n+1} &= \mu(w_n).
    \end{align*}
    Since $w_0$ is overlap-free and $w$ is overlap-free if and only if $\mu(w)$ is for any word $w$ \cite{Thue1912}, we conclude that $w_i$ is overlap-free for all $i$. We complete the proof with the following claims.

    \begin{claim}
        $w_i$ is extremal overlap-free for all $i$.\footnote{The proof of this claim is similar to the proof of Lemma~12 in \cite{MolRampersadShallit}.}
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        The extremality of $w_0$ can be verified, so suppose $i \geq 1$. By the lemma, we only need to verify that every extension $w^\prime a w^{\prime\prime}$ for $a \in \{0, 1\}$ with $|w^\prime| \leq 4$ or $|w^{\prime\prime}| \leq 4$ contains an overlap. In fact, we only need to consider the case where $|w^\prime| \leq 4$, because when $i$ is even, $w_i$ is the complement of its reversal, and when $i$ is odd, $w_i$ is its own reversal. We consider two cases.

        \textbf{Case I:} $|w^\prime| = 0$. Suppose $a = 0$. If $i$ is even, the first quarter of $w_i$ is of the form $X0X0$, so we have an overlap. If $i$ is odd, $w_i$ is of the form $X0X0$, so we have an overlap.  Suppose $a = 1$. If $i$ is even, $w_i$ is of the form $X1X1$, so we have an overlap. If $i$ is odd, the first quarter of $w_i$ is of the form $X1X1$, so we have an overlap.

        \textbf{Case II:} $1 \leq |w^\prime| \leq 4$. The first 8 letters of $w_i$ are 01101001. If $|w^\prime| = 1$ and $a = 0$, this is equivalent to $|w^\prime| = 0$ and $a = 0$, so the result follows from Case I. Otherwise, inserting 0 or 1 into 01101001 creates an overlap.
    \end{proof}

    \begin{claim}
        $w_i$ is irreducible overlap-free for all $i$.
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        We again verify the result for $w_0$ and then suppose $i \geq 1$. Since $w_i$ is a concatenation of copies of $T_0$ and $T_1$, it suffices to verify that $T_0 T_0$, $T_0 T_1$, $T_1 T_0$, and $T_1 T_1$ are irreducible overlap-free.
    \end{proof}

    \begin{claim}
        $w_i$ is delicate overlap-free for all $i$.
    \end{claim}

    \begin{proof}
        We again verify the result for $w_0$ and then suppose $i \geq 1$. Since $T_0$ and $T_1$ are delicate overlap-free, the claim follows.
    \end{proof}

    This concludes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\section{Generalizing Delicacy} \label{sec-k-del}

We conclude by introducing a natural generalization of delicacy and raising a question about it for further study. A \emph{$k$-delicate} squarefree word is a nonempty squarefree word such that changing between 1 and $k$ of its letters to other letters from the alphabet creates a square. The definition again analogously extends to overlap-free and cubefree words.

\begin{question}
    Are there finite $k$-delicate squarefree (respectively, overlap-free, cubefree) ternary (respectively, binary) words for all $k$?
\end{question}

\section{Acknowledgments}
This research was conducted at the University of Minnesota Duluth research program run by Joe Gallian and supported by NSA Grant H98230-20-1-0009 and NSF-DMS Grant 1949884. Thanks to Amanda Burcroff, Joe Gallian, Swapnil Garg, Noah Kravitz, and Jeffrey Shallit for helpful comments.

\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plain}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


Spelling. Are you looking for Brondelia?
What does Blondelia mean as a name of something?
Blondelia is a genus of Tachinidae, described by Robineau-Desvoidy in 1830.
View more phrases with the word Blondelia in thesaurus!
See also the blanagrams of Blondelia!
Go to the thesaurus of Blondelia to find many related words and phrases!


text:
Is 5G Safe?
5G is the 5th generation of wireless technology, a significant evolution of today's 4G LTE wireless networks. 5G will provide the infrastructure to allow for more data and connectivity, the Internet of things with billions of connected devices, and tomorrow's innovations in various fields such as healthcare, public safety, transportation, agriculture, and smart cities. 5G will operate in both the lower frequency spectrum (below 6 GHz) as well as at higher frequencies called the millimeter wave spectrum (above 6 GHz). 5G should not be confused with Wi-Fi operated in the 5 GHz frequency band as they are different wireless technologies.
Cellphones and other wireless devices have been emitting more radiation than ever in recent years. There are lots of differing opinions, yet the mobile phone industry is actively trying to confuse and mislead consumers about the health risks of 5G radiation to ensure that their health concerns are addressed, leading some to conclude that 5g is not dangerous. Meanwhile, the Australian Radiation Protection Agency (ARPANSA) says there is no evidence of a health risk from the radio waves used by the 5G network. This will lead you to believe that the radiation emitted by 5G networks is safe.
It is important to note that 5G-enabled smartphones still meet the security limits and standards of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which the FDA has informed. The FDA is working to ensure that radiation from electronic devices such as mobile phones is safe for the public. CTIA says the FCC is developing new guidelines for phones and other devices that would use the 5G ether. This new directive is intended to provide guidance on the high frequencies used by the upcoming 5G technology and on the potential health risks.
The mainstay of 5G technology will be the use of higher frequencies than those currently used in mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and other mobile devices. Although 5G technology can be used, the power of these high frequencies is still being absorbed by existing mobile technologies.
So it seems that the environmental radiation that 5G radio technology will generate could be potentially harmful. I tend to side with the view that radiation is not a major danger, but I must also ask myself what the impact will be if the frequency range we are exposed to increases tenfold. This means that not only are we launching a new generation of mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and other mobile devices that are now also exposed to higher frequencies than their predecessors, but they are also more likely to be exposed to high-radiation areas such as air.
As recently as February, US Senator Richard Blumenthal criticized the FCC and FDA for insufficient research into the potential risks of 5G. Moreover, the American Cancer Society concluded that most studies that explore the negative effects of cellular RF radiation have failed to link it to tumor development. Millimeter waves may sound scary, but there is no reason at this stage to believe that a 5G network is dangerous. As the NTP study shows, research into radiation risks is still difficult and often inconclusive, which means that real progress can take a long time. So far, studies do not show that 5 g of millimeter-wave poses a significant health risk; moreover, 2 g and 3 g differ in many aspects from 5 g.
Millimeter waves may sound scary, but there is currently no reason to believe that high-dose wireless communications technology could be harmful. The biggest 5G concerns in the US tend to be about the high-bandwidth 5G, and these two studies deny that 5G is dangerous, nor are they conclusive. But even if 5G were dangerous, it would not necessarily cause cancer or heart disease.
The FDA has investigated these issues thoroughly and determined that mobile phones are safe, and set safe limits on radio emission performance just to be particularly safe.
It is important to be aware that 5G wireless technology is a form of non-ionizing radiation and, from a theoretical point of view, there is absolutely no reason to fear the impact of radiation exposure from 5G wireless technologies on human health. In short, 5G broadcasts are out of date today and there has been no change in safety standards for the technology, despite the fact that it has led to increased exposure to radioactivity and radiation.
The ICNIRP guidelines for RF / EMF take into account all the above considerations and protect against possible health effects associated with exposure to RF / EMF. 5G radio waves are not ionizing EMFs, so exposure will not damage the DNA of the cells or increase the likelihood of developing cancer.
Is it safe to say that technology exceeds the millimeter range, or is it safer to say that it exceeds that range? If so, does that mean that 5g is not safe, even if it falls below the current safe limits? Does it mean that its radiation emissions are within current health risks such as cancer and heart disease?
One reason 5G is controversial is that it will be virtually impossible to avoid constant bombardment by radiofrequency radiation. RF falls within scientifically proven safe limits, but not within current health risks such as cancer and heart disease.
Related Articles: 5G, Cancer, CTIA, FCC, FDA, LTE, Radiation, Safety

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Open source networking has become the 'new norm,' and many at the recent Open Networking Summit Europe said they're seeing it play out in the industry.
If you weren't in Amsterdam for Open Networking Summit Europe 2018, you missed an extremely exciting conference This Linux Foundation event drew more than 700 networking, development and operations leaders and enterprise users from open source service providers, cloud companies, and more.
Chief among the conference themes was the idea that open source networking is the "new norm," with lots of vendors attesting to how this theme is playing out in the IT industry. Dan Kohn who leads the Linux Foundation's Cloud Native Computing Foundation cites cost savings, improved resilience and higher development velocity for both bug fixes and the rolling out of new features for this change. Arpit Joshipura, General Manager of Networking at The Linux Foundation used the term "open-sourcification" in his keynote.


Henry Seymour & Co Insurance Brokers was formed in 1984 and for more than 25 years we have gained a reputation for quality products at affordable prices. During this time we have assisted thousands of customers, offering them fantastic covers and saving them money on their insurance. The majority of our business comes from recommendations and we have an enviable track record for customer loyalty.
We do not use call centres and all our customers have direct access to highly skilled advisers who will understand your needs and offer you the most suitable policies.
Based in Shirley, Croydon, we are more than happy for our customers to pop in and discuss their requirements in more detail. Click here to find out exactly where we are based.
If you can't get to us but would like to arrange a face to face meeting, no problem, just contact us and we can arrange for one of our advisers to visit you!
At Henry Seymour & Co we are an independent insurance broker and are committed to providing cost effective insurance solutions for our customers. We will work closely with you to understand your requirements and then offer a number of suitable policies for you to choose from.


text:
SonyEricsson Appoints U.S. President
London — SonyEricsson has appointed new heads of its North American and Western Europe regions.
Anderson Teixeira, currently head of the Western Europe region, will become president of Sony Ericsson U.S. and head of the company's North America region on June 1. He will be based in Raleigh, N.C. Teixeira replaces Najmi Jarwala, who left the company at the end of March "to pursue other career opportunities," the company previously said.
Teixeira will assume responsibility for SonyEricsson's sales and marketing operations in the U.S. and Canada and in that position will report to Anders Runevad, executive VP and head of global sales and marketing. Runevad is running North American operations until June 1. As president of Sony Ericsson U.S., Teixeira will report to Sony Ericsson president Dick Komiyama.
Teixeira has been part of Sony Ericsson since its founding in 2001 as a joint venture between Sony and Ericsson. He has been head of the Latin America region, based in Miami, and most recently head of the Western Europe region.
Kristian Tear will succeed Teixeira as Western Europe region head and will maintain his current responsibilities as head of Sony Ericsson's global customer operations.
"Anderson has successfully led our Western European region through a difficult period and will provide region North America with excellent leadership and a strong commercial focus," Komiyama said.
SonyEricssonweak consumer demand as well as de-stocking in the retail and distribution channels. The company will issue its first-quarter financial on April 17. indicated last month that its first quarter net sales and profits before taxes will be impacted by
SonyEricsson U.S. Head Resigns
SonyEricsson Consolidating In U.S.
Clarion Appoints New U.S. President
Sharapova Serves For SonyEricsson
SonyEricsson, Usher Get Together
Tivoli Appoints New President/COO
SonyEricsson Makes PlayStation Connection
Sanyo Appoints New President


I was glad to see that the FTC unanimously approved new guidelines regarding endorsements and testimonials. The updated guidelines affirm the principle that material connections behind endorsements should be disclosed. This seems like a great time to offer my own disclosure information.
As of December 31, 2016, I am no longer an employee of Google. I continue to own some Google stock.
I don't accept any money or other gifts of value from any companies or individuals. I don't accept speaking fees, consulting fees, honoraria, or trips. I don't accept free, discounted, or loaned products. When I receive unsolicited gifts of value from companies or individuals in the scope of work, I give away those gifts.
When I speak at a conference or event, I generally do not pay a registration fee for that event. Some conferences also waive registration fees for that event for one or more of my colleagues or a traveling companion. Either my organization or I pay my own travel and hotel expenses when I speak at an event.
A few years ago my wife and I formed a non-profit foundation, which we later switched to a donor-advised fund. Neither of us were paid a salary from the foundation. Example groups that the foundation donated to included the Electronic Frontier Foundation, MAPLight, Change Congress, the Sunlight Foundation, Free Press, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Committee to Protect Journalists, Public.Resource.Org, Khan Academy, Code for America, charity: water, and Room to Read. The Employer Identification Number (EIN) of our foundation was 203865461.
Also, I have invested in Perfect Third (the company that makes the WakeMate), Zencoder, Cardpool, Tasty Labs, Drchrono, Grubwithus, PoundPay, Apportable, Mailgun, and Parse. I have also invested in CircuitHub, PlanGrid, Pixelapse, Gusto, Trigger.io, Zenefits, True Link Financial, Lumi, Bankjoy, Tynker, Jewelbots, Begin, Eligible, Nuzzel, Unima, X-Zell, TRAC, Boom, Meter Feeder, Airfordable, and Elemeno Health.
I have also invested in Lowercase Capital (Lowercase Ventures Fund I), Y Combinator (Y Combinator Fund II), Lowercase 140, Lowercase Spur, O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, and OpenPath Investments.
Good to know that you sometimes pay out of your own pocket to do speaking engagements.
How come you would pay your own hotel/travel expenses when attending an event at which you'd speak? The norm is for the event organizer to reimburse you for those expenses, and I don't think that would fall under the realm of "endorsement" personally. Or am I misreading something?
Also, not that I'm complaining (I'm really not complaining!) but why so many posts lately? You usually tend to space them out more.
This might not be the right place for this question, but say I wrote a blog post with and affiliate link in it, do you think would I have to disclose right then and there(and every time) regarding our affiliate arrangement, or would a similar disclosure post like yours suffice?
Maybe, perhaps, clarify the "give away those gifts" to friends/relatives/charity?
I don't know Matt… You always have that shifty look in your eye. j/k 😉 Nice to see that ethics are still a priority in some parts of the world.
I also like the disclosures that Kara Swisher, Walt Mossberg, and Jeff Jarvis have written.
Your disclosure regarding compensations and gifts is refreshing, yet, somehow I doubt anyone ever questioned your ethics. Still, you are extended high regard around the globe and a slight mention of your name is a direct association with Google.
For this reason, salary or no salary, I suggest you stop paying expenses out-of-your-own-pocket. Get with the program, Google can afford to cover those, can't they?
Obviously Matt you're on a good salary.
We need all the gifts, endorsements and private sponsorship we can get our hands on!
Goodbye freedom of speech. Hello big brother.
I think I'm safe with the assumption that you'll be speaking at other conferences events after the December 1st date. I also think it's safe to assume you might recap or post something about those shows. When you do are you going to disclose in every post? While that's clearly the safest way to go, depending on how often you do it, it could become an onerous practice. Or will you just put a link at the bottom of every post linking to your disclosure policy?
so will Senators / Congressmen /Polaticians put similar statements on their websites. And will bloggers like Guido do the same in the UK.
Not that I am cynical.
Matt – Think some of these comments work together, particularly Michael's. In your case, I can certainly see a need for the FTC 'ruling/oversight' (as in many others). It makes sense for high-profile bloggers and writers …. and for brand-new readers, also provides a small window into who you are. On the other hand, it's troublesome that many others (and you?) might be actually forced to put the disclosure in the right column or a link to a page, which in my mind, unless you're explaining who you are …. is somewhat unnecessary and maybe a touch of over-regulation. AllThingsD was years ahead of this with their 'cookie disclosure'. Will that be mandated next?
Does this mean that Google is going to make all of the AdWords advertisers who pretend to be consumer advocacy sites (but are really affiliates) come in to line?
I'm from Europe, but I'm concerned as well. How about all the product reviews we write on our websites? We write them because we think that a product is good for ourself or for our sites visitor.
That we earn a few cents if the visitor has bought a linked product is just normal… So this is not allowed according the FTC?
Matt this is wonderful. I wish here in Italy we could have the same clear statements.
Hey Matt; thanks for the great work and for leading by example.
Y'know Matt, this reminds me of the time that Michael Jackson, who once said I was the best keyboard player he'd ever worked with, introduced me to Janet (his sister). She tried my revolutionary new weight loss pill, the shrinkydinker, and lost 30 pounds that same hour. Sure, the results were extraordinary, but I've helped thousands so far – so how can that many people be wrong?
Seriously though, good disclaimer – not so sure about the actual policy. I can just see every internet article turning into a celebrex commercial.
Matt, I had the same question as @graywolf, will you disclose on every reference to conferences who provide you with free admission (whether you speak or not) or cover with blanket disclosure policy linked from every page? Congrats on doing this, just as Privacy Policies help visitors understand the data practices of a site, Disclosure Policies like this can also help educate visitors who don't read you regularly.
Y'know Matt, this reminds me of the time that Michael Jackson, who once said I was the best keyboard player he'd ever worked with, introduced me to Janet (his sister). She tried my revolutionary new weight loss pill, the shrinkydinker, and lost 30 pounds that same hour.
Is this why her clothes didn't seem to fit quite right at the Super Bowl? I would like exclusive Canadian resale rights to the shrinkydinker and any other pills your fine unofficial pharmaceutical firm manufactures and/or distributes.
graywolf, I added a link to my disclosure in the header of my blog so it will be at the top of every page. I think most people assume that speakers at an event don't pay a registration fee. I'm not aware of any conference that requires speakers to pay registration fees, and the FTC specifically mentions "connections that consumers would not expect" in their press release at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm .
I really applaud this sort of movement in the blogging world. People tend to blindly trust what is said on the internet, and while that is safe on this blog, it can be not-so-safe elsewhere.
yep, on my commercial website it's already clear my client list and all my business connections.
At the moment also on my experiments on affiliate marketing it's written that the links in the article if clicked will bring some money to me, and each article should contain also "normal" links as an alternative to visitors.
I would like to know if some clear statement about affiliate links, for example, would make a nice long term strategy, i believe that being sincere with my visitors will be also a commercial success, not just a personal motivation. For the moment I don't have the stats to prove this, but if I gather enough data maybe someone else will follow.
The problem is that in Italy we don't have nice opinions on people whom sponsors something, everyone thinks that if you speak about a product you are just trying to get the money, even if the product is bad. Conscious of this fact, everyone who wants to sell even a good product must not speak about his connection to the product in order to keep active the sales.
An help from Google to get things clear would be very appreciated (I wrote about this on Google's GetSatisfaction page, but still didn't get an answer, maybe it's a stupid idea or maybe it a fault of my poor english, would really like your opinion).
First Matt let me say that I'm a fan of yours and love your blog and content. I happen to be Anti-FTC on this one mainly for three reasons: 1) their ability to regulate around an area that is very 'grey and fuzzzy', 2) it's not business friendly – a kinda Sarbox for blogging (not good), 3) the belief that it will stifle innovation to create an new ad solution for quality vertical publishers.
It goes without question almost a matter of fact that the primary form of compensation display ads (cpm) and Adsense (cpc) fall short of providing compensation to any micro-publisher. In fact it promotes bad behavior in driving sensational or what I call train wreck journalism pageviews.
Can you imagine if the fed regulated cpc in the early days with disclose statements – then it's possible that Google's ad prosperity never would have existed.
I believe that you're on the wrong side of this one. It's ok we still love your blog and work.
Disclosure: We don't put adsense on our site at siliconANGLE.com because it would provide revenue that would fall way short of managing operations that is unless we eliminated the notion of proprietary quality content and replaced it with spam bots and screen scrapers to run page aggregators and SEM arbitrage.
I'd happy to discuss this anytime with you or hear your thoughts.
I would really like to see all those "web hosting review" websites abide by this. I think the average Internet user has no idea that those "top ten web hosting" review websites are nothing more than the "top ten highest paid affiliate" programs. I also know that at least a third of these review websites aren't even from the USA, so I guess they don't have to disclose.
Will Google treat these websites differently (in SERPS) if they don't disclose?
We here at [insert URL] get paid a lot of money by referring you to web hosting companies. We only show you the ten highest paying or converting web hosting programs. We frequently make up fake reviews to point you to the web hosting affiliate that will make us the most money. We use redirect after redirect to make our links look natural to try and fool you and the search engines.
Like the disclosure, my man!
How's the anti-MS going thus far? Day 6, right?
With your Wife on top of your give-away-list?
Matt, no offence, but talk is cheap and ANYONE can write they are holier than thou.
Just a heads-up for anyone viewing this in IE8…if you want the vertical scrollbar to appear on the page Matt linked to, you'll have to view the page in Compatibility View (for the non-techies who read this blog or who don't know what Compatibility View is, it's the weird button that looks like a ripped piece of paper beside the address bar). I showed the link to a client today since it is newsworthy and they had this problem.
Sorry…the "this" in IE8 is the FTC.gov site, not Matt's blog. I had that in there originally, but I typed over it by accident. My bad.
That's why i liked this blog… You don't need any money or gifts, you own a stock from Google anyway.
Matt, I'm afraid that your endorsement of the FTC's actions regarding bloggers is . . . well, misplaced.
I've written my opinion on this, and while I hesitate to post a link here of all places (ie, PLEASE don't "nofollow" me), I think you might like to check out what I've said on the subject, and think about my background vis a vis the way I've come to my conclusions. The short of it, by the way, is that it's a) not enforceable and b) it's a government agency making rules that do less to address the issue than existing corporate rules already address better.
Does that leave the sad reality that bloggers are (often) not corporate-controlled and therefore not falling under these rules? Yes, of course. But to that I simply throw out: "let's allow people to be responsible for their own actions". Do you REALLY want the government getting into the regulate free speech" business? My guess is no.
Should this not cover politician to if it does great but i think the people who need to ware racing endorsement stickers is politicians as said so well by my favorite late comedian George Carlin.
Where is the outrage from our great community about this injustice?
It's great that this is made public and that each and every Google employee and board member can be held accountable to it.
Matt, we've been debating this issue in the office this week. We have, in the past, contacted bloggers and inquired about having the blogger post content we provide on their blog. In some cases, the blogger requires payment. A small number provide a disclaimer to the effect of "Miss X from Company Y contacted me and asked that I share the following info with you. The content below is not necessarily endorsed by me" etc. etc. But, some do not, and our content is posted, without any disclaimer or indication that we paid the blogger to post our content [and yes, there are hyperlinks within the content to our website]. My question is: if a blogger posts content that includes links to our website, does this constitute as an "endorsement" of our website? If so, then this blogger COULD be penalized under the revised FTC endorsement regs, right? We're just trying to understand how these regulations could impact our practices.
Matt do you own any online businesses yourself?
It's wonderful that you are good with the new FTC regs. I heard about the endoresement rules last week. Sounds like more rules from the boys in Washington and no real teeth behind them.
Wonder how many blog owners will be following these new rules?
Well gosh, Matt, it must be hard to buy you birthday presents.
Thanks for the transparency, Matt. There's not enough of that these days despite the the clamor for it.
This is great because it makes you totally unbiased and objective. I don't know how much you make at Google but I'm sure you'd make quite a lot if you monetized this blog, your fame and your expertise. Did you ever thought of that?
I'm actually rather sad that not a SINGLE one of you seem to understand that this ruling made by the FTC is a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 1st amendments of the United States Constitution. In one way or another.
Its just a rough draft until I get the wording exactly how I want it.
You might think that I am against this mandate, however in all actuality I am not. It is a good idea except for the fact it is most likely unenforceable upon those with the money to fight it in the justice system.
The above is as far as I will go with disclosure. My reputation on the Internet has an honest and sincere marketer is important to me and for that reason alone I have stayed away from many products and tactics which I consider manipulative and questionable in nature. For those reasons alone I'm still struggling to make a full time income on the internet, but at least I know it is a moral and ethical one.
One's reputation is the only thing you really have and after spending years building up my online personality I never plan to risk my integrity on products that are not solid values for my readers. However, I will only go so far in revealing my business dealings to the government.
So far our government has given the banking system which clearly engaged in out right FRAUD somewhere to the tune of 3 trillion dollars now. Fractionally banked out that comes to 30 trillion to a system where several thousands of people should have went to jail and / or bankruptcy court, not to the bank to cash a check. And now they want to pull this BS?
No, I'm not interested in helping government and big business take over the new marketplace like they did the brick and mortar real world businesses and destroy small business here as well. At some point and time you have to draw a line and stand on it or people with money and authority will treat you however they wish, and that has got to stop.
I'm not a radical, nor an extremist, just a man who demands his government act within its established mandates and otherwise stay out of my personal and business affairs. I'm quite sure many of you will disagree with me on this because there is a huge chance to spin this in a way that will leave all of you smelling like roses in the end by claiming your so very upstanding because your following a law your employees handed down to you. You did know that the FTC, funded by congress are both your employees right? All power of the government is derived from the people, not the other way around.
If the people you outsourced your work too told you I'm not doing it your way, this is the way its going to be and your going to like it, you would fire them right? Well that is the exact way I feel about the FTC and congress as well for acting beyond their established function.
Wow, I guess you Google stocks and options keep you warm. No matter what, please, keep up the excellent work. And keep those videos coming… Thanks.
Obviously you are in good position right now.Like me, i dont think it necesscary for disclosure since i earned only small amount of money from online.
With that disclosure 😉 I can't help but wonder if subconsciously you like this because it will push people even more towards paid advertising with google? Eliminating one paid advertising market will no doubt free up dollars and force folks into more constrained advertising mediums.
Can anyone please clarify a couple of things with this new FTC enforcement?
1). Will sites or blogs with just adsense on them be required to add a disclosure?
2). If I sell my own product and dont use testimonials, am I good to go?
3). What about articles with affiliate links hosted at goarticles or ezinearticles.com etc, are these subject to this disclosure?
Is that why Google cut back on SWAG and employee perks? Only kidding of course. It'll be interesting to see how they enforce this. This seems to be excessive.
Lately at work we have been having debates around SEO and page optimization as it pertains to our product pages. I was hoping that some time in the future you could clear something up.
Our product pages have content about the product and in addition we show video and user reviews. As that content grows on each product page we start to get lots of repeating words whether it is the titles for each reviews stats like Date, Author or Rating or in the reviews themselves that may detract from the subject of the page. My thinking is that because that content is not in the title, description or h1 tags and repeated in such a manner that it is fine as it is while others think that we should try to ajax it in.
Any thing you can add to this subject would e greatly appreciated.
A cheap trick in a sequined chiffon named Steve will slip between you and Matt, pick it up, down it, and offer you a night you'll never forget…even if you wanted to.
Its frustrating to see Google's handling of duplicate content.
but the original article is no where to be found in the SERPS. How easily Answers a trusted site could live off the hard work of a pathetic individual.
Matt, you have to be kidding? We need to keep the federal government out!
Most of our careers were built in a very libertarian environment. Our communities (Google, your social network, your email list) do a fine job policing what is real and what is spam, who is trustworthy and who is not. There is no epidemic except of people working for themselves, which is what they really want to quash.
We don't need big brother encroaching. They never stop!! Then again, I hear Al Gore is helping you guys with "search quality" like the overlords "help" you with it in China, so maybe I'm wasting my breath on the Dept. of Google. When it comes to central planning, "do no evil" has no place.
Thank you for helping out with some of the site issues many of us have to deal with. It's nice to know there are trusted sources of information out there in the blogosphere.
I see something very CONTRARY here. Why DONT you run ADS and give the money to CHARITY —- unless you have a problem with running ads ( I did..and even now am reluctant because of conflict of interests, etc but grad students dont get paid much 🙁 or think it lessens the impact of your blog ,eh?
How is this going to be engforced?
Imagine if government employees had to provide disclosure? Can you see the laws with an *next to them *this law was paid for by the following lobbyists….
If you have ever doubted the power Google holds today, look no further than this new law, this is exactly what Google wanted. No longer are paid posts sold text links against the Google webmaster guidelines, it is now against the law in the United States of America.
The interesting part about this is, that as long as your website is hosted outside of the US this law does not apply to you, and is unenforceable (I assume). Therefore one would think the indexing and ranking of websites that clearly are breaking this law could fall on the search engines displaying this content?
This is quite a massive move in the wrong direction by our government; one would think that our policy makers had better things to do with their time. How is possible that the US government is going to police this? How can they confirm that a disclosure is indeed required? Maybe lots of people like to blog about lots of various topics with lots of out going text links?
Since this would only apply to US based websites, I guess Google is going to place additional value on US hosted domains out going text links? Is Google going to devalue links from all other countries?
I just now saw this post, and if anything, I'd imagine it'll make you more respected than ever. I know for me it jumps you up a bit in my book – I wish more people had the business integrity you show. Very cool.
Just found this on a blog I read – definitely a step in the right direction. transparency builds trust and trust is becoming a much bigger issue now we all get to discuss the companies we buy products from.
I see this as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Seems you give stuff away that companies give you…if apple sends you a macbook remember me ;).
It is very refreshing to see that ethics are alive and well in America. I am a Sydney based web designer and I refuse to join the resellers program of my favourite hosting company for the simple reason that I don't believe that I could strongly recommend the host if I took a cut for doing it. I applaud you for your strong moral standing. Great to see Matt – and thanks for the cool tips that I have picked up from your site recently. —> (sorry about the spelling, I am Australian and we spell a little differently).
Can you please help me to find out whether the below site is fraud or not?
Just minutes (just minutes) after paying online I felt so stupid that there was no contact numbers from them and called Chase – they mentioned they took care of it – finally to find today that the money $1026.78 is gone. I am filing for a dispute and sent mail to both Mabuhay, and the money was taken by ZYZTM Research Division Europe #10 B.V. through RBS World pay.
Do you have any idea on these guys? Have you heard about these scam? I have Norton anti-virus installed – so when searching google – it always mention which sites are harmful – though I am at fault in this incident – I wish Google could do something to track these guys and warn or better yet just not to index them.
I am following some legal actions and filing complaints to International crime websites. Hope something happens.
Does Matt Cutts write about products because he wants to, or because he's asked to (Whether indirectly because of his employment by Google or by A.N.Other company who may well ask you to write about their product even if they don't give you anything of value).
I should note that, as others have said, I respect your professional, and personal integrity greatly, and I'm pretty confident that I know where you stand, but I do think the policy as-is doesn't cover this important point.
Great disclosure cut from Matt Cutts!
Don't give in to the state's demands.
Failing to disclose that you've received financial compensation for endorsing a product is not an unjust act. You're not selling the product, and therefore it is up to the readers to decide whether or not to believe you. It'd be nice if you chose to disclose it, and I'd obviously prefer it — but no one, especially not the state, has the right to force you to disclose it.
It's kind of like if you get a random phone call from someone who says that he knows who will win tomorrows football game. It's up to you as to whether or not to believe him. If you choose to believe him, and bet some money and lose… well, that's on you. Sure, the guy was a jerk, an idiot… but you chose to believe him.
If a company misrepresents a product in order to get a sale, then *this* is an unjust act, and therefore you are entitled to financial restitution from the company.
Interesting, too, that when you pay the fine, the state gets the money, isn't it?
Thanks for posting so frequently lately. I hope you enjoy our feedback to your posts. I'd like to think that is what keeps you engaged :-). I Hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
I think its overdue that the web is cleaned up by the regulators. Plenty of abuse by others that gives us honorable & honest online merchants a bad name.
Hey everybody, given this this is a disclosure page rather than a "proper blog post," I'm going to go ahead and close comments on this page.


This section provides information about holidays and feast days, when (most of) the shops stay closed.
In order that you know when people celebrate in the place where you spend your vacation, we gathered the most important information about official holidays in this section. As above mentioned, in these days most of the shops as well as administrative bodies remain closed. On the other hand a range of events which provide you an insight into life in North and East Tyrol are offered.
Since 1965, October 26 is the National Day in Austria, in commemoration of October 26 of the year 1955, when Austria decided upon its "voluntary, everlasting neutrality" as part of the constitution - only on that condition the allied forces would withdraw their troops.


text:
CAI, Cima är en bergstopp i Antarktis. Den ligger i Västantarktis. Chile gör anspråk på området. Toppen på CAI, Cima är  meter över havet.

Terrängen runt CAI, Cima är varierad. CAI, Cima är den högsta punkten i trakten. Trakten är obefolkad. Det finns inga samhällen i närheten.

Kommentarer

Källor

Berg i Västantarktis
Chiles anspråk i Antarktis
Berg i Antarktis 1000 meter över havet eller högre

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
58 pc of global air traffic from Asia-Pacific, Middle East by 2040
Global passenger numbers set to rise to 19 billion, says ACI report
Global passenger numbers are forecast to rise from 9.2 billion in 2019 to about 19 billion in 2040
A new report about the growth of the global aviation industry in the next two decades forecasts that Asia Pacific and the Middle East are likely to account for 58 pc of the global passenger numbers by 2040, which are set to rise from 9.2 billion in 2019 to 19 billion.
Air passenger demand is likely to double globally over the next 20 years, with Asia-Pacific and the Middle East accounting for 58 pc of the volume, according to the latest report by Airports Council International.
Global passenger numbers are forecast to rise from 9.2 billion in 2019 to about 19 billion in 2040, says ACI Asia-Pacific's Airport Industry Outlook, a quarterly assessment of the airports' performances.
Of this volume, Middle Eastern airports are expected to handle 1.1 billion passengers by 2040, a significant increase of nearly 300 pc of the combined traffic of 505 million they handled in 2019.
"The consistent improvement in passenger volumes in the region is a positive indication of a sustained recovery of the industry following prolonged efforts towards rebuilding passenger confidence in air travel," says ACI Director General of ACI Asia-Pacific Stefano Baronci. He adds that the region must prepare itself for the oncoming influx.
He said restoring international connectivity will take longer and will be partly dependent on the decision of China to re-connect to the World. "The macroeconomic headwinds, less acute in Asia than other western regions, should not hamper a process of growth, subject to continue to maintain the freedom to travel without restrictions. All the stakeholders engaged in the aviation ecosystem must prepare to the surge in traffic," says the ACI director general.
The Middle East is an ideally located axis for travel — aircraft flying from the geographical crossroads can reach almost all of Asia, Africa, and Europe within eight hours.
Almost all countries in region have experienced massive growth in their tourist numbers and many have lined up ambitious projects to develop tourism further. But few programmes compare with those of Saudi Arabia, which is in the midst of implementation of USD 1 trillion in investments as part of Vision 2030 set out by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Tourism is one of the pillars of the Kingdom's Vision 2030, to contribute to diversifying the base of the national economy, attracting investments, increasing sources of income, and providing job opportunities for citizens, as the sector is witnessing rapid growth as a result of plans to promote the tourism sector.
Last month, a report by the United Nations World Tourism Organisation listed Saudi Arabia as top of the Group of 20 countries for the flow rating of international tourists in the first seven months of 2022.
The report, released during the G20 tourism ministers' meeting held in Bali, Indonesia, did not detail the exact number of travellers who visited the Kingdom, but claimed the sector saw a growth rate of 121 pc in the first half of 2022.
During the event, Saudi Arabia's Tourism Minister Ahmed Al-Khateeb said the surge in tourist inflow aligns with the Kingdom's economic diversification policies and aims to increase tourism's contribution to the country's gross domestic product, as outlined in Vision 2030, the Saudi Press Agency reported.
ACI Europe regrets new Covid-19 restrictions on visitors from China


text:
Winging it: Pilot makes wrong turn and ends up getting plane stuck in thick snow
CCTV footage shows the Boeing-737 accidentally veer off the airport runaway
The Boeing-737 was left stuck at Sheremetyevo International Airport, Moscow
Plane belonging to Smart Wings was about to take off when it veered off course
By Bhvishya Patel For Mailonline
Published: 11:29 EDT, 15 January 2019 | Updated: 11:34 EDT, 15 January 2019
This is the moment an aeroplane veers off the runway and finds itself stuck in thick snow before take-off following an error made by the co-pilot.
CCTV footage shows the Boeing-737 accidentally turn off the runaway and become stuck in the snow at Sheremetyevo International Airport near the Russian capital Moscow, causing the runway to be shut down.
According to reports, the aeroplane belonging to Smart Wings, a Czech airline, was about to take off but turned off the runway instead.
This aeroplane veers off the runway and gets stuck in thick snow following an error made by the co-pilot at Sheremetyevo International Airport near the Moscow, Russia
CCTV footage shows the Boeing-737 accidentally turn off the runaway and get stuck in thick snow
The aeroplane belonging to Smart Wings, a Czech airline, turns to the runway just before it is about to fly off
The incident was recorded by a CCTV camera installed in the airport.
The clip shows the co-pilot of the Boeing-737 make a turn off the runway and drive straight into the snow.
BMI flight with 22 passengers veers off Bristol Airport... Odor sends five American Airlines crew members, including...
There were 47 passengers on-board the plane travelling from Moscow to Prague.
The runway was temporarily closed after the incident and 30 other flights were delayed, according to local media.
The Boeing captain, who has not been named, reportedly explained the incident to the airport authorities.
The aeroplane comes to a halt after getting stuck in the thick snow. The incident was recorded by a CCTV camera installed in the airport
Following the incident, the runway was temporarily closed and 30 other flights were delayed, according to local media
According to him, the co-pilot, whose name has not been disclosed, made a mistake whilst running the engine control levers.
Airport workers are said to have used special equipment to pull the Boeing out of the snow and the plane then underwent a technical inspection.
The plane reportedly left Sheremetyevo airport for the Czech Republic several hours after the incident.
Nobody was injured in the incident, according to reports.
Pilot makes wrong turn and ends up getting plane stuck in thick snow


text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1967 › Samuele T. Stevens, Jr., Appellant, v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Appellee
Samuele T. Stevens, Jr., Appellant, v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Appellee, 382 F.2d 429 (4th Cir. 1967)
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 382 F.2d 429 (4th Cir. 1967) Argued June 24, 1966
Decided August 30, 1967
Richard M. Squire, Baltimore, Md. (court-assigned counsel), for appellant.
Jon F. Oster, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL,* Circuit Judges.
HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:
Stevens, a Maryland prisoner sentenced to a term of twenty years upon a conviction of armed robbery, sought habeas corpus complaining of his representation in the trial court and of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The sentence is shocking, but the conviction is unassailable on constitutional grounds.
In denying the petition, the District Court carefully considered the facts,1 so that we may treat them more summarily here.
In the early hours of a Sunday morning after a Saturday evening's carousal, two Negroes got in an argument over $47. Barnes, the alleged victim, claimed the sum was taken from him by Stevens, substantially a stranger to him, at knife point. Stevens denied it, though claiming some other difficulty between the two after an evening spent as drinking companions.
Barnes, who had been drinking, approached a policeman sometime after midnight with a complaint that a Negro, whom he did not know but whom he had seen before and could identify, had robbed him of $47. Barnes told the policeman that his assailant had been armed with a butcher knife, and that there had been a scuffle in an alley. In the alley, the policeman found a butcher knife and a cap belonging to Barnes. Led by Barnes to the 700 block of Eislen Street in Baltimore, they found, after two or three tries, the house where the defendant lived. He was not at home, but presently Stevens, wearing a woman's green coat with a torn pocket, arrived in a taxicab with several packages. Barnes identified him as his attacker, and the three entered the house.
At the policeman's request, Stevens produced from his pocket $33 which he claimed he had just collected from a "Miss Elsie" for some painting work Stevens had done. He told the officer, in the presence of Barnes, that he and Barnes had met in a tavern earlier that night, that the two had spent several hours drinking together in Stevens' house, and that his landlady had forced Barnes to leave after objecting to the coarseness of his language. The landlady was present, and she corroborated Stevens in his statement of Barnes' presence earlier that night.
Barnes then offered to withdraw his charge and forget the whole thing if Stevens would pay him $47. Stevens declined to pay him anything on the ground that he owed him nothing.
At the trial, the story that Barnes told was supported in a material part by a witness who said he had seen Stevens and Barnes scuffling on a lighted porch off the alley. Stevens testified to his version of the events of the evening, and his version was partially corroborated by the policeman who testified that Stevens' landlady had affirmed Stevens' assertion that Barnes had spent several hours drinking with Stevens in her house that night.2
Conviction followed, and it was affirmed on appeal.3 Later, postconviction relief was denied.4
There is no substance in the contention that the trial record was so devoid of evidence of guilt as to offend the constitutional standard to be applied in a collateral proceeding. Barnes positively testified that Stevens grabbed him from behind and dragged him into an alleyway and up a stairway to a porch, that Stevens held a butcher knife to his throat and took his $47. At some point in the struggle, the knife was dropped and Barnes claimed that, in his attempt to retrieve the $47, he tore the pocket of the lady's green coat that Stevens was wearing. An occupant of the apartment testified that he stepped out on the porch, recognized Stevens and Barnes, and told them to stop, after which Barnes left, saying he was going to get a policeman, and Stevens also departed. The witness saw no knife and saw no robbery, but he unequivocally confirmed the prosecuting witness's testimony about the scuffle on the porch off the alley.
The testimony for the state, accepted by the trier-of-fact as true, was quite sufficient to make out the offense, as the Maryland Court of Appeals held on the direct appeal. It certainly meets the constitutional standard we must apply.5 In making this contention, Stevens relies in part upon the verity of some of the testimony favorable to the defense, which is impermissible, and upon an asserted lack of sufficiency of the identification of the knife. Barnes testified that the knife shown to him at the time of the trial looked like the one Stevens had used when committing the robbery, but the policeman, who retained possession of the knife after he picked it up, positively testified that the knife was the same one. There was no defect in its admission as evidence.
An attack is made upon the competency of Stevens' trial counsel. He had not long been admitted to practice, but he had handled several criminal cases, and the record here discloses a competent and faithful performance.
It is objected that the lawyer did not call Stevens' landlady. She had died before the postconviction hearing in the District Court, but the lawyer talked to her before the trial and was told by her that she would not testify that Barnes had been with Stevens in her house on the night in question. She mentioned the laws of perjury. Under the circumstances, it would have been quite foolish for the lawyer to call her as a witness when he could get from the policeman the fact that, at the time of the confrontation, the landlady had corroborated Stevens' claim that Barnes had been drinking with him in her house that evening.
The lawyer did not call "Miss Elsie" either. Had she appeared and testified that she had paid Stevens $40 that night, as Stevens claimed, it certainly would have been helpful to him, but there is every indication that "Miss Elsie" was a phantom. Stevens told his lawyer that the landlady could find "Miss Elsie" for him, but the landlady told him she could not and, implying that "Miss Elsie" was a nonexistent person, advised the lawyer not to waste his time attempting to look for her. During the initial investigation of the matter, the policeman went to the street where Stevens claimed that "Miss Elsie" lived and inquired at several houses, but could find no person by that name, and no one who had recently had four rooms painted. Stevens disparages the fact that the policeman did not find "Miss Elsie" by picking at his testimony to draw the inference that the policeman must have gone to the wrong houses and inquired for "Miss Elsie" by another name, but neither he nor his new attorneys could produce her at the postconviction hearings. The fact that she has not now been produced strongly confirms trial counsel's understanding, acquired from the landlady, that "Miss Elsie" was a figment.
Fault is also found with the lawyer because of the fact that the record of the trial indicates that he took no advantage of the opportunity to make a statement in mitigation of the offense, but that neglect did not so impair the fairness of the proceedings as to conflict with the due process standards. The Judge heard Stevens testify at length. He knew his claim of innocence as well as his record of petty offenses, but not of crimes of violence. It would have been better by far if the lawyer had exercised the right of allocution, but his failure to do so raises no constitutional question.6
We find no unfairness in the trial proceedings through the return of the jury's verdict. The Court's charge is subject to no exception; it quite adequately informed the jury of the defendant's rights and of the presumption of innocence with which he was clothed. What is wrong in this case is the sentence.
In sentencing Stevens, after noting that his prior convictions were "not for this type of offense," the Court imposed upon him the statutory maximum sentence of twenty years. Judge Carter stated: "The only way I can let you and the others know the attitude of this court in these matters is to impose the sentence I usually impose. The sentence is twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary." The usual imposition of the statutory maximum sentence for armed robbery, applied in a case of this sort, is a negation of judicial responsibility and the active cause of much fruitless postconviction litigation in the state and federal courts.
The record leaves us with no conviction that Stevens' version of the events of that night was true. During the postconviction hearing in the District Court, it was established beyond question that Stevens was lying when he testified repeatedly that he had known Barnes when both of them were confined at the same time in the Maryland House of Detention. Each had been confined there, all right, but never at the same time. It appears highly probable, too, that Stevens was lying when he claimed that Barnes had been drinking with him in his landlady's house earlier that night and when he asserted the claim that he had collected the money he had in his possession from "Miss Elsie" for painting work that he had done. One is also left with a decided sense of skepticism about Barnes' story. It is rather incredulous that Barnes with a number of convictions for assault upon police officers and others, and other crimes of violence, could be dragged by the neck up an alley and a stairway to a porch by a man affecting a female outer garment and with a record of convictions for homosexual acts but of no crime of violence. It is understandable that Barnes might have submitted to this at knife point, but the knife was dropped in the alley before the porch was reached. If Stevens was bent on robbery, it was certainly senseless to select an acquaintance7 as his victim and drag him to the lighted porch of an apartment where both Stevens and Barnes were known and where Stevens was certain to be recognized by his victim and, probably, by occupants of the apartment.
However unlikely it may seem to us that Barnes, with his history of violence, submitted thus meekly to the apparently effeminate Stevens, with his history of no violence, and that Stevens came into possession of his money in that fashion,8 it was not inappropriate for the trial court to impose a sentence upon the assumption that the facts as found by the jury were true and that they fully agreed with the victim's testimony. It is inescapable, however, that if Stevens did the acts as charged by Barnes, he was acting entirely out of character. His criminal record of solicitation for prostitution and for homosexual acts is long, and he had one conviction for the theft of some clothing. A homosexual panderer, he is far from a nice fellow, but if he committed the act of armed robbery for which he was convicted, it was a first offense, wholly out of keeping with his past record.
When there has been an armed robbery and the victim is relieved of all of the money on his person, it matters little whether he had $47 or $470, but when the facts were sharply disputed and the victim and arresting officer were willing to withdraw all charges upon the payment of $47, the case approaches a $47 case, far too trivial for anything approaching a maximum term of imprisonment.
The whole concept of modern sentencing procedure calls for the exercise by the sentencing judge of a high order of discretion to fit the sentence to the crime and to the defendant. "Usual" and routine imposition of the statutory maximum sentence upon first offenders and others who stand substantially in that position without regard being had to the nature and character of the offense and to the defendant's record and personality seems an abrogation of responsibility and a negation of the discretion which the law vests in the trial judge.
It has detrimental consequences. If a sentence of two to three years had been imposed upon Stevens, even one of four or five, this case probably would not have required the subsequent attention of trial and appellate judges in both state and federal courts. With a sentence of twenty years, it is little wonder that Stevens feels aggrieved and with sufficient justification to persistently seek his release by every judicial proceeding to which he may resort. That is not the only consequence of such sentences, however, for they furnish the most convincing argument which the proponents of appellate review of sentences could wish,9 though most trial judges, initially at least, line up in opposition to the proposal. Such injudicial harshness cries for a remedy to right it.
Meanwhile, however, the federal courts have no right to review any sentence of a state court which does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence which may be imposed under the laws of the state. Since the only thing wrong with the entire proceedings was the sentence, we are powerless to afford relief.
Judge Bell expressed approval of the result in this case, though he died before this opinion was prepared
Stevens v. Warden, D.C.Md., 238 F. Supp. 334 (1965)
Barnes denied that he had been there. He claimed he did not know Stevens, but had seen him several times in the 700 block of Eislen Street and, for that reason, thought he lived there
Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 185 A.2d 194 (1962)
Stevens v. Warden, 235 Md. 684, 202 A.2d 598 (1964)
Grundler v. State, 4 Cir., 283 F.2d 798; Faust v. State, 4 Cir., 307 F.2d 869
Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82 S. Ct. 468, 7 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1962); McGrady v. Cunningham, 4 Cir., 296 F.2d 600
While Barnes testified he did not "know" Stevens, he admitted he had seen him several times and he was able to lead the policeman to the house where Stevens lived. In the hearing in the District Court, the policeman testified that, when making his first complaint, Barnes referred to Stevens by his nickname, Florida Boy. Stevens claimed, of course, that the two were well known to each other
It would be readily believable if Stevens took the money from Barnes by stealth or trickery. If he did, bearing in mind Stevens' record of pandering and homosexual activity, Barnes may not have wished to admit the circumstances
See the Report of the American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice on Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences (tentative draft 1967). This case might well head the small list of horrible examples, to which reference is made on page 22. The problem of the grossly excessive sentence has already led a number of states to provide some means of reviewing them, as disclosed in the Report. See also S. 1540 (90th Cong. 1st Sess.) introduced by Senator Hruska, providing for appellate review of federal sentences, which was passed unanimously by the Senate on June 29, 1967


"Rather than inherit TV viewing expectations from a prior era and then consciously reject them, as cord cutters have done, these cord-never viewers have simply bypassed prior assumptions, exhibiting nearly the exact set of behaviors that cord cutters have pieced together for themselves over the past decade of viewing," wrote Forrester analyst James McQuivey.
Given this trend, "CMOs must experiment on cord-nevers and cord cutters now to learn how to serve them later," wrote McQuivey, who suggests reaching them via mobile video advertising, embedded marketing, OTT services that offer livestreaming (such as Sling TV and CBS All Access) and virtual- or mixed-reality ad experiences.
Forrester's findings come as networks say they are closer than ever to finally monetizing their total audiences, thanks to new multiplatform tools from Nielsen and other companies.


text:
Home » US News » Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security on the National Biodefense Strategy
Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security on the National Biodefense Strategy
Tom Inglesby, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security commented today on the National Biodefense Strategy released by the Trump Administration earlier today:
"I am impressed by the scope of the effort. It's the first national strategy that encompasses natural, deliberate, and accidental biological threats, and that addresses threats to humans, animals, and plants. It divides the work into 5 areas: assessment of threats, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery – these areas of effort have previously been driven by different documents developed years apart in different Administrations. Quite valuable for this all to be driven by one strategy document now. It's also new that the National Security Advisor is the lead for the strategy. This is important because Presidential national security priorities are ones that are comparatively likely to get more attention and resources than others. The fact that it is published along with a Presidential Memorandum adds power to it all, including the direction that budgets will need to respond to this strategy.
It's useful to know that day-to-day coordination and execution will be the responsibility of the Secretary of Health. Having top level accountability and responsibility clearly assigned is a good development. But by same token it will be important and challenging to make sure that the many other agencies of government that need to be involved in preventing and preparing for biological threats stay engaged and bring their full capabilities to bear. HHS has vital capabilities that reside in ASPR, CDC, NIH, and FDA, but there are key roles to play for DOD, DOS, USDA, USAID, DHS EPA, the intel community and other programs. It would not be good if other agencies step back from the biodefense mission because they perceive their roles to be diminished.
The strategy rightly recognizes both the highly beneficial side of biotechnology, and also calls out the need for strengthening biosafety and biosecurity in the life sciences community. It's particularly important that it calls out the need to promote effective global oversight of research which could have very high consequence, such as with potential pandemic pathogens. There is no real global dialogue, let alone oversight in most countries, around this realm of research now – having this set forth in the strategy hopefully will motivate real action internationally.
It is very encouraging that the strategy commits to working abroad to strengthen countries capacities to combat infectious diseases and to work multilaterally. I would have liked to see specific mention to the Global Health Security Agenda by name, but it is very heartening to see the international commitment to capacity building for epidemic response. There is a strategy for Global Health Security that is set to be released next month, which will presumably add even more detail on these activities.
Other things that are notable and somewhat novel are the stronger emphasis on risk assessment that has been in past strategies, and the priority given to forecasting and modelling. What is also new is the focus on secondary impacts and major disruptions to society, economy, and democracy itself– focusing on these major issues is important because these are the kinds of risks that can emerge in a severe pandemic.
DrPH Health Security track at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to launch next year
It will be important to understand more deeply how this strategy will be implemented – what are the timelines, who will be responsible for the work, and what resources will be needed and given for it. My assumption is that the kind of detailed planning document will follow."
In June 2017, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security convened a meeting of more than 50 public and private sector biosecurity stakeholders in Washington, D.C., to gather recommendations for what was then the forthcoming National Biodefense Strategy. The Center was not involved in drafting the strategy.
One thought on "Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security on the National Biodefense Strategy"
Pingback: URL
Frithjofincomma says:
With a protracted intussusception, perfusion to the gut could also be compromised,...


October 10, 2013: A train from London to Canterbury where Elaine Randall and Ian Rose met us, stashed our heavy bags in their car, and took us over (in the rain) to The Good Shed –a marvelous combo of farmer's market and locavore food restaurant. Also possessing good parking, a rarity in Canterbury.
We had daunting directions to our reading that night at The Veg Box, aka Free Range. Something about walking through parking lots to the back fire escape. So I thought NYC with a ladder-like set of very steep narrow iron steps. How in the hell will Baz get his gamy leg up?
Turned out to be normal enough, just metal and concrete. "Fireproof." And about six steps in all.
There we met Sam Bailey…who very shyly asked if we'd mind his opening the evening with some piano playing by him. We are guests. Of course we said yes. But had sinking feelings. What music would he play? He'd already done yeoman's service running back & forth to his apartment for the right cables and computer attachments to make showing the Basil King film possible.
We were surprised too how many people showed up: some were BMC fans (Ian Brinton, e.g.) but many others crowded in. From Kent University, Christ Church University, University College. Townspeople too. From their attention and the questions asked, the audience was full of readers. Per David Herd, who heads modern literature at Kent, this is one place where multiple streams can gather. We need such in New York City!