Yes the OM-D is a winner but it seems much bigger and bulkier and defeats the purpose of a very low profile - consumer looking - camera. It would seem to me that the lens choices are paramount to the comparison. My first choice for a lens would be a 24-28mm equivalent. Then a 35 and 50. Any opinions on the best optics for these? I have no interest in the bulky zooms - I want to only stick with the smallest glass I can find- maybe M mounts? I also have no need for autofocus. Optical quality and bulk are more important.
Why the GX-1 or the Pen series? Will you use it held out in front, or will you purchase the optional eye-level EVF and hold it up to your face? If so, you lose quite a bit of the sleek shape and low profile of these cameras.
Having used most of the Panny and Olympus m4/3 cameras, I much prefer the built in viewfinder of my GH2 (and I expect I would like the OMD.) For lenses, I like the Panasonic 14/2.5, the Panasonic 20/1.7 (though many love the 25/1.4), and the Olympus 45/1.8. All are terrific lenses. Some folks like the Oly 12/2, which is 24mm-equivalent and fast, though larger and heavier than the tiny Panny 14. For now I use an old Tamron 90 macro for a long lens.
If I had to do it over again, I would buy the Panasonic 7-14/4 zoom for my wide angle, and use it with the 20 and 45. Next on my list is the Panasonic 100-300 zoom, which also gets high marks.
The reality is that any of these cameras would be a fine choice. Pick one and start shooting, and just ignore all the talk of new cameras on the market for several years. Good luck.
I'm not crazy about the miniature SLR shape of the OMD or the GF-2 - I like the smaller slimmer bodies. The Sony has the benefit of a digital finder but without the shape of the slr. Yes the 12 f2 would be one of my chosen lenses if I went with olympus. I with the Sony had a better selection of lenses.
I bought a Lumix GF1 not long after it came out, along with the Panasonic 20mm F1.7, 7-14mm F4, and 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 lenses.
I was reasonably happy with it, but found that the lack of an EVF was a bigger pain than I expected. It's awkward to hold the camera in front of me, and hard to keep it steady. I looked at the optional attachable EVF, but the the picture quality was just too poor for me to part with my money.
The lack of in-camera image stabilization was also a limitation. The 20mm F1.7 is a terrific lens, but the lack of image stabilization and the difficulty of holding the camera steady somewhat limited its low light potential.
Shooting with the EVF is vastly superior to using the rear display. I would go so far as to recommend avoiding any camera without an EVF or a reflex mirror.
The electronic level in the viewfinder is great. I hate even slightly crooked photos, but I'm not good at judging when the camera is level. My only complaint is that the level could be a little more sensitive. It seems to let you tilt the camera a few degrees before it indicates that it's not level.
I haven't had a chance to properly test the in-camera image stabilization, but it promises to be a killer feature in combination with fast optics.
The metering definitely tends to underexpose slightly, but it's very consistent - large areas of shadow or sky didn't seem to confuse it. In most cases I think 1/3 or even 2/3 of a stop of exposure compensation would be a good idea.
The image quality is good for the sensor size. With default settings in Lightroom I saw some noise even at ISO 200, but it has an inoffensive quality, like film grain. I expect it would be unnoticable at realistic print sizes, or easily removed with a few adjustments in Lightroom.
The 14-45mm lens did pretty well considering its low price, but it wasn't really worthy of the sensor. I've ordered an Olympus 45mm F1.8 and a Panasonic 25mm F1.4. Combined with my 7-14mm and 20mm they should make a great team. The Olympus 75mm F1.8 looks interesting, but pricey. I considered the 12-35mm F2.8, but decided to get the cheaper, faster, and probably sharper 25mm F1.4 instead.
Just to add to the confusion (there is confusion, isn't there?), the Canon G1X has a sensor slightly larger than the 4/3, but of course, smaller than APS-C. I've been considering it as an alternative to the Fuji X100 (APS sensor) & some of the various 4/3 offerings.
I want something lighter & smaller than my FF DSLR, no need for interchangeable lenses (and a fixed 35mm equivalent as on the X100 would do), don't want to be holding the camera at arm's length (so viewfinder please), want good ergonomics, and image quality is paramount.
It'll be a travel camera as much as anything else, so landscapes, city-scapes, 'street', family holiday snaps/portraits etc.
DoF only "exists" when a print (screen) size is defined and the image is viewed from a defined distance by a human who perceives which parts are "sharp". If those conditions are not met, DoF remains merely a qualitative concept.
To compare DoFs from different situations, the parameters that are fixed and those that are changed need to be stated. For example, if there is only a change in the viewing distance, we can say the DoF changes.
To compare the same image using different formats, the FL must be changed to compensate for the difference in AoV from the sensors. To use the same lens from the same camera position means the sensors will record different images. Why would one want to compare the DoF of two different images? What would we learn?
To the question: I am happy with my Lumix GH2, the 7-14, the Leica 25, the 14-140 (walkabout and video) and the 100-300 for wildlife. The more recent Olympus sensor appears to have some advantages over the Panasonic, by all accounts, so I will evaluate a body change later. The whole kit is so much lighter and easier to travel with and produces some great images. Can I print them as large as those from my 5D2 - of course not, but the trade-off is one I am willing to take under some/many circumstances (I have yet to stitch some panos I shot with the 25 but I'm optimistic ).
I have no problem making very good 16x20 prints from my OLY PL5. I do use PRIME lenses most of the time. The Oly 45mm f/1.8 and a Panasonic 14mm f/2.5. I think being able to carry around several very small and light prime lenses is the secret. They beat out all but the best of the full-frame zooms while being being far lighter and somewhat faster.
This above combo sure beats carrying around my old DSLR with it's bulky zoom lens.
It seems we are falling into the typical confusion of comparing the technical qualities of images of different scenes.
If one uses the same lens at the same F/stop with different size sensors, one gets different images. It doesn't make sense to compare the 'depth of field' in two images when the field itself is different.
Using the same lens and F/stop, the larger sensor produces a wider field. If that wider field is cropped to the same width as the image from the smaller sensor, the DoF will be the same, excluding minor variations due to differences in sensor pixel density and sensor resolution.
We experienced a similar confusion some time ago on this forum in relation to perspective. There were those who adamantly argued that focal length of lens has nothing to do with perspective. It's only the position that counts. To demonstrate this misconception, such people would present the argument that cropping a shot taken with a wide-angle lens to the same field of view as a shot taken from the same position using a telephoto lens, resulted in images that appeared to have the same perspective, thus demonstrating the principle that cropping an image is effectively the same as increasing the focal length of lens and that two images shot from the same position, using 'effectively' the same focal length of lens, will have the same perspective in all respects.
I would submit that you are correct when you state the focal length has nothing to do with perspective, but it doesn't follow from there that the focal lengths are equal.
The definition that I use, as found in all the decent-sized English dictionaries that I've checked, is as follows.
"The appearance of objects, buildings, etc, relative to each other, as determined by their distance from the viewer, or the effects of this distance on their appearance."
What I've found, without exception, is that scenes shot with wide-angle lenses result in the appearance, on the print or monitor, of close objects being larger and closer than they seemed to the eye in the real scene at the time the shot was taken, and distant objects appearing further away than they seemed to the eye in the real scene at the time the shot was taken.
What I've also found, without exception, is that scenes shot with a telephoto lens result in the appearance, on print or monitor, of distant objects being much closer than they initially appeared to the eye in the real scene. In fact, if the lens is a long telephoto, objects that are too small for the eye to notice, or plain invisible, can appear in great detail and clarity on print or monitor.
I can therefore only conclude that focal length of lens has a strong influence on perspective. How anyone could argue against this, beats me.
However, that is not to say that position does not affect perspective. Obviously it does. And so does the focal length of lens used.
I guess our friend Ray subscribes to the marketing theory that "perception is reality"
there is separate term for what you are talking about: perspective distortion.
the ideas are related but they are not the same.
And as has been observed many times in these forums, the effect like change in the relative sizes of nearer and farther objects that you see is due to some combination of (a) the typical usage of wider angle lenses closer to the main subject and telephoto lenses from further away, with the camera position then being the cause of the perspective differences, and (b) the presence of a more objects in a wider angle image taken from the same location, so that a great range of distances and apparent sizes are present.
If instead one compares wide and telephoto images taken with a camera at the same location pointing in the same direction and so at the same main subject (but with more peripheral subjects in the wide angle version), for example by using a standard zoom lens on a tripod and taking successive shots at both its shortest and longest focal length, then there is no significant change in the "appearance of objects, buildings, etc, relative to each other" for objects that appear in both images. Instead the telephoto image is essentially a crop of the wide angle image.
The change in perspective because of different FoV is a viewing distance issue. Perspective changes with viewing distance because it comes down to a projection and angular size problem. When the first experiments in linear perspective where done, the idea of the "point of view," not only for the point where the painting was made, but also where it was viewed, was very important. We know know that the 3-D illusion created with linear perspective is a very robust illusion--we can even look at an image from the sides and our visual system will interpret the image as "normal looking."
There are two basic viewing distances; standard viewing distance and the correct viewing distance. The standard viewing distance is equal to the diagonal of the image/print--so a 16x20 print should be viewed at about 25". The correct viewing distance is proportion to ratio of the focal length to the format diagonal, so a 21mm lens on a 35mm camera (diagonal: 43mm) would be about 0.5X and so a 16x20 prints would be viewed at 12.5" for the correct perspective (a perspective we would have experienced). So when the correct viewing distance is less than the standard, the perspective increases; when greater, it decreases.
A "normal" lens is a called that, not because it has the same angle of view as the human eye (it does not), but because the correct and standard viewing distance is the same and the perspective appears normal to the viewer.
Now some folks don't get viewing distance--how can the image change because of that? Well, think about this. We can see if the image was taken by wides or telephotos. We can really notice if the photographer gets close to a wide. But yet, as we actually wander through the world, we don't actually feel our visual perspective change--your significant other does not look anymore strange across a room than when you have your faces close. It only becomes strange when we photograph.
The DoF as defined and used in photography depends on objective measures (CoC), so its quite easy and reasonable to compare the 'depth of field' in two images when the field itself is different.
We experience a similar confusion now for DoF as perspective. Some adamantly claims that a argument (perspective) that can be demonstrated and supported by proof in fact is a misconception. Well, it should be fairly easy to prove this wrong, not only make the claim .
Of course! You've misunderstood me if you think I'm recommending comparing identical images. I'm recommending comparing images of identical scenes. There's a difference. The purpose of such comparisons is find out how the images differ from each other.
No it isn't. Take a photograph of a brick wall that fills the whole frame, using a good lens at F2.8 that's sharp from corner to corner. Take another photograph of the same wall and same field at F5.6, and compare DoF. Take a third photograph of the same brick wall at F11, but increase the size of the field so there are a few distant, rather blurry trees visible around the borders of the wall. Which image has the largest circles of confusion?
I'd suggest that the images at F2.8 and F5.6 will appear to have the same DoF, and that the image shot at F11 will appear to have a shallower DoF because it's the only image out of the three that has blurred components, the distant trees.
However, when comparing the effects of lens focal length on perspective, it is necessary to compare different fields because that's the purpose of using a different focal length, to create a wider or narrower FoV from the same position. I would be very foolish to use a 14mm lens to shoot a distant bird, thinking I could just crop the wide-angle shot to get the same perspective that a 400mm lens would provide.
Imagine such a comparison. I produce on the one hand a lovely, A3 size print from the 400mm shot, showing the birds feathers, beak and eyes in sharp clarity. On the other hand, I produce an A3 size print from a very small crop resulting in a hugely interpolated print file that gives a very blurred impression of a few daubs of color that might be loosely interpreted as a semi-abstract rendition of a few leaves. The bird is not discernible.
What! Can't you see that these two images have the same perspective?
In order to have a meaningful comparison the elements compared must be within the most "tele" crop. The definition and use of CoC is already agreed, so lets not waste time on discussing this. The bottom line being that CoC can be used to decide DoF for any given photography irrespectively of aperture, field of view etc. The purpose is just that; to be able to decide DoF in a objective manner transparent from equipment. Its not a question about "Which image has the largest circles of confusion?", but up to the analyzer to choose an appropriate CoC and then compare with the same CoC across images to check DoF.
"Visual acuity. For most people, the closest comfortable viewing distance, termed the near distance for distinct vision (Ray 2000, 52), is approximately 25 cm. At this distance, a person with good vision can usually distinguish an image resolution of 5 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm), equivalent to a CoC of 0.2 mm in the final image.
Viewing conditions. If the final image is viewed at approximately 25 cm, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm often is appropriate. A comfortable viewing distance is also one at which the angle of view is approximately 60° (Ray 2000, 52); at a distance of 25 cm, this corresponds to about 30 cm, approximately the diagonal of an 8″×10″ image. It often may be reasonable to assume that, for whole-image viewing, a final image larger than 8″×10″ will be viewed at a distance correspondingly greater than 25 cm, and for which a larger CoC may be acceptable; the original-image CoC is then the same as that determined from the standard final-image size and viewing distance. But if the larger final image will be viewed at the normal distance of 25 cm, a smaller original-image CoC will be needed to provide acceptable sharpness.
Enlargement from the original image to the final image. If there is no enlargement (e.g., a contact print of an 8×10 original image), the CoC for the original image is the same as that in the final image. But if, for example, the long dimension of a 35 mm original image is enlarged to 25 cm (10 inches), the enlargement is approximately 7×, and the CoC for the original image is 0.2 mm / 7, or 0.029 mm."
I say that, and further more they have the same perspective irrespectively of what you or I say! The "blurred impression of a few daubs of color" is simply due to that the small crop has been enlarged so much that details are lost. But the perspective will be exactly the same. You are mixing perspective with resolution. If you take your A3 print and aply the same resolution as to the small crop they will be identical. This is simply nothing to discuss unless you claim to change the laws of physics. If this is the case your results should be published elsewhere than here.
I say that, and further more they have the same perspective irrespectively of what you or I say!
So in other words, you think that perspective is determined by some mathematical theory or imaginary model that may have nothing to do with what we see? If you see a difference in the perspective of elements in two images and such differences seem at odds with your interpretation of the mathematical model, then you assume that your vision must be faulty. Right?
The "blurred impression of a few daubs of color" is simply due to that the small crop has been enlarged so much that details are lost.
Sorry! You've got that wrong. Enlargement does not result in loss of detail. It's downsizing that results in loss of detail.
But the perspective will be exactly the same. You are mixing perspective with resolution.
No I'm not. Resolution comes first. It is the basis of all images. No resolution, no image. No image, no perspective.
If you take your A3 print and aply the same resolution as to the small crop they will be identical. This is simply nothing to discuss unless you claim to change the laws of physics. If this is the case your results should be published elsewhere than here.
But it is you who are attempting to break the laws of physics by applying the same resolution to a very small crop of a wide-angle shot. The laws of physics put a limitation on lens resolution. It's known as diffraction. The laws of physics also put a limitation on sensor resolution. Such limitations are photonic shot noise, thermal noise, read-out noise, and even the frequency of the light waves themselves which would eventually put a practical limit on the smallness of pixels.


GetDP is a free scientific computation software for the numerical solution of discrete problems. This list is for questions and discussions about GetDP features, resources, bugs, and so forth.
To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the getdp Archives.
To post a message to all the list members, send email to getdp@onelab.info.
Subscribe to getdp by filling out the following form. This is a closed list, which means your subscription will be held for approval. You will be notified of the list moderator's decision by email. This is also a hidden list, which means that the list of members is available only to the list administrator.


Loom knitting--the art of creating woven fabric using pegs and a hook instead of traditional knitting needles--is quicker and easier on the hands than knitting, but the results are just as lovely! The easy-to-follow lessons in this book start with the basics and progress to more complex techniques--an invaluable visual reference for loom knitters of all levels.
- Easy to learn; you can complete Lesson 1 and your first project in the same day!


text:
One Fund Boston: The Inside Story of the Most Amazing Victim Relief Effort in American History
by Patrick Doyle
Jared Wickerham/Getty Images
How a nonprofit came together overnight—and became the fastest and most successful compensation fund in the country.
James Gallagher is a big wheel in Boston. A stocky lawyer with auburn hair, he has been a fixture in the financial services industry and the nonprofit world there for two decades. He is executive vice president of John Hancock—an anchor of the business community that for the last 28 years has been the chief sponsor of the Boston Marathon, an event so important to the civic fabric that it overshadows the actual holiday it takes place upon, Patriots' Day. Gallagher was in the grandstands at the finish line in April 2013, bedecked in a blue suit and trademark John Hancock red tie, helping to hand out medals to the first-place male and female finishers. After handing out the medals, he had left the race to grab lunch with his sisters—visiting from Toronto for the event—and was driving back to the course when all hell broke loose.
The two pressure-cooker bombs that detonated near the finish line killed three, wounded more than 250 and left a deep and abiding scar on a city known for its ferocious pride. Gallagher spent the first chaotic hours after the explosions frantically searching for the hundreds of Hancock employees who had either run or volunteered in the race, discovering that two had been seriously injured by shrapnel. He was shocked and outraged. "We've been in the Boston business community for 150 years—we felt the assault on us," he says. "This was very personal."
The next day, Gallagher had an early morning conversation with Thomas Menino, Boston's five-term mayor. Menino had been scrambling since the attack—trying to coordinate with area hospitals, the Boston Police Department, the FBI and Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts on how to care for the victims and hunt for the suspects. The 70-year-old Menino, who has long served as the nexus of the city's power structure, had also fielded scores of calls from area business leaders and philanthropists who wanted to help. Now, Menino told Gallagher, he needed to do some triage. He wanted to start a victims' relief fund immediately, but his primary focus needed to be on restoring order and safety in Boston. He needed Gallagher to spearhead the relief effort, and get it going ASAP.
Gallagher hung up, and started dialing. One of his first calls was to his bosses at Manulife, the Canadian parent company of John Hancock; he convinced them to cough up $1 million to jump-start the fund. By 10 a.m., Gallagher was on a conference call with Mike Sheehan, the president of Hill Holliday, Boston's highest-profile advertising agency, the marketing brains behind such iconic local brands as Dunkin' Donuts and Bank of America.
MORE: You Can Do More Than Just 'Like' Your Favorite Charity on Facebook
During the conference call, Sheehan remembered a conversation that he had had a few months earlier with a colleague who was raising money for the families of the school-shooting victims in Newtown, Conn. "By the time he explained all the different funds, I was totally confused," Sheehan says. "I remember thinking that this must hurt fundraising." To counter that problem, Sheehan proposed a straightforward name: The One Fund Boston. "One fund," he says, "for all of Boston."
Sheehan had one of his designers mock up a logo—a blue and gold runner's bib with a large "1" in the middle. Then he and Gallagher called Menino back and ran through their idea. The mayor was astounded by the $1 million donation from John Hancock, and liked the name and the approach the two had come up with. He liked it so much, in fact, that he wanted to announce the creation of the fund—that day. There was going to be a press conference at 5 p.m. "I'd like to be able to close with an announcement about the fund that we're going to set up," Menino told Gallagher. "You have five hours."
The efforts Gallagher and his ad-man partner Sheehan undertook would not only help a city and its wounded heal; it set a standard that could well influence America's response to disaster and tragedy for years to come. One Fund Boston is already the most successful relief fund in the nation's history. The question now is: would the same approach work elsewhere, in the next city struck by tragedy?
MORE: How Social Media Is Used for Social Good
Heather Abbott, 38, a resident of Newport, R.I., who lost a leg in the bombing, is one beneficiary of One Fund's efforts. She spent two weeks at Brigham and Women's Hospital and another two weeks at Spaulding Rehabilitation Center in Boston. The moment she started using her first prosthetic was, she says, "bittersweet." "I was excited to be moving along and be on my own," she says, "but it was also disappointing because it was unattractive, it hurt to put on, and I realized what my future looked like." She was also surprised and worried about the costs; life-like prosthetics can cost $60,000 and must be replaced every one to three years. Patients also need multiple types for different activities. Abbott, who has started to run and paddleboard again, is hoping to stretch the money from both the One Fund and private fundraising to cover a lifetime of prosthetics. She remains overwhelmed at the generosity of people who gave money. "I couldn't believe all these people came out to help me," she says.
Gallagher and Sheehan had worked together on the board of Catholic Charities, the wired philanthropic arm of the Archdiocese of Boston. But nothing had prepared them for the urgency of the mission at hand. Divvying up the duties, Gallagher handled the government and legal side—the actual registering of the nonprofit, the paperwork and the operations. Sheehan took on the branding and design, and set up the website. They brought in Jack Connors—the founder of Hill Holliday and one of Boston's most powerful philanthropists—for his advice and connections.
They tried to absorb the lessons of other victims' funds. After the terrible December 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn., which claimed the lives of 20 students and six adults, organizers there decided to form a relief fund under the auspices of the United Way of Western Connecticut. Unfortunately, when the time came for distributions, the foundation decided that only $7.7 million out of the $11.64 million raised would go to the families; the remainder would go to unspecified programs. The community was outraged. Furthermore, the fighting and red tape meant it took nine months for the money to be disbursed. The One Fund team wanted the money to go out much quicker. They decided against going under the umbrella of another nonprofit, and formed a separate 501(c)(3) instead. "We wanted to avoid some of the unfortunate experiences that others have had in recent tragedies," says Gallagher. "I'm not picking on anyone…[but there can be] great confusion."
Early community outreach drew an overwhelming response. PayPal offered to drop its usual service fee from all donations. Goodwin Proctor, John Hancock's legal representation, said they would handle all the legal work for free, and began to file the appropriate paperwork. Later on, the real estate company Boston Properties provided a space for the new nonprofit; NStar offered the use of its safe; and Bank of America stepped in to oversee donations.
MORE: Ever Wonder Why Nobody Goes to Town Council Meetings? Meet the Folks Who Are Changing That
By mid-afternoon, Gallagher and Sheehan had made enough progress that they were confident that they could finish by 5 p.m. They called Mitchell Weiss, the mayor's chief of staff, and told him it was a go. Sheehan began writing a press release.
At the 5 p.m. press conference, after an FBI special agent gave an update on the bombings, Mayor Menino—sitting in a wheelchair because of a broken leg—addressed the assembled reporters and TV cameras. "As the investigation continues and more victims are being identified, in true Boston fashion, we've received many offers of help and assistance," Menino said. He told the audience about the creation of the One Fund Boston, as well as the names of the prominent individuals and corporations that had already volunteered their assistance and money.
"We're all here because this tragedy is not going to stop Boston," he said. "We are one community, and we will not let terror take us over."
The One Fund was up and running, but there were still myriad loose ends. For starters, there was no mailing address for donors' checks. The day after the press conference, Weiss, Menino's chief of staff, headed to the Back Bay to register a P.O. box with a Boston address. Weiss wasn't sure how much money they could expect to bring in for their efforts. No one was. Sheehan, in fact, had sent him a text the day before: "What about a goal of $10 million in 60 days?" Looking back, Weiss says, "I thought that if we could reach that, that would be outstanding."
Their focus was tested; Boston was in the grips of a manhunt playing out in real time on national television. On Friday night, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a 20-year-old college student of Chechen descent, was captured by police while hiding in a boat in Watertown. The city was able to breathe again for the first time in a week. Weiss stopped at the One Fund's P.O. box on his way home. He left the post office with a bag full of envelopes. "We couldn't believe how many there were," he says, recalling the moment he dumped the bag out in front of the mayor. Eventually, says Sheehan, "we had a 5-foot-by-5-foot stack of envelopes filled with cash and checks."
MORE: Finish This Sentence and Change Your Town Forever
Time Inc. offered free advertising pages to the nonprofit, while JCDecaux volunteered outdoor ad space on bus shelters and in airports. The national advertising campaign turned the One Fund Boston into a national brand.
The corporate response was strong. AT&T, Bain Capital, Partners Healthcare, New Balance and Liberty Mutual all matched John Hancock's $1 million donation, while scores of other companies made other major donations. In just over two weeks, the One Fund had raised $28 million, crushing their initial expectations.
Raising money was one thing, but the nonprofit needed experienced individuals to actually oversee it. Paul Connolly, the recently retired chief operating officer of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, volunteered to handle the accounting of the donations. And Kenneth Feinberg, the lawyer who had previously overseen victims' funds for September 11th, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting and the 2012 movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., offered to design the fund's distribution program.
Distributions can be contentious: How much, after all, is the loss of a limb worth? Two limbs? How about a family member's death? After a series of community meetings, Feinberg and his business manager, Camille Biros, designed a straightforward system based on the level of trauma and the length of hospitalization: the highest payouts would go to double amputees and families who had experienced a death; the next highest would go to single amputees; and so on, down to victims who had been treated on an outpatient basis for their injuries.
MORE: A Van That Tweets to Help the Homeless
The One Fund raised a staggering $61 million by June 26th, just 10 weeks after Menino had announced its creation. "It was almost $1 million a day," says Sheehan. "That's scary stuff. It was just an outpouring of generosity." Based on Feinberg's distributions, double amputees and the families of those who died received nearly $2.2 million—more than the average payout for September 11th victims' families, and nearly eight times as high as the distribution for Sandy Hook families.
By July 4th, checks had been cut for the victims. "The community wanted to get the money to the victims directly, so they could stop worrying about the wolf at the door," Gallagher says. "They were going to be out of work, may not have the insurance to cover their bills, and they needed that relief quickly."
Jessica Guilbert, a physical therapist who worked with victims at Spaulding Rehabilitation Center, saw how important the donations were. "Especially if the victim was younger, insurance is not going to cover every prosthesis that you want," she says. "Most of the time, all that is covered was a prosthesis to walk—but our patients want to do more than that. They want to run."
Items are placed by people visiting a makeshift memorial for victims near the site of the Boston Marathon bombings at the intersection of Boylston Street and Berkley Street.Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images
Given its success, the One Fund has become the model for future victims' funds. Unlike the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, which was financed by federal money, every dime raised was through private charity. There was also no overhead, since everyone volunteered their time. Finally, having one central fund, independent of other nonprofits, proved to be key—there was no confusion for people who wanted to give, nor any bureaucracy to hold up the payouts.
Sixty-nine families of victims at Sandy Hook, the Aurora movie theater, Virginia Tech, September 11th and other tragedies, in fact, signed a Boston Globe editorial extolling the virtues of the One Fund's approach: "All donations [to previous incidents] were collected by old school nonprofits where salaries, overhead and re-granting to other nonprofits are more important than the victims they are supposedly collecting for….It appears that this time the public intent will be fulfilled, and donations will reach the victims who are suffering so horribly with loss of life and unimaginable injuries." The group went on to suggest that Congress use the One Fund as a model for a National Compassion Fund for future incidents.
MORE: This Is the Police Cruiser of the Future
Boston's fast-paced model, of course, depends on the city's political, business and philanthropic leaders acting quickly and coordinating their approach. "We knew it had to get up and running Tuesday night or other people would have stepped in with their own things and the public would be confused," says Weiss. "It wasn't okay to say we'd have the official one up and running by Friday."
Gallagher and Sheehan credit Mayor Menino and Weiss for pushing the initial idea and bringing together the right people; Weiss credits Sheehan and Gallagher for their quick work and for leading by example. "They key moment was when Jim Gallagher said that [John Hancock is] going to give $1 million," Weiss says. "If they said they were going to give $100,000, we would have raised a lot less money. Over that weekend, more million-dollar donations came in. And we got a sense for what this could be."
Gallagher agreed. "It's just like if somebody is sick in your neighborhood," he says. "People come over and make meals; they take turns looking after kids. This is the same thing, just on a larger scale. [We're just] trying to recover from the emotional assault."
Gallagher remains overwhelmed by the response. "To be honest," he says, "I still have trouble when I start thinking about it. I get a little emotional." In early January, the One Fund announced that they had raised another $12 million and would be distributing it to victims and families this summer. Impressively, the nonprofit has received gifts from more than 200,000 people. The group is now working on digitizing the 50,000 letters that came in, to share their messages with the world. "We had little kids writing in and saying, 'We had a bake sale at school today,' " he says, getting choked up. "Or kids who got birthday money and turned around and sent it in to us."
"I have immense pride in not only the Boston community, but the American community," he says. "In the context of the marathon, there were two evil people—and over 100,000 shared their generosity with us."
Fundraising By Tragedy
September 11th attacks
Charity: September 11th Victim Compensation Fund
Total Raised: $7 billion (federal money)
$1.8 million: Average payout to families of 2,996 killed
Virginia Tech shooting
Charity: Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund
Total Raised: $7.7 million
$180,000: Received by families of 32 killed
$90,000: Victims injured who spent 10 or more days in the hospital
Aurora movie theater shooting
Charity: Aurora Victim Relief Fund
$220,000: Received by 5 victims with brain damage/paralysis and families of 12 killed
$160,000: Received by 6 victims who were hospitalized more than 20 days
Sandy Hook shooting
Charity: Sandy Hook School Support Fund/Newtown-Sandy Hook Community Foundation
Total Raised: $11.64 million
Total given to victims' families: $7.7 million
$281,000: Received by families of the 26 killed
$150,000: Received by the two people injured in the attack
Charity: The One Fund Boston
Total Raised: $72 million
$2.2 million: Received by families of those killed and victims with double amputations
$1.2 million: Received by victims with one amputation
Boston Marathon bombing Calls to Action Hill Holiday Jim Gallagher John Hancock Mayor Tom Menino One Fund Boston
These Survivors Give New Meaning to Reaching the Finish Line
Meet the Engineer Who Got a Boston Marathon Bombing Survivor Dancing Again
This Anti-Poverty Initiative Was Born in a Hospital Waiting Room

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Many of our conversations are like this; she says words that are not easy to spell since they are more guttural in nature and I answer without really hearing the question.
Besides, even though we are using the same words the meanings are completely different; I use man-speak and she uses woman-speak which is really the problem with all man-woman relationships. I can assure you when I say, "Hhmmmm." I mean a completely different thing than she does.
I suppose we don't have more problems than any other couple. I didn't even know we were having problems until she read a self-help book called The Five Languages of Love. Communication is very important in a relationship.
It isn't helping matters any that the Linguistic Society of America reports there are at least 6,809 languages and new ones being discovered each year.
I can't even speak English real good and now they want me to speak a love-language even gooder.
It used to be easier, men and women got along for many years with simplified language, pointing, grunting, or drawing pictures on rocks.
I think all self-help books like this should have warning labels, "Reading this book may cause marital problems." For heck sakes, it is worse than second hand smoke. You might die from a misprint!
I did the only thing I could do; I tried to reason with her. "Honey honey honey. Let's don't get crazy here. I am still the man you know and love. Speak to me in that language of love. What did that book say? Words of affirmation? How about telling me I look good in tight pajamas?" Well, so much for the language of love in My Cave.


Are You Consistent Monday to Monday?
Is your message and your influence consistent Monday to Monday?
Is your reputation one that you are proud of Monday to Monday?
Raise your level of awareness.
Introducing "Influence Redefined". Are you ready to start taking steps to become more Influential?


Cornerstone Advisors has been selected to lead the MEDITECH 6.1 implementation at Griffin Hospital (Derby, CONN.) The electronic health record (EHR) implementation will transition Griffin Hospital from their existing MEDITECH Magic platform to the highly integrated, web-based MEDITECH 6.1 EHR. The new system will provide Griffin Hospital with a modern, fast user experience which mimics the workflow of today's healthcare providers and revenue cycle operations. The project will begin in June 2017 with a planned go live date of September 1, 2018.
Griffin Hospital is partnering with Cornerstone Advisors to provide an experienced 6.1 implementation team consisting of Project Management, Clinical and Financial Leaders, with a suite of product level experts throughout the 18-month implementation. The enhanced electronic health system will support Griffin Hospital as a Planetree facility for patient-centered care by providing safe, effective, efficient, timely, and equitable care.
Cornerstone Advisors Group, LLC is a national, Health Information Technology professional services firm. Founded on the principles of Partnership, Integrity, Commitment, and Value, Cornerstone Advisors is dedicated to providing a higher level of advisory services and implementation expertise to the healthcare industry. Inspired by trusted relationships, Cornerstone Advisors partners with every client to drive change, add value, and maximize the return on their Health Information Technology investment. Our pledge is to exceed the expectations of every client. To learn more about Cornerstone Advisors, please visit our website at www.cornerstone-advisors.com.
Griffin Hospital is a 160-bed acute care community hospital serving more than 130,000 residents of the Lower Naugatuck Valley Region. Griffin Hospital also serves as the flagship hospital for Planetree, an international leader in patient-centered care and has received national recognition for creating a facility and approach to patient care that is responsive to the needs of patients. Many healthcare facilities around the world send visitors to Griffin Hospital and incorporate its concepts into their healthcare models. Griffin Hospital is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt subsidiary of the Griffin Health Services Corporation. Affiliated with the Yale School of Medicine, The Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, and accredited by The Joint Commission, Griffin Hospital has more than 300 active and courtesy physicians who have admitting privileges. Griffin Hospital is recognized for having industry-leading patient satisfaction ratings and has received numerous quality and clinical excellence awards. It is the only hospital to be named to FORTUNE Magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For" list for ten consecutive years, and was the only Connecticut hospital to be recognized three times by the Joint Commission as a "Top Quality Performer" on key quality measures.


text:
How long can this loony financing continue?
Generous central bank intervention continues to distort the valuation of all financial assets
Chaitanya Dalmia Published 5 months ago on Aug 05, 2021 • 9 minutes Read
The implicit 'Fed put' on virtually all financial assets has ushered in a whole new risk paradigm and the mind-numbing amount that has been allocated to this 'noble' cause has left me gasping for breath. The pandemic offered politicians an excuse to pump in more monetary gasoline and the central banks have hardly played coy since the 2008 global financial crisis. Enough has been said about the money printing that has been going on in America, the EU and Japan. The latest installment makes me wonder if socialism is making a backdoor entry into the so-called capitalist societies. Emerging markets are not far behind in artificially suppressing interest rates or printing money. And, cheap money leads to all kinds of self-enriching financial adventures, including trivialisation of debt.
Of the many, two caught my financial-roving eye. One is the latest government-sponsored Infrastructure Investment Trust (InvIT), and the other, a failed, hostile attempt by one of the biggest banks in the world to corporatise a highly profitable 'NGO'. Let us start with the former. It was music to my ears when, a few months ago, the government paid heed to my thought process which suggested various measures to enhance shareholder value of listed PSUs. Amongst the slew of measures announced, they also decided to 'convert'/'demerge' some annuity assets of listed PSU companies into an InvIT. First off the block are power transmission lines owned by Power Grid. It is a different matter that some assets, which are not annuities, have been packaged as such and sold to gullible investors (covered in my attempt to understand InVits) in the past. This one, however, can well and truly be classified as an annuity asset. Even though this is the first government-sponsored InvIT, the first in the power transmission space is owned by non-government unitholders.
While evaluating the latest entrant, I thought of looking up the existing one first. It was quite astonishing to note that the non-government InvIT keeps rewarding its unitholders with 'distributions' while loading it with ever-increasing dollops of debt, hardly paying any taxes and not repaying any loans. Thank God, it at least services its debt with interest. So, the traditional way in which future free cash flow (FCF) are discounted to arrive at fair value seems to have changed dramatically. If the principal amount of debt is not to be repaid, then the FCF goes through the roof of any business that has significant debt.
The icing on the cake is that it has convinced the government to exempt it from paying taxes under the garb of promoting such a structure for the public to take advantage of its benefits. So, true to the sublime creativity of these investment bankers, Ebitda becomes the focal point of every valuation exercise. Just provision for miniscule interest and you get FCF. Sounds magical but that's what KKR (co-promoter of the private InvIT) has managed to pull off. Depreciation is supposed to be a non-cash item and, therefore, ignored in FCF. Debt repayment is also apparently ignored since it is to be refinanced, not repaid, whenever it comes due. There would be plenty of takers for such debt in an interest rate-starved world.
In the traditional framework, which perhaps is now considered archaic, the order of claims on the income of any enterprise was as follows: lenders, government and then shareholders. This intuitively makes logical sense, too. Also, historically, an asset-liability mismatch was supposed to be a risk which was supposed to be discounted, sometimes significantly. History is replete with disasters that have occurred in cases of such a mismatch. But, this 'lab-created' animal (InvIT) turns traditional theory, logic and the ensuing dynamics on their respective heads, and that, in turn, has got me scratching mine.
So, this InvIT has roughly five years' liability (debt), and assets of 25 years. Traditionally, as such assets were long gestation and non-lucrative for private lenders, not much long-term debt funding was available and therefore, the government had to take it upon itself to develop these 'Public Goods'. But now, with InvITs, this presents a dream risk: reward for any entrepreneur, at least until the lenders awaken to the risk in it, or till the time the taxman wakes up. Because, if for some reason the cash flows dwindle, or refinancing doesn't happen, or interest rates go up significantly, all of which have a half-decent probability in the next few decades, we may have another mini IL&FS brewing. We are already seeing unitholders licking their wounds in the roads InVit which I wrote about. I just hope the rot is not as deep to affect the lenders.
Awaiting the greater fool
Moving on to the next development. On the one hand, I have been a bit baffled by how and why certain businessmen are allocating a substantial part of their wealth to charity while on the other, some non-profit organisations are making substantial money. These blurring lines are visible in the annual accounts of many start-ups in which the profit/loss statement is a sea of red, and the balance sheet has negative networth, but their private market value climbs by leaps and bounds every quarter. Profit does not seem to be the criterion. The more loss you generate, the higher the value you have supposedly created for the subsequent round of funding. Basically, the P/L has been rendered irrelevant. The assumption is that the idea shall become the next FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google) since it shall be a monopoly and the entry barrier is so high (the amount of capital burnt) that nobody else would venture into it. Then, the monopoly shall milk the cow forever.
I am unable to digest it as of now. I must surely be missing something, and I shall share my thin wisdom when I get some answers from my ongoing quest. But more importantly, the blurred lines — between losses and assets (intangible), public good and a private enterprise, trust and corporate (the type of entity and the activity it does being out of sync) — and the various components of the capital structure with all types of instruments floating around are complicating matters. This can be said with respect to the basic assumptions associated with the respective nomenclature, even though it seems as if all these are used primarily to dodge taxes and regulators or very simply, to dupe the holders of such instruments (remember perpetual bonds, CoCo bonds and such?).
Now, back to the other financial absurdity that I mentioned earlier. In a shocking and first-of-its-kind move, JP Morgan made what can be termed a 'hostile bid' on presumably the most lucrative part of the biggest sport in the world. Currently, most sports governing bodies work as an NGO with nobody really being the owner but just a manager who enjoys perquisites. Despite FIFA's suspect policy with respect to choosing sub-standard Asian teams over top-class European teams to play in the World Cup (under the garb of promoting football but to encash a lucrative untapped market) or being corruption-ridden when choosing the host nation for the World Cup, the money involved has kept growing. The enticed bankers at JP Morgan finally decided to test the waters and came up with a novel scheme to swoon away the top European teams into a 'Championship' of their own by tempting the clubs and the players with a higher prize/pay. By brokering such a deal, the bank imagined it would take away the most lucrative chunk of FIFA and feast on all the revenue from exclusive rights. The glitch, however, came from the fans; so much so that in a particular country, even the prime minister rose to their defence!
Looking at the profit/loss statements of the top clubs, some of them make decent profit, and have a reasonably strong balance sheet in the traditional sense. Some of the biggest ones, however, do not make a lot of money and are neck-deep in debt, but their equity value has only gone up year after year. I took a mix of six clubs from the English, Spanish, Italian and French League. While their combined revenue was a little short of €4 billion, their combined net profit was about €100 million, and their combined equity value was more than €6 billion and combined debt was €6 billion. Over the years, most of these clubs' revenue have been inching up. Their operating profit is going up and the number of fans on social media is growing. Conveniently, these are the parameters that the clubs focus on and so do the likes of KPMG and Deloitte while assessing how valuable the clubs might be.
However, the two parameters that are swept under the carpet are debt and net profit. The debt is split into five components viz. financial debt (long term), transfer debt (on player's transfer), staff debt (salaries payable), tax debt (tax payable) and creditors' debt. It is quite astonishing that the debt is split into such components, and out of this, hold your breath, the long-term debt is ignored for all important purposes. The rosy operating profit shown excludes profit/loss on players trading, amortisation of players' transfer fees and finance costs.
To give you some background, it all started more than a decade ago with Malcolm Glazer doing a leveraged buyout of Manchester United. The Glazer family loaded the club with significant debt right after the takeover and has been since milking the club dry. The icing on the cake has been that the supposed value of the club has also been growing. The same set of Wall Street bankers lured a Russian oligarch and then the GCC Sheikhs followed. This compounded the absurdity that was started as a one-off. The trick changed to all sorts of gimmickry except making profit. So, you peg the value of the club to a new paradigm or a benchmark. It could be revenue or stadium capacity or operating profit or number of fans and so on. To get this, you borrow cheap money (or just pay from your pocket if you are a Sheikh or an oligarch) and overbid for the best players in the world. With those players, you get the fans, and with them, you get the endorsements and the merchandise sales. You keep playing this game while the operating profit keeps soaring since they ignore two key cost components of players transfer fee amortisation and interest.
The journey of the basis of valuation has come of age. Anciently, the primary benchmark used to be P/E. In the terminal part of the Greenspan era, it transformed into EV/Ebitda since money became almost free. As if that was not enough, in the FAANG era, the new basis was EV/Sales. Finally, now in an era where money supply has seemingly doubled in less than a year, the new paradigm is to stick EV to a random benchmark like total addressable market or gross merchandise value or application downloads or subscriber base, fleet size or inventory size and now, to stadium capacity or social media fan base! Once upon a time, telecom companies were valued at $1,000 per subscriber. That is not the case anymore. We also know what happened to Hertz and Oyo.
In effect, the 'Fed put' allows you to pile on debt, outbid to win an overvalued asset to raise revenue, and the equity value goes up. It doesn't matter if you aren't making any profit as long as you pay interest. So long as you keep 'growing', shareholders don't care about profit, and lenders don't worry about any repayments. I wonder how principal repayments will be made if the lender asks for it? The only way is by rolling over debt. For every traditional lender asking for repayment, there are five new ones fueled by monetary gasoline. That has kept the absurdity going.
Chaitanya Dalmia| Federal Reserve| QE| PSU| Infrastructure| InVIT| JP Morgan| KPMG


Final Fantasy Network - This game..
So i downloaded this game the other day, am about to go to the southern continent and average level 16-17. Finding the game hard at some places, but right now im powerleveling to keep myself ahead....well, leveling up so im probably above what i should be by a little.
One thing i do not like about this game is that i cannot escape from a battle. Dont get me wrong, i never run away from them, but if i happen to stumble across a place i shouldnt be yet and get mauled, i cant escape and save myself, i have to die. Or when in the town of the thieves (forgot the name...where you get the first espers) There is an enemy there that casts vanish on itself, and then uses another move and when it tries to un vanish itself, it doesnt have the MP for it. So i then have to give it a tincture (Expensive!!) to have it unvanish itself. I could just run away, but oh wait...i cant.
Anyway, i was wondering if i am over powered for where i am at the moment...?
lulz at the above post. x3 You can use magic on an enemy to remove the vanish status (instead of a tincture.) As far as power leveling goes: you just have to level carefully if you want the better bonuses the later espers give to you. You won't find anything RLY good until the World of Ruin, so you'll need a few levels every now and then to get by...but ultimately I try to remain as low as I can until I get some 'Magic/Strength/Speed/Stamina +2s' later on. How are you playing this game? I'm assuming its on an emulator?
I'm playing it on the PS3. I downloaded it from PSN. I've played it before, but only up to when you lose Terra. I'm taking Celes lvl 20, Locke lvl 16 and Sabin (i think) lvl 16, towards the opera house. Am i too high for where i am? I wasn't aware of the stat boosting espers untill i got them, and apparently some work better for certain people. Not that i know that. Trying to do the game off my own merit before i go through and do it again 100% lol.
I'm looking forward to the remake of it thats coming out soon to ios with updated graphics and spells.
No release date that I know of, all thats been shown by square enix is a couple of pics for comparison to the original snes/famicon versions.


Finding ways to have a good time with people in recovery is difficult for many individuals. It is a particular challenge for some persons who are new to the program. Anyone in recovery will tell you that maintaining an addiction is a full-time job, acquiring one's drug of choice used to take up a significant portion of their day. Once such people began living life in a new way, it became critical to find methods of filling their time that didn't revolve around substance use.
For most people in recovery, having fun often involves socializing with each other before and after meetings. Coffee houses across the country have long catered to individuals who no longer drink or drug. A good number of people plan recovery retreats, go for group hikes, lay around on the beach in an attempt to enjoy their sobriety. Some even go bowling, an activity that most addicts never could've imagined being a part of their lives just a short time ago. In early recovery, it's a wise practice to stay away from wet environments, places where alcohol is likely to be on tap. However, for people whose recovery is robust and the risk of relapse less likely, there exists a desire to have some kind of nightlife. That's not to say that they want to be in a bar; instead, they would like to confab with adults not sitting at a table across from students typing their thesis.
For Elissa Emery, the daughter of an addict, the desire to create just such a space was real. Along with Sarah Wehnau, Emery opened 'Unbreakable Nutrition' on August 1st, CBS6Albany reports. Instead of cocktails, they serve healthy beverages reminiscent of what you might find at a bar, sans alcohol of course. The idea for a sober bar came about when Emery's friend started working a program of recovery and two could not find anywhere to hang out that was alcohol-free.
Please keep in mind that while the above idea is novel and could be beneficial for some people in recovery, visiting such an establishment may present problems for people in early recovery. Even a "mocktail" can cause feelings to arise that could trigger a person. It is hard to know how you will respond to feeling like you are back in the bars again after being sober for a stint. Before attending alcohol-free bars and nightclubs, please talk it over with your support group.
If you are struggling with drugs or alcohol, The Haven at Pismo can assist you to begin the journey of recovery. Please reach out to us today, to learn more about our innovative addiction treatment programs.
If you live in California, or Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia, then you live in a state that allows for adult recreational marijuana use. Perhaps you smoke pot or eat edibles? Maybe you maintain an opinion that there are worse vices that a person can have? You wouldn't be inaccurate having such a mindset; after all, compare the host of other mind-altering substances that are ripe for misuse. Cannabis ranks reasonably low on the list of drugs that can ruin a person's life. However, safer doesn't imply safe; and since states began adopting less harsh pot laws, more people than ever are seeking treatment for cannabis use disorder. Approximately 4.0 million people aged 12 or older in 2016 had a marijuana use disorder in the past-year, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).
Many people in the United States have a challenging time wrapping their heads around marijuana addiction. People rarely hear about reefers destroying lives; the headlines don't indicate pot overdoses as being a thing worth concern. The majority of marijuana users, like that of alcohol imbibers, never face any consequences due to using the drug. In reality, more people have a problem with the drug – experience repercussions – than you would think; and, believe it or not, dependence is real and far from a walk-in-the-park to quit.
Any substance that is used in excess can result in dependency and, for some, addiction. And, just because a drug carries inherent risks isn't necessarily cause for prohibition. You are probably more likely to find research supporting the inefficacy of waging war on drug use than you are to discover incontrovertible evidence about dangers of marijuana. Still, if a drug is going to be bought and sold out in the open with levels of government oversight, there also needs to be a campaign to educate Americans about the potential harm that can come from smoking weed.
Cannabis is a mind-altering substance that people form unhealthy relationships with over the course of varying lengths of time. A significant number of people, who attempt to quit, experience withdrawal symptoms that often lead to relapse before recovery has a chance to take hold. Symptoms which include but are not limited to mood changes, irritability, insomnia, and headaches; the list is far longer, but these are some of the more common experiences. In 2012-2013, nearly 3 of 10 marijuana users manifested a marijuana use disorder, according to research appearing in JAMA Psychiatry.
The Haven at Pismo inpatient addiction treatment is the ideal location to begin your journey of recovery from marijuana addiction. If cannabis use is negatively affecting your life, it is possible that you require assistance to break your cycle of self-defeating behavior. Please contact us to learn more about how our programs can assist you in living a substance-free life. The Haven provides you with possibilities to renew to your best today.
Once you've decided to seek addiction treatment, you might be wondering whether you should travel or stay close to home. Traveling for addiction treatment isn't for everyone. But if your community doesn't have high-quality treatment available and/or you're looking for a fresh start away from triggers in your home environment, traveling for addiction treatment might be a worthy consideration.
You'll have more choices. Obviously, expanding your rehab search to others cities and states means you'll have more choices when it comes to finding the right treatment fit for you – depending on type of addiction treatment, insurance, financial situation, interests, goals, etc.
You'll gain perspective. The physical distance between yourself and your triggers can help you look at your old habits through a more objective lens. It may even help further reduce your desire to use.
You'll have fewer distractions. Traveling for treatment makes it easier to completely immerse yourself in the recovery process – without family, friends and stressors of daily life. Removing yourself from triggering people and situations has been shown to improve treatment outcomes and help those in recovery better manage these triggers once they return home.
You'll have more privacy. If you're worried about privacy or protecting your reputation, attending treatment outside of your community may be the right choice. Although, any reputable addiction treatment center will mostly place a premium on privacy.
We pride ourselves on being a haven for men and women looking to heal from addiction –whether they're traveling for treatment or not. We are the only residential detox and addiction treatment center on California's Central Coast and offer clients a multi-faceted, outcome-focused program that includes traditional and complementary therapies. To learn more about how our programs and services can help you or someone you love, call us today: 805-202-3440.
People suffering from an opioid use disorder are mostly aware that the drugs they use carry several risks. While such people may know that recovery is achievable, the vast majority of people living with opioid addiction have not had any therapy. A severe lack of individuals being unwilling or unable to seek treatment needs to change, especially when one considers that fentanyl becomes more ubiquitous with each passing year.
Fentanyl is an extremely potent pain medication. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes the use of fentanyl for treating cancer pain or palliative care. While doctors prescribe the drug off-label quite regularly – for unapproved conditions like back pain – the fentanyl showing up in batches of other narcotics doesn't come from the same place as what you find in hospitals. With relative ease, drug cartels can both acquire the precursors and make the substance. The synthetic opioid – 100 times stronger than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin – is then mixed with other drugs to boost potency.
It is highly likely that the majority of Americans who succumb to an overdose involving fentanyl didn't know that their heroin was mixed with the deadly substance. What's more, public health officials need to make people who use cocaine and anti-anxiety drugs, like benzodiazepines, aware that fentanyl is combined with those drugs as well. There is little indication that the trend of mixing synthetic opioids with other narcotics is going to wane; which is why it is so critical – perhaps now more than ever – that more is done to encourage addicts of any kind to seek treatment.
If the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has it right, one American dies from an overdose every eight minutes. The agency states that in 2017 more than 72,000 people lost their lives to an overdose, roughly 200 per diem; the death toll is up almost 10 percent from the 12-month period before. While heroin continues to be one of the deadliest drugs abused, the culprit behind rising mortality rate is synthetic opioids like fentanyl, and its analogs, The Washington Post reports. Provisional estimates show that synthetics had a hand in almost 30,000 overdoses last year.
To say that the CDC's report is troubling is probably an understatement. Annual data from one year to the next shows us that fatal overdose rates continue to go in one direction: UP! Increasing access to the life-saving drug naloxone, while helpful, can only do so much; and, in many cases, naloxone is ineffective in reversing fentanyl-related overdoses. Opioid use disorder is a treatable mental health condition, with professional assistance men and women can recover from the disease of addiction. The CDC report shows that the states hardest hit by the epidemic have reduced the number of fatal overdoses, the result of (in part) expanding access to treatment. For instance, Vermont and Massachusetts saw significant reductions in overdoses, according to the article. Still, millions of Americans are continuing down the deadly path of opioid addiction.
More than 2 million Americans are living with opioid use disorder according to a 2016 phone survey; however, Dr. Dan Ciccarone, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, tells The New York Times that the number is much higher. Dr. Ciccarone has reason to believe around 4 million Americans are living with opioid addiction.
Here at The Haven, we offer people, caught in the vicious cycle of addiction, detox and residential treatment. Located on the Central Coast of California, our center is in the ideal setting to begin the journey of recovery and healing. Please contact us to learn more about our programs.


text:
Q: React Native Linking - How to properly get url? I am trying to use Linking component in react-native . I finished setting the AppDelegate part for iOS, however, when I try to get the initialUrl by running the code below in componentDidMount(), I always get a null value in the url. Is there something I missed? How can I fix this?
Linking.getInitialURL().then((url) => {
      console.log('was here')
      console.log(url)
      if (url) {
        Linking.openURL(url)
        console.log('egul')
        console.log(url)
      }
    }).catch(err => console.error('An error occurred', err))

A: You need to follow all the instructions on this page:
https://facebook.github.io/react-native/docs/linking
There are necessary items you need to do in the native code, not just adding the linking code that's shown directly after the "Handling Deep links".

A: For those who're coming here, you need to disable debugger. You can't console log(url). To check if you code is working set the url in the state and render it in your app.
state={
      url:''
}

componentDidMount(){
Linking.getInitialURL().then((url) => {
  if (url) {
    this.setState({url})
  }
}).catch(err => console.error('An error occurred', err))
}

render(){
return(
   <View>
      <Text>
         {this.state.url}
      </Text>
   </View>
)}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


L'Officiel Mexico celebrates its first anniversary issue in French style, having 40 years old Caroline de Maigret on the cover for their special March 2015 issue. What's so fascinating Caroline de Maigret? She is more than a model. She is an activist, intellectual and musical producer. She is an inspiration and a real muse, and Lancôme knows it. Caroline is the quintessential example of the Parisian woman, one that is free, has a different concept of what femininity is, and every morning when she takes on her beauty routine she thinks about each element in order to always show an "au natural" look – a little concealer, mascara to accentuate the eyes, and lips that can remain colorless or can be emphasised with a perfect red lipstick, depending on the mood. Check out her style in designer looks from the likes of Chanel ( on the cover ), Prada, Ferragamo and Calvin Klein Jeans.


EDINBURG, Texas – During the past week, Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV) agents rescued three illegal aliens in distress and discovered two deceased.
On June 19, an agent patrolling the border near Peñitas, Texas discovered a deceased male in the Rio Grande riverbank. The Palmview Fire Department responded to retrieve the body.
On Friday, June 22, an agent assigned to the RGV Special Operations Detachment (SOD) came across skeletal remains near Falfurrias, Texas. The Brooks County Sheriff's Office responded and took custody of the decedent.
Yesterday, RGV SOD agents encountered an unresponsive man near Falfurrias, Texas and immediately requested medical assistance. The agents transported the man to an accessible point on the highway to facilitate the ambulance arrival. The ambulance transported the man to a local hospital.
Later in the afternoon, agents assigned to the Falfurrias station responded to a 911 call regarding two illegal aliens claiming to be lost. Agents, assisted by an Air and Marine Operations helicopter, located the two men near Encino, Texas. Both men stated they were in good health and declined medical attention.
The Rio Grande Valley Sector currently has multiple campaigns focused on rescues and danger awareness, such as "Operation Big Rig" and "No Se Arriesgue" to combat smuggling and ultimately save lives.


text:
TLI Headlines
Dr. Dileep Rao: 8 Strategies to Build the Untouchable Lead and Dominate an Emerging Industry | Technological Leadership Institute
What is common among business giants such as Intel, Walmart, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Chipotle, Whole Foods, Uber and Airbnb?
They were first dominators in an emerging industry. Some were first movers. Some were not. The ones who won and dominated the emerging industry built such an untouchable lead that the others could not catch up. And they mainly did it by being improvers, not first-movers.
In an emerging industry, there are usually many entrants, each trying to grab the lion's share of the market. The first-mover identifies the opportunity. But improvers wrest the lead from the first-mover. First movers don't always end up dominating. In fact, only about 11 percent did so.
Dominators win when they build an insurmountable lead. Sometimes during the initial land rush, no one has a dominating advantage. The first one to find and build a dominating advantage gets a head start towards building the untouchable lead.
Here are a few strategies that have been used by billion-dollar entrepreneurs to find the dominating advantage and build the untouchable lead:
1) Become an early-mover: Most of the dominators were not first movers, but they were early movers. They got in soon after the industry emerged, but before it took off. They found the key unmet need of the market during the emerging phase and dominated when it took off. Most dominating entrepreneurs, including the founders of Intel, Walmart, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Facebook were early movers before the leaders were entrenched.
2) Control the core technology: Microsoft became the leader of the PC industry by controlling the operating system. For some unfathomable reason, IBM handed this opportunity as a gift to Bill Gates. This allowed Microsoft to control the direction of the PC industry and demolish its competitors. It then added the suite of office products and became a behemoth.
3) Find the right business strategy: By finding the right combination of product and market in his second stint at Apple, Steve Jobs showed that he was perhaps the greatest entrepreneur of the last 50 years. He managed to build one of the world's great companies by building platforms with the iPod, the iPad and the iPhone.
4) Seek many small improvements unless the major one is a blockbuster: Many examples suggest that domination was mostly achieved not with one great advantage but a series of small advantages. Lee Schafer points this out with great clarity in a column about Polaris and Arctic Cat — two of the biggest snowmobile companies. But when the major improvement is a blockbuster (as in the case of Xerox, Medtronic or Genentech), run with it.
5) Satisfy the unmet need: When the Internet first came on the scene, many search engines vied for dominance. Brin and Page found a rational way to rank the search results based on their popularity, and search users found this method was credible. Google has dominated search since.
6) Focus on the right segment with the right strategy: Sam Walton focused on the underserved rural market with his big-box strategy. While his competitors, such as Target and K-Mart, were busy seeking to dominate the urban market, Walmart focused on the rural market. After dominating this market, he then turned his attention to the urban market and became the largest company in the world. Jeff Bezos focused on the segment that was initially comfortable buying online. And he used the right strategy to dominate the cloud.
7) Find the right alliance: Michael Bloomberg built his company by forming the right alliance with Merrill Lynch. By using an industry leader rather than a venture capitalist as his investor, he kept more than 80 percent of this business and dominated his industry.
8) Get the right skills: The history of highly successful entrepreneurs shows that they grew with their venture. As the venture grew, so did their skills. The good ones know that they have to build a great team. And develop great leaders. Otherwise, they fail.
MY TAKE: There have been many ways to build the untouchable lead. Find the one that is right for you to develop your long-term advantage based on an analysis of the unmet need and your skills.
Dr. Dileep Rao has more than 20 years of experiencing financing businesses and ventures using venture capital, leases, debt and subordinated debt. He also bought and turned around several companies. Since retiring, he has been writing, teaching, and hopefully thinking. He has also interviewed extremely successful entrepreneurs such as Glen Taylor and Bob Kierllin. Currently, he is writing books about how to build giant businesses without capital. Dr. Rao teaches in the Master's in Management of Technology degree program.
This article was originally written for Forbes, and republished with the author's consent.
Dileep Rao, PhD
Subscribe to receive the latest TLI articles, news and events
Stay informed about *
Affiliation with TLI *
MOT Alumnus Uses Capstone Project to Help Others Create a Culture of Innovation December 6, 2019
Where Is Entrepreneurship Headed? September 30, 2019
Best 2019 MOT Capstone Awards June 17, 2019
The Practice and Theory of Influencing People October 10, 2018
The Beating Heart of a Company October 3, 2018
The Best Way to Launch a Product: Analyze and Decide, or Learn by Doing? September 26, 2018


text:
Thabane Sutu is an icon of Lesotho football. In his illustrious career he played as a goalkeeper and captained Lesotho's national team, Likuena, from 1994 to 1997. He starred for local giants Arsenal in two spells between 1984 and 1998, winning three league titles. Sutu also played for Africa's most successful club side Al Ahly of Egypt with whom he won the African Cup Winners Cup in 1993 and three league championships.
He is currently based in America where he has been a youth coach at United 1996 Futbol Club since in 2001. In 2006 Sutu was the recipient of the Coach of the Year award in the state of Kentucky, and in 2009 his youth team won the Kentucky state championship. He answers your questions…
With the English Premiership season winding down we ask Thabane Sutu about the season that Liverpool have had and, of course, the title race.
Liverpool's Carling Cup win means qualification for the Europa League; even so personally this season has been a disappointment, particularly in league games. Too many dropped points have been at home... I believe Liverpool have tied eight games, majority of those against teams they should be beating.
Blackburn, Swansea and Norwich for example all got away with something from Anfield.
Part of the problem is that Liverpool's squad is too mediocre and average, with the exception of Suarez, Gerrard, Skrtel, Agger, Enrique, Reina and Kuyt. Few of Liverpool's summer signings have made an impact.
Charlie Adam is an oxygen thief, Downing flatters to deceive, Andy Carroll is a total flop, an expensive one for that matter, and Jordan Henderson is a ghost!
Jose Enrique has been solid, and Bellamy has been Liverpool's best signing by far.
Henderson is only 20 years, so maybe he will improve with time. That said, I've watched him several times this season and I still can't describe what his best attribute as a footballer is. Kenny Dalglish bought a lot of British players, and that's fine provided they are good enough to play for Liverpool.
Charlie Adam has been a total failure. A club of Liverpool's stature shouldn't be getting players from relegated teams like Blackpool. Ian Holloway (Blackpool's manager) once compared Adam to Xabi Alonso! Are you kidding me? There's no comparison there; I am convinced Alonso's departure led to subsequent departures of Mascherano and Torres.
Admittedly, Liverpool have been unlucky at times. They've hit the woodwork more than 21 times this season. They've lost a couple on the bounce – they shouldn't have lost to Arsenal, but that's what happens when you don't kill teams off, especially with RVP on the field.
Manchester United have edged ahead! No surprises there! I thought Man City was going to run away with it! But the loss of Yaya Toure to the Afcon was a major blow! They didn't look the same team without him. Paul Scholes' return has galvanised United, he is a brilliant player. He was never pacy, so he didn't have any speed to lose to begin with. That's why he is still a top player at 37! I am not a Man United fan, never will be, but I've always liked him!
Thabane
Good afternoon Ntate Sutu, seeing the release of the fixtures list for the 2011/12 English Premiership season really whet my appetitive. I know it's still really early but what do you make of the coming title race? And what are your thoughts on Arsenal?
I still think Manchester United will win the league again.
Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool will make the top four too. Arsenal haven't strengthened yet and to compound matters they're in real danger of losing their best players, Fabregas and Nasri, as well. Clichy is already gone, but luckily they do have Kieran Gibbs who is just as good.
Ferguson is way too experienced and he knows exactly what he needs to do to keep his team going. He has sold John O'Shea and Wes Brown to Sunderland. In came Phil Jones and Chris Smalling had a decent start to his Old Trafford career. So defensively United are set.
They just need to replace Paul Scholes. Not easy! He was arguably the best midfielder in England, and possibly Europe, for the past 15 years or so. A great player!
I like Liverpool's chances of breaking into the top four. They have signed shrewdly... even if the money they paid for Jordan Henderson is a little exorbitant. Charlie Adam will prove to be a major signing for them. He will play with better players and will see the ball a lot more than he did at Blackpool. His delivery from set pieces is top drawer; Liverpool didn't score too many goals from set pieces last year, so Adam's addition is already a major plus in that sense. Also, he is left-footed and he provides Liverpool better balance in the middle.
For Arsenal Vermaelen will be back at the heart of defence... I think they missed him badly last season. Samba and Cahill have also been talked about as possible signings but they don't fit the Arsenal profile... they're both very good defenders but not Wenger's type.
Wenger prefers ball playing defenders, not rough and robust ones like Samba for instance.
Unfortunately you need a bit of both worlds for an effective centre-back partnership. Man United have Ferdinand who is good on the ball and Vidic who isn't necessarily great technically, but is a terrific defender who sticks to the principles very well. It's a good combination. I think Arsenal's defensive pairing of Kolo Toure and Sol Campbell was the best they've had in a while. They need something like that if they're to be successful again.
The 2011 Gold Cup final, the biggest event on the North American football, or should we say soccer, calendar takes place later today. Hosts America face defending champions Mexico at the Rose Bowl, the scene of Brazil's 1994 World Cup win and the 1999 Women's World Cup final. It's the third time in a row the two foes have met in the final and Thabane Sutu does what he does best, giving us the lowdown on the finale… oh, and a Liverpool question is inevitably thrown in there somewhere...
The Gold Cup Final: USA or Mexico?
The US and Mexico are eternal rivals and anything can happen in this kind of encounter. However, based on current form, I would pick Mexico to win. They have a much more balanced side than the US. In Rafa Marquez Mexico also have a veteran of three Fifa World Cups and he provides a calming influence to a somewhat young Mexican side. Mexico looked really fit in their semi-final win over Honduras... they outlasted their opponents and scored two overtime goals through De Nigris and Chicharito. Hernandez is one of the best natural finishers I've seen in a long time. He just has that knack of being in the right place at the right time. I think Goodson and Bocanegra are going to have a hard time keeping up with him.
Guardado on the left wing and Barrera on the opposite flank are also going to be a handful for the US defence, and don't forget about Dos Santos breaking from midfield. De Nigris provides a different alternative to Hernandez... he is strongly built, great in the air and a little scrappy. He usually comes off the bench and he's a perfect foil for Hernandez.
The US have some talent of their own too – Howard in goal, Bradley and Jones in midfield, and Donovan and Dempsey up front. Freddie Adu and Agudelo have also been particularly effective off the bench as well. But if I were to pick a winner for tonights final I would go with Mexico.
Is Stuart Downing the piece to Liverpool's championship Jigsaw?
With Ashley Young Man United bound, Downing is an option for sure. He can definitely help. If Carroll is going to thrive at Liverpool then signing genuine wingers is paramount. Liverpool need a leftback too. I've heard that they may get Cristian Zapata from Udinese. He is good. Plays for Colombia. But Udinese is playing Champions League football next season and I don't think he'll let that opportunity pass him by.
I think Liverpool also need another forward to compliment Suarez and Carroll. Ngog cannot withstand the rigors of the Premiership... he is physically too weak and the moment he's average at best. He's still young though so maybe sending him out on loan to a Championship team may do him good. Dani Pacheco is an interesting player for me, and a much better option than Ngog. He helped Norwich gain promotion and I hope Liverpool keep him and give more opportunities.
When it comes to winning the league, I don't think Liverpool can do so, but they will qualify for the top four. They have a difficult start at home to Sunderland and then away to Arsenal.
You also have factor in the international matches played on the Wednesday a few days before the league starts. I don't understand why national teams have friendly games on a Wednesday when the league season begins on Saturday. I would have thought the opening day would have been moved back to Sunday at least. But in any case, Liverpool cannot afford any slip ups like they did last season; they need to hit the ground running.
English champions Manchester United play Spanish kings Barcelona later today in the most highly anticipated Uefa Champions League final since the turn of the century. Likuena legend Thabane Sutu is always a good person to turn to on occasions like this… a question just needed to be asked and he answered it, short and sweet…
Lumela Ntate Sutu!
What's your take on the Uefa Champions League final? How do you see the game going? And which players do you think will have the most influence on the outcome of the game? Thanks.
I will go for Barcelona. I think they are a far better side than they were when they won in it 2009. However, the final is in England this time and that will make the contest somehow more interesting. Rooney, Carrick, Hernandez, Vidic, Park and maybe Giggs, if he starts, are the key players for United. For Barcelona it will be the usual suspects… Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Puyol, Dani Alves and so on. I think Valdes too will have a major role to play. He doesn't have to do much because Barca dominate possession so much, so his concentration levels have got to be spot on – especially in such a high stakes contest.
With Barca you pick your own poison, if you low-press, they will break you down with combinations. If you press high, they can be absolutely devastating on the counter. Furthermore, Messi and Iniesta are completely healthy and more importantly, fresh. They both didn't play in the last two games as Barca wrapped up the league nice and early.
All in all, I think Barcelona will win today, but it won't be easy. Man United, especially in central defence, are too slow; and Barca will keep the ball on the deck and probe until an opening presents itself. Vidic and Ferdinand are both wonderful in the air but that's not how Barcelona plays.
Good afternoon Ntate Sutu,
I watched Liverpool's 3-1 win over Manchester United last Sunday. I was very impressed! I haven't seen Liverpool play so well in a very long time! What's your take on my beloved Liverpool? Are you excited about the arrival of King Kenny, the new signings and new style of play? I know I am…
I think Liverpool should have appointed Kenny right after Rafael Benitez left. No disrespect to Roy Hodgson, I think Liverpool was too big for him. He is better suited to managing small clubs whose sole ambition is to stay in the Premiership... Fulham and now West Brom. And his style of play was too rigid!
He wanted certain players to receive to the ball in prescribed areas of the pitch. Kenny came in and has given players more freedom to express themselves… the passing and movement has gotten better, Meireles has suddenly exploded and scored 5 goals in his last 7 games. Kenny has also shown faith in young players like Martin Kelly, Jay Spearing and Jonjo Shelvy. Sunday's win against Manchester United was definitely the highlight of the season.
I think Suarez is a shrewd piece of business. He is not match fit yet and I think the best of him is yet to come. He is obviously a different kind of player to Torres...Suarez is more mobile, has got great feet especially in tight spaces and he's a fighter! I like him a lot.
Of course Liverpool also played on Man United's weaknesses... the absence of Ferdinand and Vidic in particular was massive. And I still don't understand why Darren Fletcher didn't start. Carrick and Scholes have a similar style of play. Fletcher covers a lot of ground. I don't think any of Man United's central midfielders made runs beyond Rooney and Berbatov, particularly in the first half. Losing Nani was a major blow too. Carragher should have seen red. So too Rafael.
I still think Liverpool need 5 or 6 players in the summer. Carroll's main asset is heading and Liverpool don't have genuine wingers. They need to address that area. They could also do with a leftback. Johnson has been playing there lately and has done well. But he's a rightback. Also one central defender! Daniel Agger is great when fit, but he misses way too many games with injuries. Soto Kyrgiakos and Skrtel are garbage... bad things always happen when they play together. Hernandez nicked one goal and Soto was marking him on the wrong side. And the distance between him and Skrtel was almost 15-20 metres apart! Schoolboys don't make mistakes like that!
(To hear from Thabane Sutu send your questions to molaposportscentre@gmail.com)


text:
SUA LIFE
2019 March for Life in Washington, D.C.
On January 18, around 300,000 people participated in this year's March for Life in Washington, D.C. This rally occurs every year around the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 decision to decriminalize abortion. For 45 years, citizens from across the US have protested against the legalization of abortion by becoming a voice for the voiceless, meaning that all individuals who are pro-life believe that all children, born and unborn, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the purpose of the March for Life is to end the human rights abuse of abortion since all life beginning at conception is sacred, and each child should have the
opportunity to live life to the fullest.
It is for these reasons that people who attend the March for Life make a difference in the world by doing what they think is right. For example, Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece, is an anti-abortion activist who spoke at the rally to protect the rights of babies who are artificially breached. In her lifetime, she has had two abortions, but one was involuntary. After she had her first son, she noticed that her cycle did not continue. But when she went to her doctor, he performed an illegal abortion without her consent. He had assumed that Alveda did not want to be pregnant again after having her first baby. She had her second abortion when she was 22 years old. After undergoing the procedure, her cervix was damaged, and she miscarried her third baby a few months later. Since then, she has suffered from eating disorders, depression, nightmares, and sexual dysfunctions. She felt guilty for deciding that she did not want her baby, but her faith in God gives her hope that she will see all of her children in Heaven. As a result of her experiences with the abortion industry, Alveda has been traveling across the country to spread her message of ending post-abortion trauma. She recalls, "I prayed often for deliverance from the pain caused by my decision to abort my baby. I suffered the threat of cervical and breast cancer and experienced the pain of empty arms after the baby was gone. And truly, for me, and countless abortive mothers, nothing on earth can fully restore what has been lost; only Jesus can."
Alveda King's story has made her an unlikely candidate to become a pro-life activist, but it has served as an inspiration for many people who want to fight for life, including some teachers and students from Saint Ursula Academy. Ms. Cahill, one of SUA's religion teachers, takes part in the March for Life because she believes that "God created everyone with dignity" and that "we are called to respect that inherent dignity" from conception to natural death. She also encourages students to go to the rally since you can "bond, sightsee, and stand up for what you believe in", making it an amazing experience that won't be forgotten.
Sophomore Marygrace Fagan adds that "there are so many people from different schools around the country, and some from Australia that come", allowing you to meet people who share the same views and desires as you do. Playing your part in the March for Life even relates to the school's theme of the Prophet. By expressing your own opinions, you can motivate others to have confidence in what they regard as true and make an impact on generations to come. So the March for Life is not just a protest, but a reason to bring people together on a united front to promote the well-being of all individuals, even if they have not been born.
SUA's high school newspaper
thelight@saintursula.org
Saint Ursula Academy
1339 East McMillan Street


text:
Press Release: CFV Offers Vision for Economic Recovery
posted by Ben Kinsley | 1158.20pt
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 13, 2021
Montpelier - In response to a lack of comprehensive long-term planning on behalf of state leaders around economic recovery from the Covid-19 Pandemic, today Campaign for Vermont (CFV) releases a roadmap forward. "We were just frustrated," said CFV Chairman Pat McDonald, "the legislature had lots of work being done all over the place but no overarching plan to tie it all together."
The plan has three phases that would address immediate economic gains aimed at Vermont's hardest hit industries; intermediate growth over the next 2-3 years driven by remote workers, technology startups, and entrepreneurs; and long-term growth through re-imagining the scope and alignment of the state's workforce development efforts as well as investments in housing infrastructure.
"What we are trying to do is offer a clear vision for the state to move forward," said Ben Kinsley, "we need a plan that takes into account our current public health crisis, but also moves our failing businesses back towards prosperity and creates the conditions for entirely new Vermont-scale enterprises."
The plan seeks to address the 30,000 displaced workers in the state as well as capture a new work environment where 25-30% of workers are still likely to be working remotely at the end of 2021. Kinsley added that "by strategic investments in persistent issues like broadband access, the workforce development pipeline, and housing we can come back stronger and position our state to succeed long-term."
As the legislative session is nearing its end, Campaign for Vermont is calling on the legislature to think wholistically and make strategic investments with incoming federal dollars to ensure we are building a Vermont economy for the 21st century. Campaign for Vermont's plan for economic recovery can be found at CampaignForVermont.org/economic-development.
press release economic recovery
Ben Kinsley published this page in Blog 2021-05-13 10:18:27 -0400


What do you find unsatisfactory about the mental health system?
How would you change the mental health system to help support you and the person you care for?
Have you ever received support from the Carer Support fund? If so can you tell us how it helped you?


text:
Q: Distortion At High Volume On Headphones I'm wondering if there's a way to get rid of audio distortion at high volume levels on headphones. When I dual booted Linux with Windows I'd usually just boot into Windows before booting back into Linux to fix my issues and not get any distortion at higher levels on headphones.
Now I just have a machine with Linux on it and can't seem to stop the sound from distorting at higher levels whenever I plug in headphones since I've messed with the alsa mixer pcm volume, changed the headphone volume in alsamixer, and also tried different headphones.
Even when I get distortion to stop by adjusting the headphone, master, or pcm volumes, the sound tends to be somewhat weak even when I turn my headphones all the way up. I'm also wondering if I need to wait for a firmware/kernel update since I'm using relatively new hardware, with a Realtek ALC 295 sound-card, or just change out the card even though I'm not sure if I should do this yet if there's simpler ways to fix the issue.
Thanks!

A: Turning all hardware mixers up worked.
Edit: Actually just found another, slightly hacky, work around to this issue after it came back a few boots later by using an ladpsa amplifier and compressor in Arch. Something similar to this could probably work in other distros too.

*

*Install ladspa plugins:

pacman -S ladspa-plugins

*Create an .asoundrc file in the home folder:

*Paste this code into the .asoundrc file:

    pcm.pulse {
        type pulse
    }

ctl.pulse {
    type pulse
}

pcm.default   pcm.pulse
ctl.default   ctl.pulse

*paste these commands into /etc/pulse/default.pa:

load-module module-ladspa-sink sink_name=ladspa_output.fastLookaheadLimiter label=fastLookaheadLimiter plugin=fast_lookahead_limiter_1913 control=20,0,0.3
  load-module module-ladspa-sink sink_name=ladspa_output.dysonCompress label=dysonCompress plugin=dyson_compress_1403 master=ladspa_output.fastLookaheadLimiter control=0,0.5,0.5,0.99
  set-default-sink ladspa_output.dysonCompress

*Remove pulseaudio-alsa since it conflicts with ladpsa-plugins

*Reboot!

*Turn volume down
Edit 2:
Just added some slightly tuned default.pa settings to help eliminate distorted frequencies. It's not perfect but worked fairly well on my hardware:

load-module module-ladspa-sink
    sink_name=ladspa_output.fastLookaheadLimiter
    label=fastLookaheadLimiter plugin=fast_lookahead_limiter_1913
    control=5,0,0.8 load-module module-ladspa-sink
    sink_name=ladspa_output.dysonCompress label=dysonCompress
    plugin=dyson_compress_1403 master=ladspa_output.fastLookaheadLimitercontrol=-14,1,0.5,0.99 set-default-sink ladspa_output.dysonCompress