text:
Infrastructure & Development / Southeast Asia
"Dam if you do, Dam if you don't" – Hydropower in the Mekong
Published May 1, 2018 Length 21 min
Hydropower is the most significant development on the Mekong since the Vietnam War. A clean and renewable source of energy, hydropower is a convenient solution to the region's growing need for industrialisation. Unfortunately, it has also become a major threat to the river's longevity and sustainability. Why is this so, and how did it happen? Using a series of maps, we seek to understand the Mekong's past, and the implications of these developments for its future.
About the Mekong
The Mekong is the twelfth largest river in the world, and is one of the most important rivers in Asia. It flows through six countries: China, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. From source to sea, the river begins in the Tibetan plateau and ends at Vietnam's southern delta, emptying into the South China Sea. The river stretches over 4,900 kilometres comprising of an upper and lower basin. Together with its tributaries and distributaries, the Mekong drains a total land area of 795,000 square kilometres into the sea.
The name Mekong originates from the phrase, 'Mae Nam Khong' – a Thai and Laotian term that roughly translates to 'Mother of Rivers'. Although the river is commonly referred to as 'Mekong', it goes by a different name in every region that it passes through. It is called Dza Chu (River of Rocks) in Tibet, Lancang Jiang (Turbulent Rivers) in China, Tonle Thom (Great Water) in Cambodia, and Song Cuu Long (Nine Dragons) in Vietnam. The names given to the river reflect its character – grand, turbulent and unpredictable.
Mekong: River of Life
Cities along the Mekong mainstream
Arguably the most important water resource of the region, the Mekong birthed many civilisations on mainland Southeast Asia. The earliest evidence of the river's importance to civilisation is the ancient seaport of Óc Eo, which is situated in the Mekong delta of modern Vietnam. Archaeological evidence dates the city to the 1st century AD and strongly suggests that Óc Eo had an extensive trade network. The seaport was part of a larger kingdom, identified today as Funan. Other kingdoms, such as Chenla and Angkor, followed in its wake, relying on the Mekong for seasonal irrigation and an abundant supply of fish. Many major historic cities, such as Siem Reap, Phnom Penh, Vientiane and Luang Prabang, were built on the banks of the Mekong. Today, the Mekong basin is home to over 240 million people and 100 ethnicities.
The Mekong is rich in natural resources and biological diversity, housing a variety of ecosystems. It is a lifeline for all countries in the lower basin, especially Cambodia and Laos. River fauna is one of the most valued resources of the Mekong. The river and its tributaries account for about 90 percent of fish production in the basin. The value of the basin's annual fish catch is estimated to be around US$800 million. Fishing is one of the most important livelihood activities for people in the region, and fish is the primary source of animal protein.
Fishing activity along the Mekong
The Mekong also supports a wide variety of agriculture – the primary economic activity in the basin. Rice is the most important crop. Rice cultivation can be found in various places along the Mekong, such as Yunnan, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia. However, the most important rice production area in the basin is in the Mekong delta. Also known as "Vietnam's rice bowl", the delta is a major contributor to Vietnam's status one of the world's leading exporter of rice. It is essential to the food security and economy of the country.
Hydropower in the Mekong
The Mekong's rugged terrain and temperamental rapids unfortunately make it unsuitable as a major transport route. Since the Europeans' first encounter with the river, many have sought to exploit it for profit as a transportation channel. The most significant attempt was the French Mekong Expedition (1866–68) led by Doudart de Lagrée and Francis Garnier that aimed to chart the river in search of a navigable route into China. The expedition was fruitless and ended in tragedy. Other explorations of the river came to the same conclusion: the Mekong is unsuitable as a transportation route.
It was not until after the Second World War that a new major economic use of the Mekong came into picture. In 1957, the United Nations (UN) specialised agency, Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE), released a report, Development of Water Resources in the Lower Mekong, recommending the construction of multipurpose dams on the river for irrigation and flood control. More importantly, it highlighted hydropower as one of the major ways in which the Mekong's resources could be exploited, especially in areas where there are great rapids, such as Khone Falls in Laos. Electricity generated from the river had the potential to power development and bring in income for the region.
Shortly after, another two reports were made about the Mekong, similarly emphasising the river's hydropower potential. The first was by the retired Lieutenant-General of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Raymond Wheeler. Supported by the UN, his report reaffirmed the Mekong's potential for hydropower, and ambitiously outlined detailed plans for mainstream and tributary dams in the basin. The other report was a Ford Foundation sponsored study by Gilbert White, titled Economics and Social Aspects of Lower Mekong Development. White's 1962 study focused on the environmental and social impacts of hydropower plans drawn up by the two prior reports.
These three landmark reports reflected clearly the prevailing view of the time. Hydropower was seen as progressive and modern. It was not that the negative costs were ignored. The reports acknowledged that huge areas would be flooded, and large populations would be resettled. However, the overall gains of hydropower development were seen to far outweigh its repercussions.
Dragged into the Cold War, Indochina was plagued with continuous wars and incessant conflict over the next few decades, ending only in 1992. America lost the ideological battle in the region. During this time, it was nearly impossible to execute any significant infrastructural development on the Mekong. Yet, while Indochina was mired in strife, China made significant progress on their end of the river in Yunnan. Construction of the first dam, the Manwan dam, began in 1984 and was completed by 1993. Since then, the Mekong countries have built over 60 hydro dams along the Mekong and its tributaries, with hundreds more planned and underway.
Regional Cooperation and International Politics
Regional cooperation has a short history in the Mekong. While there were bilateral agreements and treaties signed in the 19th century, it was not until the 1950s that major steps were taken. After the First Indochina War, the region was granted temporary peace by the Geneva Agreements. Together with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam signed an agreement in 1957 to establish the Coordination of Investigations of the Lower Mekong Basin. Known as the Mekong Committee, it was the first institution to comprehensively detail the economic uses of the river beyond Yunnan.
The three major reports mentioned earlier played a significant role in the Mekong Committee's development. The 1957 ECAFE report provided the impetus and foundation for the institution's formation. Subsequently, Wheeler's report was adopted by the Mekong Committee as a five-year action plan. Together, these reports set the committee's agenda, which focused on poverty alleviation through hydropower, irrigation and flood control.
The Mekong Committee was very much a product of the Cold War. Americans played a key role in the production of all three reports, and had strong influence over the institution. During the 1960s, United States was the largest financier of the Mekong Committee, and the lower Mekong countries were heavily reliant on American economic aid. Eager to win the ideological war, the US backed the idea of hydropower as they believed it would alleviate the widespread poverty that allowed communism to thrive. China, a communist country and a non-member of the UN, was excluded from the Mekong Committee.
Due to war, the Mekong Committee was incredibly limited in its work, and was largely ineffective in the 70s. Between 1978 and 1994, the commission re-established itself as an Interim Mekong Committee (IMC) with the participation of only Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. Unable to execute any infrastructural development, it relegated itself to data collection and domestic projects.
A new lease of life was given to regional cooperation in April 1995. The four lower basin countries signed the Agreement of Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin, also known as the Mekong River Commission (MRC). The MRC is an intergovernmental organisation that still operates today, and provides a platform for regional cooperation among member states. It stipulates a legal framework and procedures for coordination between countries to manage and protect the shared resources of the Mekong. This time, China and Myanmar were invited to be members of the commission, but both declined.
China's Expansion
China's non-membership of the MRC is the institution's greatest challenge. China is only a dialogue partner of the MRC, and does not adhere to its legal mandate. China's portion of the river forms nearly half the length of the Mekong. It accounts for as much as 40 percent to 70 percent of the river's annual flow during the dry season. Evidently, developments on the river's upstream have significant impact on the lower basin. Determined not to let the concerns of other countries impede its progress, China has generally taken a unilateral approach to developments on the Mekong. Currently, it has built eight major dams on the Lancang's mainstream without consulting its neighbours, and has plans for another 12 more, creating a "cascade of dams" on the river's upstream.
Despite portrayals by the international media, China has in recent years shown greater cooperation on the Mekong. It understands that it is not in their interest to destroy the Mekong's ecology. China has created the Lancang Mekong Cooperation (LMC), which held its inaugural meeting on 23 March 2016. All six Mekong countries are members of the new Beijing-led regional entity – a first in the history of the Mekong. More significantly, it marks the first time that China is involved in discussions over the river with other stakeholders. It is regional cooperation on China's terms.
This is part of China's One Belt One Road (OBOR) vision. Announced in 2013 by President Xi Jinping, the initiative is meant to revive China's historic silk road and maritime routes. It will connect over 65 countries across 3 continents through the development of infrastructure such as railways, ports, and roads. It aims to encourage economic cooperation and the movement of people, trade, capital and ideas. Undoubtedly, this development is also meant to boost China's economy and expand its power and influence.
Battery of Southeast Asia
China is not the only one hungry for hydropower. Laos is one of Southeast Asia's poorest countries. It is landlocked, has a small domestic economy, and lacks skilled manpower. It also does not have any natural energy sources, such as coal. However, Laos has steep mountains and abundant rivers, most of which flow into the Mekong. It occupies a central and favourable position in the lower basin, sharing borders with all other Mekong countries. It is not difficult to see how hydropower and its benefits appear extremely attractive to a country like Laos.
Determined to be the 'Battery of Southeast Asia', Laos has embarked on an ambitious hydro-industrialisation programme that will see the construction of over one hundred dams on the Mekong and its tributaries. The energy generated from these hydro dams will be exported to neighbouring countries, mainly Thailand. The country is convinced that hydropower export is the quickest way to improve economic growth and alleviate poverty. Currently, two-thirds of Laos' hydropower is exported.
Backing this ambition is China, who is investing heavily in Laos's hydropower development. Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) in Laos has been increasing rapidly since the mid-2000s due to China's 'Going Out' policy. At present, it is one of the top three countries investing in Laos, and 32 percent of the total Chinese FDI in Laos is for hydropower. Many of these are joint-ventures between Chinese and Laotian companies under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme, in which ownership of these ventures will be transferred to the Government of Laos over 25–30 years. Among the bigger projects are the 921 MW Pak Beng dam and the 1320 MW Pak Lay dam. Chinese companies, such as Datang Overseas Invest Co., Ltd, and the China National Electronic Import and Export Corp, are the major stakeholders of these ventures.
Impact?
The financial rewards of hydropower are undeniable. Currently under construction in northern Laos is one of the river's largest projects – the Xayaburi Dam. It is owned by Thailand's CH. Karnchang Public Company and supported by Laos' Xayaburi Power Company. Construction of the US$3.8 billion dam began in 2012 and it will be completed by 2020. Around 95% of the electricity generated will be sold to Thailand. The 1285 MV dam is estimated to bring in direct revenue of US$3,913 million for the Government of Laos over the 29-year concession period, and is forecasted to generate 12,000 local jobs.
The Xayaburi dam is merely the first of 11 dams planned for the mainstream. These dams were first conceived in the 1950s and shelved because of war. They were revived in the mid-2000s by Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese and Malaysian companies. Nine of these dams will be in Laos, and the remaining two in Cambodia. The energy generated will largely be sold to Thailand and Vietnam. Should all the mainstream dams be completed, Laos is projected to receive an estimated US$2.6 billion in export revenue annually. For a country that has a current GDP of only US$12.3 billion, the financial rewards of hydropower appears real and immediate.
Yet, the stakes of massive hydropower dams are just as high. The Xayaburi dam will flood the land around it, affecting ten villages and resettling 2,100 people. It will cause irreversible damage to the river's ecosystem and affect the livelihoods of a projected 202,000 farmers and fishers. Around 41 fish species are at risk of extinction due to a drastic change in their habitats and ecosystems. The 820 metres long dam will also block a key migration route that at least 23 fish species rely on to swim upstream and spawn. One such fish is the critically endangered Mekong Giant Catfish. More importantly, the dam will have a lasting transboundary impact on the river's ecology, and its long-term consequences are still largely unknown. The rice fields in the lower basin, especially in the Mekong delta, rely on the natural flow of the river for irrigation and nutrients transported from the north. No doubt that a dam the size of the Xayaburi will have serious effects on rice cultivation.
These are the consequences of only one hydrodam, albeit one of the largest. The projected total impact of the 11 mainstream dams is far more disturbing. Experts argue that the dams will transform the river into large, stagnant reservoirs. Over 100 fish species are at risk of extinction, and an estimated 106,000 people will be displaced from their homes. The food security of over two million people would be threatened as food sources wither. A study of the dams' impact on the Mekong by Mae Fa Luang University, Chiang Rai, predicts a loss of US$66.2 billion from fisheries and agriculture.
The Government of Laos, represented by the Ministry of Energy and Mines, have attempted to address some of the concerns raised about the Xayaburi dam. In 2012, they temporarily halted construction due to protest from neighbouring countries and environmental groups. The ministry has also claimed to set aside US$43 million to resettle 2,200 people during the construction of the dam, and will resettle more people after. They will install 'fish-friendly turbines' and fish ladders to ensure that migration routes for fishes remain open. However, these efforts have been heavily criticised. Many argue that the resettlement plans are improperly done, and fish ladders are ineffective in encouraging fish migration.
Fears over the effects of these mainstream dams are not unfounded. The eight dams on the Lancang have already displaced more than 100,000 people, most of whom are ethnic minorities. In several instances, resettlement has been poorly executed, and the displaced were not adequately compensated. The dams have inundated farmlands, taking away the people's traditional livelihood, and consequently their culture and identity.
More significantly, the transboundary effects of Lancang dams may already be showing in countries downstream. Sediment essential to fertilisation and coastal formation can no longer flow naturally downstream because it is being trapped in the dams' reservoirs. This has deprived rice fields and fisheries of nutrients, and caused coastal erosion. Additionally, the dams have weakened waterflow, making the Mekong delta more vulnerable to saltwater intrusion. In 2016, Vietnam reported that due to the dams upstream and climate change, an estimated 400,000 hectares were affected by saltwater, 166,000 of which have become infertile. That same year, lower Mekong countries were plagued by a severe drought that threatened the food security of hundreds of thousands. In response, China released water from its Jinghong dam to alleviate the drought, a seemingly kind and cooperative gesture. However, many argue the drought was exacerbated by China's dams. The action was a painful reminder of China's privileged position, and how others are beholden to it.
Lowland rice extent in the Mekong basin. Data from International Rice Research Institute
The dams have also apparently adversely affected Cambodia's great lake – the Tonle Sap. The lake yields around 300,000 tonnes of fish annually and accounts for most of the country's freshwater catch. It relies on the river's natural rhythm, expanding in the wet season and shrinking during the dry season. In recent years, many fishermen and villagers have complained of declining fish catches from the lake, attributing it to the dams upstream.
Development at what cost, and at whose expense?
To the poorer Mekong countries, the argument for environmental preservation holds little sway. According to the Asian Development Bank, 23.2 percent of the population in Laos lives below the national poverty line as of 2012. The World Bank also noted in 2014 that 21.9 percent of the country does not have access to electricity. A stable supply of energy has great potential to transform the economic landscape of the country. It paves the way for further industrialisation, job opportunities, and transfer of knowledge. As of 2015, electricity is Laos' top export, accounting for 11 percent of total exports at a value of $528 million.
Most recognise that industrial development comes with trade-offs, often in environmental losses. There are those who believe that if these projects are implemented properly, they can benefit thousands of households in the region. For example, the World Bank reported in 2015 that the controversial Nam Theun 2 dam, which faced widespread criticism and protest when it was first proposed, shows positive and encouraging results. Built on a tributary of the Mekong, the dam has consistently exceeded energy production targets since it began operations in 2010. Household surveys of the 6,300 resettled showed that they are now better off with lower mortality rates, better education, and higher consumption.
Many have refuted claims that hydropower development will alleviate poverty. Demand for energy in the region may not be as great as it seems. Thailand, the major buyer of energy from Laos, is known to consistently overestimate their consumption. This may lead to overcapacity in Laos. Research also shows that hydropower generation in China far outstrips demand. In addition, whether the financial gains from the dams will filter down to the poor is questionable. Corruption is often cited as a major driving force behind dam construction as government officials seek personal profit. This suggests that hydro development will only further impoverish those displaced and affected.
No one can be certain of the overall losses and gains of hydro dams on the Mekong. Without complete information, it is difficult to say for sure that hydropower development will indeed 'kill' the river. Climate change and overfishing also add to the worsening condition of the river. Thus far, the loudest critics of the hydro dams are international organisations, environmental activists and NGOs, whereas local sentiment has been mixed.
Although lower Mekong countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia have raised objections to plans by China and Laos, they too have hydropower ambitions. Cambodia is building two mainstream dams, the Strung Streng dam, and the Sambor dam. Estimated to have an installed capacity of 2600MW, the Sambor dam will be much bigger than the strongly opposed Xayaburi dam. Vietnam is heavily involved in both projects, either as buyers or investors. This evidently undermines Cambodia's and Vietnam's case against the upstream dams, especially with regards to the Xayaburi. Thus, China and Laos are not the only countries industrialising at the expense of their neighbours.
Regional cooperation remains crucial to the longevity of the Mekong. The MRC is increasingly ineffective as a platform in facilitating and building consensus. Member countries do not have veto power. Instead, the MRC has in place a three-step process: Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation, and Agreement. However, they have struggled to get member countries to genuinely adhere to these processes. Laos had independently decided that the Xayaburi would not affect the lower countries, bypassed procedures, and went straight to groundbreaking. In 2010, the MRC recommended a ten-year moratorium on dam construction so that proper study of the dams' environmental impact could be done. This request went largely ignored.
It is hard to fault the Mekong countries for prioritising national concerns over regional ones, especially when poverty is still a major problem. Regional cooperation needs to benefit the countries individually for them to come to the table. To this, perhaps the future of the Mekong lies with the newly established Lancang Mekong Cooperation. China has offered billions of yuans in preferential loans to the other five countries. Through the LMC, the Mekong countries have agreed to "enhance cooperation among LMC countries in sustainable water resources management and utilisation". Whether this new initiative will bode well for the Mekong remains to be seen. However, one thing is for certain: whether or not people like it, the dams will be built. It is only a matter of how and when.
Cœdès, George. The Making of South East Asia. Translated by H.M. Wright. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0520050614
Cronin, Richard. "Mekong Dams and the Perils of Peace." Survival 51, no. 6 (December 2009): 147–60.
Goh, Evelyn. Developing the Mekong: Regionalism and Regional Security in China-Southeast Asian Relations. Adelphi Paper 387. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2007.
Keay, John. Mad about the Mekong: Exploration and Empire in South -East Asia. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005.
Matthews, Nathanial, and Kim Geheb. Hydropower Development in the Mekong Region: Political, Socio-Economic, and Environmental Perspectives, 2014.
Mixap, Bounthavivanh. "Mekong River, Public Participation in Hydropower Development: Does It Matter?" Case Study for IWRM ToolBox, Global Water Partnership, March 2015.
https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/case-studies/americas-and-caribbean/cs_463_mekong_hydropower_full-case-3.pdf
Osborne, Milton E. The Mekong: Turbulent Past, Uncertain Future. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin, 2006.
Tan, Danielle. "China in Laos: Is There Cause For Worry?" ISEAS Perspective, no. 31 (May 16, 2014).
https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2014_31.pdf
Yot Santasombat. The River of Life: Changing Ecosystems of the Mekong Region. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press, 2011.


This Note will offer a brief history of the case law developed prior to Embree and will analyze the rationale used by the North Carolina Supreme Court in order to make their determination to grant an equitable remedy in this particular case. Next, this Note will examine the holding in Embree and will advance the proposition that the holding in that case is a departure from pre:existing law and cannot be easily reconciled with the case law developed in earlier North Carolina decisions and decisions of Federal Courts applying North Carolina law. Finally, this Note will outline the potential problems in litigation that may arise as a result of the decision in Embree, and will conclude with suggestions for attorneys to consider in light of the new development in North Carolina law from the standpoint of helping assemble construction loan packages.
Philip A. Mullins IV, Judicial Activism Constructs Lenders' Nightmare - Embree Construction Group, Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc. and United Carolina Bank, 15 Campbell L. Rev. 77 (1992).


text:
Q: JRUBY JAVA HEAP SPACE out of memory error How can I adjust the Java heap memory?
I already tried
jruby -J-Xmn512m -J-Xms2048m -J-Xmx2048m -S rails s

but it didn't work

A: The memory argument should be like:
-Xms1024m - the init memory allocate when the JVM start
-Xmx2048m - the max memory that the JVM can allocate

Also use:
-XX:MaxNewSize - it could be 30% of the Xmx value:

-XX:MaxNewSize (in JDK1.3 and JDK1.4) or  -Xmn (new name of Young Generation flag from JDK1.4 onwards). Increasing the -Xmn (Young Generation Area) helps in scenarios where the Application creates short living objects (less caching Applications), because it increases the time of minor GC, most of the application objects dies early.
Note: you can put your won values.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


To use the requests for managing customers, the user that you use for authentication must be a reseller user in the StarLeaf Cloud.
The <org_uid> variable refers to the Organization reference number on the StarLeaf Portal.
The subdomain of the new organization. This is used by the Cloud to create video addresses (URIs) for dialing into the organization (e.g. example.call.sl).
A list of email domains to associate with the new organization. These are any corporate domains that this organization owns and uses for the sending and receiving of emails. For example, anybody receiving a guest invite whom appears (by their email address) to be part of this organization can be added as a user to this organization.
location Settings for the location. Refer to location request object.
where org_uid is the organization reference number, which is a unique identifier for this organization. You need this org_uid to create users in this organization.
This is a list of org response objects. Refer to org response object.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization whose details you require.
On success, this generates a 200 OK response with a body which is the response object org. Refer to org response object.
New in Cloud 4.6, API minor version 9.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization that you want to delete.
This creates an integration in the organization matched by org_uid.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization whose integrations you are managing.
where <integration_id> is the unique identifier for the integration returned when the integration was created and <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization whose integrations you are managing.
where <integration_id> is the unique identifier for the integration returned when the integration was created and <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization whose integration you are managing. Used to update an existing integration. Values that are not provided by the request will be populated with the default settings for those values.
where <integration_id> is the unique identifier for the integration returned when the integration was created and <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization whose integration you are managing.
where <integration_id> is the unique identifier returned when the integration was created and <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization whose integrations you are managing.
This creates the user in the organization matched by org_uid.
On success this generates a 201 Created response with a Location header field containing the URI of the newly-created user resource. The response body is the response object user. Refer to user response object.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization for which you want users' details.
HTTPS GET customers/99892630/users?count=20&startIndex=41 will skip the first 40 users and return the next 20.
itemsPerPage The number of items, which will either be equal to totalResults or if you made the request with count specified, it will be equal to the number you specified.
startIndex This will be the same as the requested startIndex. If not specified, it will be 1.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization and <user_id> is the unique identifier for the user whose details you require.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization of the user and <user_id> is the unique identifier for the user that you want to edit.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization of the user and <user_id> is the unique identifier for the user that you want to delete.
where <org_uid> is the unique identifier of the organization and <user_id> is the unique identifier for the user whose enabled state you want to change.
Use this request to list conferences in this organization.
A list of unique identifiers for conferences in an organization.
where <conf_id> is the unique identifier for the conference returned when the conference was created and <org_uid> is the organization reference number, which is a unique identifier for this organization.
where <conf_id> is the unique identifier for the conference returned when the conference was created and <org_uid> is the organization reference number, which is a unique identifier for this organization. There is no request body.
where <conf_id> is the unique identifier for the conference returned when the conference was created and <org_uid>is the organization reference number, which is a unique identifier for this organization. There is no request body.
where <conf_id> is the unique identifier for the conference returned when the conference was created, <occur_id> is the occurrence identifier, which is the UTC start date and time of the occurrence as specified by the original parent repetition pattern, given in ISO 8601 format (including the 'Z' suffix to indicate UTC), and <org_uid> is the organization reference number, which is a unique identifier for this organization .
where <conf_id> is the unique identifier for the conference returned when the conference was created, <occur_id> is the occurrence identifier, which is the UTC start date and time of the occurrence as specified by the original parent repetition pattern, given in ISO 8601 format (including the 'Z' suffix to indicate UTC), and <org_uid> is the organization reference number, which is a unique identifier for this organization. There is no request body.
This request will obtain a list of API features available on the server and enabled for the specified organization.
where <org_uid> is the organization reference number, which is a unique identifier for this organization.


text:
Q: Not getting payload after React-relay nested mutation This is a follow-up question to this answer posted earlier on SO about a react-relay mutation warning.

"In you case what you have to do is to add the FeatureLabelNameMutation getFragment to your AddCampaignFeatureLabelMutation query."

As with the OP in that question, I too want to make a nested relay mutation and I've tried doing what @Christine is suggesting, but I'm uncertain on where exactly to put the getFragment part.
In my application, I want to create a "task" with multiple nested "sub-tasks" when the user creates a task.
What I have tried works, but I don't get the returned PayLoad for the AddSubTaskMutation mutation. Here's what I've tried so far:
AddTaskMutation.js
export default class AddTaskMutation extends Relay.Mutation {
  static fragments = {
    classroom: () => Relay.QL`
      fragment on Classroom {
        id,
        tasks(last: 1000) {
          edges {
            node {
                id,
                ${AddSubTaskMutation.getFragment('task')}, //<-- what I tried adding
            },
          }
        },
      }`,
    }`,
  };
  ...

AddSubTaskMutation.js
export default class AddSubTaskMutation extends Relay.Mutation {
  static fragments = {
    task: () => Relay.QL`
      fragment on Task {
        id,
      }`,
   };
   ...

TaskCreate.js
Relay.Store.update(
  new AddTaskMutation({
    title,
    instruction,
    start_date,
    end_date,
    published: isPublished,
    classroom: this.props.classroom
  }),
  {
    onSuccess: (response) => {
      let {taskEdge} = response.addTask;
      for (let subTask of this.state.subTaskContent) {
        Relay.Store.update(
          new AddSubTaskMutation({
            task: taskEdge.node,
            type: subTask['type'],
            position: subTask['position'],
            ...
          }),
        );
      }
    }
  }
)
...
export default Relay.createContainer(TaskCreate, {
  prepareVariables() {
    return {
      limit: Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER || 9007199254740991,
    };
  },
  fragments: {
    classroom: () => Relay.QL`
      fragment on Classroom {
        id,
        tasks(last: $limit) {
          edges {
            node {
              id,
              ...
            }
          }
        },
        ...
        ${AddTaskMutation.getFragment('classroom')},
      }
    `,
  },
});

Apart from not getting the payload, I'm also getting the following warnings:
Warning: RelayMutation: Expected prop `task` supplied to `AddSubTaskMutation` to be data fetched by Relay. This is likely an error unless you are purposely passing in mock data that conforms to the shape of this mutation's fragment.
Warning: writeRelayUpdatePayload(): Expected response payload to include the newly created edge `subTaskEdge` and its `node` field. Did you forget to update the `RANGE_ADD` mutation config?

So my question is: where do i add the getFragment in AddTaskMutation.js to make this work?

A: From what I can tell, the issue is that you don't really understand what the mutation "fragment" is for vs. the rest of the mutation properties (fat query & configs). The warning you are seeing is related to Relay noticing that the task prop you are giving it isn't from the AddSubtaskMutation fragment, it's from the AddTaskMutation mutation query. But that's really just a red herring; your issue is that you don't need those fragments at all, you just need to configure the mutation appropriately to create your new nodes & edges. Here's a couple suggestions.
Step #1

*

*Get rid of the fragments in both AddTaskMutation and AddSubtaskMutation, they seem unnecessary

*Modify AddTaskMutation's constructor to take a bunch of fields for the task and a classroomID to specify the affected classroom

*Similarly, modify AddSubTaskMutation to take a bunch of fields for the subtask and a taskID to specify the parent task

*Make sure your AddTaskMutation payload includes the modified classroom and the new task edge

*Define a RANGE_ADD mutation using the classroomID to target the classroom for the new task

*Define a FIELDS_CHANGE mutation on AddSubtaskMutation that mutates the parent using the given taskID (I'm not sure how you're storing subtasks, probably a connection). You can change this to a RANGE_ADD if you really want.

Step #2: Simplify

*

*It seems unnecessary to do this in 1+N mutations (N subtasks), when you seem to have all the information at the start. I'd modify the input of AddTaskMutation to accept a new task and an array of subtasks, and do it all at once...


text:
Q: Is it possible to run package.json scripts from a Node script? I have several task in my package.json like:
"scripts": {
    "test": "jest",
    "test:ci": "jest --runInBand --no-cache --watch false --coverage true",
    "test:codecov": "codecov",
    "tsc:check": "tsc --noEmit",
    "prettier:check": "pretty-quick --staged"
    .
    .
    . // a lot more here
}

I am trying to build a build script that depends on those tasks but write it as a new script in package.json is too verbose and hard to read.
Is there some way to run those scripts from a build.js file? so I can chain/redo those tasks and also get some error handling.

A: Based on @anh-nguyen comment I did this initial raw structure on how to be able to do what I wanted I hope this helps somebody.
Notice that instead of process and process.exec I am using shelljs because I already had it as dependency but you could change them if needed.
// tslint:disable:no-string-literal
const shell = require('shelljs');
const path = require('path');
const rootDir = process.cwd();
const distBundlesDir = path.join(rootDir, 'dist-bundles');
const objectWithRawScripts = require(path.join(rootDir, 'package.json')).scripts;

const packageScripts = {
  build: objectWithRawScripts['build'],
  prettierCheck: objectWithRawScripts['prettier:check'],
  tscCheck: objectWithRawScripts['tsc:check'],
};

function runScript(scriptToRun) {
  try {
    shell.echo(`Running ${scriptToRun}`);
    shell.exec(scriptToRun);
  } catch (e) {
    shell.echo('!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!');
    shell.echo(`there was an error with ${scriptToRun}`);
    console.error(e);
    shell.echo('!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!');
    return false;
  }
  return true;
}

shell.echo('Init Tasks');
runScript(packageScripts.prettierCheck);
runScript(packageScripts.tscCheck);


text:
New Bigfoot video either masterful marketing, or proof Sasquatch lives (VIDEO)
July 31, 2013 · 4:27 AM UTC
By David Trifunov
KELOWNA, British Columbia — Score one big social-media marketing victory for Miles Marziani and PlayMobility, regardless of whether or not you believe in Bigfoot.
The Canadian high-tech company's CEO remained steadfastly silent on Tuesday afternoon in response to a pair of viral videos attributed to his firm's Legend Tracker smartphone app.
The videos purport to show Bigfoot (both up close and from a distance) taken over the last two weeks near Mission, a rural community east of Vancouver.
"A couple were hiking on a logging road above one of the lakes in Mission, BC, when — taking photos of the scenic views — they spotted something moving," the company's website says.
"Even though they were a fair distance away they were still able to zoom in enough to see something standing upright. Bear? Man? Something else?"
Another video shows several tourists furiously snapping photos after stumbling upon a slouched, grunting creature just a few yards away.
"Someone in the group witnessed something large moving in the woods," the website says. "Those that didn't run away stayed to get a better look, many photos and videos were taken before the large hairy biped ran towards the group, then away."
Legend Tracker is a family-friendly smartphone app that tries to get kids off the couch and into the wild to search for lost treasure and mysterious creatures.
The company invites users to upload videos captured using Legend Tracker to their website.
The most popular of its videos had more than 500,000 views in a few days.
Yet Marziani won't say if his company filmed the videos, or if they were submitted as genuine. Are they just marketing attempts?
"That's what a lot of people think," he told GlobalPost.
He's not kidding when he says "a lot." The Sun newspaper's 2.4 million readers in the United Kingdom first latched onto the story. That spawned interest from across Europe, Australia and into the United States, Marziani said.
It was the second most popular science story on Foxnews.com, with nearly 5,000 Facebook "likes."
Even respected UK newspaper The Telegraph published a story online.
PlayMobility's website traffic has spiked, too, with Marziani saying the company received about two and a half months' worth of traffic in a couple of days. He said the company usually gets 1 million hits in a year.
OK, so if the videos finally prove the legendary Sasquatch is roaming the woods of suburban Mission, who filmed them? Surely they want to come forward and claim their awaiting riches?
"We were told to keep anonymous," Marziani said.
Got it; so does that mean Marziani is now a believer?
"There's much of our planet left to be explored," he said.
Using Legend Tracker and your smartphone, no doubt.
Bolsonaro reignites decades-old fight over land between Indigenous people and farmers
Photos: The women of Argentina's abortion debate
Goodbye, old friend: VW Beetle ceases production
These Argentine women fight against a justice system 'written by men, for men'
Lifestyle & BeliefLifestyleScience & TechnologyWeird Wide Web

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Police are searching for a driver who hit and injured a mom and her 12-year-old daughter as they walked through a Falls Church crosswalk that neighbors say is dangerous.
The mom and daughter were in a marked crosswalk about 10 p.m. Saturday on Columbia Pike at Tyler Street. It was dark and raining heavily.
A car headed westbound on Columbia Pike hit the pedestrians. It did not stop or return, police said.
A passenger-side mirror and lower front grille from a Mercedes sedan were found at the scene, police said. A representative from Mercedes told police that the vehicle is likely a dark blue C-class manufactured between 2012 and 2015.
Detectives ask anyone with information, or any staff at auto body shops who see a newer model Mercedes in need of repair, to contact police.
Neighbors told News4 that the crosswalk needs a traffic light because it is so dangerous for pedestrians.
The Virginia Department of Transportation says no upgrades are planned for that intersection.


text:
On October 13, America was shocked with the headline news of Lamar Odom. The former Los Angeles Laker star was found unconscious and in a coma with his heart, lungs and kidneys failing. After three days of wild partying at the legal Nevada brothel called 'Love Ranch,' he was found with white foam coming from his mouth and nose. His alleged three day binge, described as 'Odom and Gomorrah', included activities consisting of a mixture of cognac and cocaine, along with ten sexual enhancing herbal supplements. It was later reported that he had suffered multiple strokes. His condition was deemed critical. Lamar was placed on dialysis as his vital organs continued to fail. Several days after the initial reports, headlines were saying he had a 50/50 chance of survival. Even then, it was thought, that if he pulled through, he could still suffer brain damage.
Khloe Kardashian, his estranged wife, and her sister Kim Kardashian rushed to be by his side at Sunshine Hospital, Las Vegas. His children, Destiny, 17, and 13 year old Lamar Jr. arrived to see their father with their mother, Liza Morales. His children had asked for prayers . . . and as Christians we should.
Since then he has regained consciousness and is able to communicate. Lamar is reportedly now receiving physical therapy. Despite all odds, with insurmountable health obstacles and talk of a possible kidney transplant, Lamar is on his way to a remarkable recovery. He was discharged from Sunshine Hospital and flown to a Los Angeles facility for further treatment. Lamar had a close call with death . . . thank God for answered prayer. Our God is the God of second chances.
Time after time news reports have told us of similar stories; those rich and famous who have succumbed to the worlds enticements of drugs, sex and alcohol. For many, they were not as fortunate as Lamar and they tragically lost their lives. Whenever death from overdose happens, whether induced by drug or alcohol, we are once more taken back in a sudden jolt of shock and bewilderment that is both heartbreaking and sobering.
Each passing year the tragic list of talented celebrities and athletes grows longer: Philip Seymour Hoffman, famous actor, director and producer, died at 46, on February 2, 2014; as the result of cocaine, amphetamines, heroine and sedatives. Whitney Houston was found dead on February 19, 2012 at the age 48; in a hotel bath tub attributed to a cocaine overdose complicated by heart disease. The famous Glee star Cory Monteith, died on July 13, 2013, age 31, due to an overdose of heroin and alcohol. Singer and song writer Amy Winehouse died at the age of 27, in 2011, from accidental alcohol poisoning. Michael Jackson died at 50 years of age on June 25, 2009; due to acute propofol intoxication, prescription drugs administered by a doctor who was later sentenced to four years in prison. Health Ledger died at 28, on January 22, 2008; from prescription drugs, painkillers, anti-depressants and sleeping pills. Anne Nicole Smith, playboy model and actress, died at 40 years old on February 8, 2007, from mixed prescription drugs. Last to mention, Marilyn Monroe died at the age of 36 on August 5, 1962, from an overdose on tranquilizers.
These people, because of addictions, some accidental, others in emptiness and hopelessness were robbed of their lives. Some stolen of their youth or living to a ripe old age. Satan is real and he is described as a thief: "the thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy" . . . (John 10:10). God never delights in such deaths and most of us are saddened by the waste of a human life with so much potential. Christians sadly realize Satan had another human being in his evil clutches. You see, there is an unseen reality of a twisted satanic spiritual battle for the souls of men. The Bible is clear about drug and alcohol use (I Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19-21). As far as where they are now in eternity; only God knows the state of their hearts at death, we do not know for sure, but we must always remember God is a just judge He will do what is right (Psalm 7:11).
Perhaps some of us were caught in these deadly vices. Can you think back to a time when you may have died without Christ and without hope? Are you thankful for the time of extended grace, knowing that if you had died then, in your sins, you were not ready to go into eternity to meet your Maker? Be thankful towards God, who has given you a second chance in life. You were given time to hear and respond to the Gospel message; its power delivered you from worldly sins that could have cost you your soul. The Bible intelligently reasons with us: For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26).
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; it is good to remember we, like Lamar Odom were lost in our sins. First Corinthians 6:11 tells us: And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Our very own Ryan Ries, son of Pastor Raul Ries, could have been another casualty added to that growing list. Yet, by God's grace he repented and changed his life to follow Jesus Christ. God is using him to help others to be pulled out of this evil trap. Thank God for second chances!
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Jude 1:23
C .Wren


With incredible ocean views, this newly (2018) renovated 5 bedroom villa is contemporary and modern. Situated in a quiet road higher up in Camps Bay, it enjoys 180 degree uninterrupted views from most rooms in the villa. Over 3 stories, the lower level is a 2 bedroom self contained apartment and the upper 2 levels a 3 bedroom apartment. They are joined by a central staircase to create a large space perfect for a group of friends travelling.


This is anothet project I have been preparing for 3 years. Now I have to speed up, because First to Fight company, has just started issuing the rules.
This is a german antitank platoon with 3 pak 36 guns, but a command stand is still missing.
The artillery piece looks fantastic. I also like the detail on the crew uniforms. Have not seen that exact olive drab color used too often. Is that color special to Polish campaign?
Wiking, I'm sorry, but i don't understand your post.
Bluefalchion: I used paints from the First to Fight co. manual for 1939. For German uniform they suggest Vallejo German Fieldgrey 830 or German uniform (920). I used the first one. For trousers suggestion was London grey 836.
I think Wiking is just showing us what the officer is looking at.
sowabud wrote: Wiking, I'm sorry, but i don't understand your post.
Nice work. Very well painted . You made a good work with detalis in painting the figures, To paint badges on that scale is not easy.
I didnt know first to figth had the 75 nfantry gun. I have the one from pegasus and the crew is good, but think the one from Zvezda could be good too.
The first to figth kit have the two wheels possibilities? (metal and rubber).
Carlos: FtF set has only spoked wheels, as the bulk of German artilery was horse towed that time.
But I remember, they announced on facebook, that they will made also rubber wheles for German and Polish infantry guns as independet sets. They work also on the staff for guns, as the recent figures are not very good.
I have just finished a few artilery observers and officers for German army during Polish campain. As the First to Fight set has only 6 oficers in only two poses, I needed much more figures for command and artilery observers stands. Theese are Zvezda and Esci figures from various sets. I also plan to give them some transport - this is my task for a near future.
Another rather poor quality photo - officers for HQ stands for September1939 game rules. This time some Esci, Zvezda and Revell figures. I am just working on transport for them.
A new armored car for my german army.
I will try to send a foto once again in the ewening, now only link.
sowabud wrote: A new armored car for my german army.
I can't edit my earlier post, so this is a picture of my new big "cockroach".
Two platoons of light german tanks - First to Fight models.


text:
No Amount Of Obama 'Leadership' Could've Saved The Super Committee
Despite what you might have heard, Barack Obama is not to blame for the failure of the so-called "super committee" to reach a debt deal. That the president should have exercised greater "leadership" has become a standard talking point both on the right and among the "everyone's to blame for a broken system" commentariat. But that line of criticism simply isn't connected to political reality.
Part of the problem is a belief that has developed in recent decades in the omnipotence of the president and the bully pulpit.
As my colleague Ken Walsh notes,
Americans expect their president to push the system into action and, through persuasion, cajolery, threats, intimidation or personal diplomacy, get things done on Capitol Hill.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg got it right when he told reporters, in reaction to the committee's collapse, "It's the chief executive's job to bring people together and to provide leadership. I don't see that happening."
But that presupposes that all policy gaps are bridgeable. Some simply aren't. In this specific instance, the chasm was too wide. As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent has neatly summarized it, the super sticking point was: "Democrats wanted the rich to pay more in taxes towards deficit reduction, and Republicans wanted the rich to pay less in taxes towards deficit reduction."
When Republicans finally allowed for some increased tax revenues, they were conditioned on making permanent the Bush tax cuts. In other words the GOP was willing to close around $300 billion in loopholes in exchange for adding $4 trillion to the deficit in the form of enshrining the Bush tax rates.
Mother Jones's Kevin Drum has a helpful set of four questions any critics of Obama's leadership here should answer. The second one is the key: Critics should "explain whether they think Republicans would ever, under any circumstances, have accepted a deal with a net tax increase."
No one who is both sentient and has watched politics in recent years thinks that they would. So the leadership that Bloomberg and others would have Obama exercise would involve him either talking the GOP into becoming Democrats or himself capitulating to their demands. (This latter option would, of course, have set many of the same commentators off on a round of exposition about what a weak leader Obama is for having surrendered to the GOP, again.)
The utter hollowness of the GOP position is underscored by the fact that Republicans who criticize Obama for not taking a more direct role in the super committee's deliberations attacked him for undermining the committee when he released his deficit reduction proposal (h/t Sargent).
The belief that presidential "leadership" would have somehow bridged this divide is especially pernicious because it plays into the hands of GOP hardliners. So long as pundits insist that any policy chasm can be bridged with just an application of presidential leadership, it removes all incentive for the side opposing the president to do anything but hold a hard line. What else should they do when he gets the blame for their intransigence?
By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, November 22, 2011
November 23, 2011 Posted by raemd95 | Congress	| Bush Tax Cuts, GOP, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Super Committee | Leave a comment
A Great Day: Obama Ends The War In Iraq
This afternoon President Obama announced that at the end of this year, America will withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq.
Obama began his campaign for president by forcefully, clearly promising to end that war. This afternoon he delivered on that promise.
The timing of his announcement could not have been more symbolically powerful. It comes just a day after the successful conclusion of the operation in Libya — an operation that stands in stark contrast to the disastrous War in Iraq.
The War in Iraq was the product of "bull in the china closet" Neo-Con unilateralism. The war cost a trillion dollars. Nobel prize-winning economist George Stieglitz estimates that after all of the indirect costs to our economy are in — including the care of the over 33,000 wounded and disabled — its ultimate cost to the American economy will be three times that.
It has cost 4,600 American lives, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It created millions of refugees — both inside Iraq and those who fled to other countries.
The war decimated America's reputation in the world and legitimated al Qaeda's narrative that the West was involved in a new Crusade to take over Muslim lands. Images of Abu Ghraib created a powerful recruiting poster for terrorists around the world.
The War stretched America's military power and weakened our ability to respond to potential threats. It diverted resources from the War in Afghanistan. It empowered Iran.
The War in Iraq not only destroyed America's reputation, but also American credibility. Who can forget the embarrassing image of General Colin Powell testifying before the United Nations Security Council that the U.S. had incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
Contrast that to yesterday's conclusion of the successful operation in Libya. That operation is emblematic of an entirely different approach.
Since he took office, Obama has fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy. In place of "bull in the china closet" unilateralism he has initiated a cooperative, multilateral approach to the rest of the world. The fruits of that approach are obvious in the Libyan operation where:
The Libyans themselves overthrew a dictator;
America spent a billion dollars — not a trillion dollars, as we have in Iraq;
America did not lose one soldier in Libya;
We accomplished our mission after eight months, not eight years;
Most importantly, America worked cooperatively with our European allies, the Arab League and the Libyan people to achieve a more democratic Middle East.
Obama's policy toward the Middle East is aimed at helping to empower everyday people in the Muslim world — it is a policy built on respect, not Neo-Con fantasies of imperial power. And it works.
Last month, I spent several weeks in Europe and met with a number of people from our State Department and other foreign policy experts from Europe, the Middle East and the United States. Everyone tells the same story. Since President Obama took office, support for the United States and its policies has massively increased throughout Europe and much of the world.
The BBC conducts a major poll of world public opinion. In March of this year it released its latest report.
Views of the U.S. continued their overall improvement in 2011, according to the annual BBC World Service Country Rating Poll of 27 countries around the world.
Of the countries surveyed, 18 hold predominantly positive views of the U.S., seven hold negative views and two are divided. On average, 49 percent of people have positive views of U.S. influence in the world — up four points from 2010 — and 31 per cent hold negative views. The poll, conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA, asked a total of 28,619 people to rate the influence in the world of 16 major nations, plus the European Union.
In 2007 a slight majority (54%) had a negative view of the United States and only close to three in ten (28%) had a positive view….
In other words, positive opinion of the U.S. had increased by 21% since 2007 – it has almost doubled.
Obama understands that in an increasingly democratic world, the opinions of our fellow human beings matter. They affect America's ability to achieve America's goals.
And Obama understands that it matters that young people in the Middle East, who are struggling to create meaningful lives, think of America as a leader they respect, rather than as a power with imperial designs on their land and their lives.
But, at the same time, there is no question that President Obama is not afraid to act — to take risks to advance American interests. The operation that got Bin Laden was a bold move. It was very well planned — but not without risks.
Obama is a leader who makes cold, hard calculations about how to achieve his goals. He plans carefully and then doesn't hesitate to act decisively. And as it turns out, he usually succeeds. Ask Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Gaddafi.
Obama received a good deal of criticism from the Republicans for his operation in Libya. But by taking action, he first prevented Benghazi from becoming another Rwanda — and then supported a movement that ended the reign of a tyrant who had dominated the Libyan people for 42 years and had personally ordered the destruction of an American airliner.
For the vast number of Americas who ultimately opposed the War in Iraq, today should be at day of celebration. And it is a day of vindication for the courageous public officials who opposed the war from the start. That includes the 60% of House Democrats who voted against the resolution to support Bush's invasion of Iraq.
It is also a day when someone ought to have the decency to tell the Republican chorus of Obama foreign policy critics that it's time to stop embarrassing themselves.
From the first day of the Obama Presidency, former Vice President Dick Cheney has accused President Obama of "dithering" — "afraid to make a decision" — of "endangering American security."
Even after the death of Muammar Gaddafi, Senator Lindsey Graham criticized the president for "leading from behind."
You'd think that a guy who two years ago traveled to Libya to meet and make nice with Gaddafi would want to keep a low profile, now that the revolution Obama supported there has been successful at toppling this dictator who ordered the downing of American airliner.
Well, as least Graham isn't saddled with having tweeted fawningly like his fellow traveler, John McCain, who upon visiting Gaddafi wrote: "Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his "ranch" in Libya — interesting meeting with an interesting man."
Let's face it, with the death of Gaddafi, the knee-jerk Republican critics of his Libya policy basically look like fools.
Mitt Romney in the early months of the effort: "It is apparent that our military is engaged in much more than enforcing a no-fly zone. What we are watching in real time is another example of mission creep and mission muddle."
Republican Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann: "President Obama's policy of leading from behind is an outrage and people should be outraged at the foolishness of the President's decision" and also asking "what in the world are we doing in Libya if we don't know what our military goal is?"
Of course, the very idea that Dick Cheney is given any credibility at all by the media is really outrageous.
Here is a guy who made some of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in American history. He has the gall to criticize Obama's clear foreign policy successes? Those successes allowed America to recover much stature and power in the world that were squandered by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Someone needs to ask, what is anyone thinking who takes this guy the least bit seriously?
Someone needs to remind him and his Neo-con friends that:
The worst attack on American soil took place on their watch;
They failed to stop Osama bin Laden;
They began two massive land wars in the Middle East that have drained massive sums from our economy, killed thousands of Americans and wounded tens of thousands of others;
They underfunded an effort in Afghanistan so they could begin their War in Iraq that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda;
They brought U.S. credibility in the world to a new low by lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, violating our core human rights principles and acting unilaterally without any concern for the opinions or needs of other nations;
Through their War in Iraq they legitimated Al Qaeda's narrative that the United States was waging a crusade to take over Muslim lands – and with their policies at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, they created recruiting posters for Al Qaeda that did enormous harm to American security;
Through their recklessness and incompetence they stretched American military resources and weakened our ability to respond to crises;
When they left office, American credibility and our support in the world had fallen to new lows.
Republicans in Congress supported all of this like robots.
With a record like this, you'd think they would want to slink off into a closet and hope that people just forget.
But Americans won't forget. History won't forget.
And generations from now, Americans will thank Barack Obama for restoring American leadership — for once again making our country a leader in the struggle to create a world where war is a relic of the past and everyone on our small planet can aspire to a future full of possibility and hope.
By: Robert Creamer, Huffington Post, October 21, 2011
October 21, 2011 Posted by raemd95 | Congress, Conservatives, Elections, GOP, Human Rights, Ideologues, Lindsey Graham, Media, Military Intervention, Public Opinion, Right Wing, Teaparty, Terrorism	| Dick Cheney, Iraq War, Libya, Middle East, Muammar al-Gaddafi, News, Obama, Obama Foreign Policy, Politics, Republicans | Leave a comment
John Boehner: It's His Shutdown And He'll Cry If He Wants To
I guess this was inevitable.
John Boehner was driven to tears again today. This time it happened at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans.
According to sources inside the meeting, it happened while Boehner was speaking to the group about the latest on his negotiations with Democrats over government funding. Boehner talked about his meeting yesterday with President Obama and then, in a rousing conclusion, he thanked the House Republicans for standing by him and supporting him through these tense negotiations.
The Republican conference responded with a standing ovation for their speaker.
As you could imagine, that prompted the Speaker to cry.
Sure, but is there any chance the crying could become tears of joy after striking a deal? Time is obviously running out in a hurry — we're now counting down by the number of hours, not the number of days — but there's been some movement this afternoon.
Roll Call reported that the party's leaders are at least talking again, and "there were indications that progress was being made." Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters, "I feel better about it today than I did yesterday at the same time."
This was not a unanimous view. Politico reported that "leaders from both parties are more pessimistic about cutting a deal before the government runs out of money."
There was reportedly some progress on the spending-cut target. Boehner moved the goalposts this week, demanding $40 billion in cuts after agreeing privately to $33 billion, but top aides today apparently met to explore another compromise between the two numbers. The bigger hurdle, apparently, is the GOP demand for policy "riders," which right-wing House Republicans continue to treat as having equal importance to the cuts themselves.
How party leaders can work around this is a mystery to me.
The odds notwithstanding, if a compromise is reached, what about the rule GOP leaders imposed on themselves, mandating that a bill is available for three days before a vote? In this case, Republicans are prepared to waive the rule, if there's a deal to even vote on.
In the meantime, the Koch-financed Americans for Prosperity held a rally this afternoon across the street from the Capitol, with several dozen right-wing activists on hand to listen to speeches from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), and others. The Republican voters chanted, "Shut it down!" during the rally, and every other sign at the rally urged the GOP to shut down the government.
I think we can say with confidence which side of the aisle is "rooting for a government shutdown."
By: Steve Benen, Political Animal, Washington Monthly, April 6, 2011
April 6, 2011 Posted by raemd95 | Congress, Conservatives, Democrats, Federal Budget, GOP, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Koch Brothers, Politics, Republicans, Right Wing	| "Shut It Down", Americans For Prosperity, House Republicans, Negotiations, Obama, Policy, Rep Jim Jordan, Rep Michele Bachmann, Rep Mike Pence, Republican Study Committee, Sen Dick Durbin, Speaker John Boehner, Spending Cuts | 1 Comment
Government by the Week: Is A Government Shutdown The End-Game For The GOP?
Parents have begun arranging alternative child care for their preschoolers, uncertain of whether their Head Start program will be there when they need it. The Social Security Administration is unable to open new hearing offices to handle a backlog of appeals. The Pentagon has had to delay equipment repairs. There is chaos throughout the federal government, as Robert Pear reported in The Times on Tuesday, because a riven Congress has forced agencies to operate on a week-by-week basis.
Yet, on Tuesday, the House passed another short-term spending bill. This one keeps things going for all of three weeks. The Senate will almost certainly join in shortly to avoid an impending shutdown on Friday, the result of the stopgap bill from two weeks ago.
These slipshod exercises in governance were choreographed by House Republicans, who knew that neither the Senate nor President Obama would ever accept their original proposal to gut nonsecurity discretionary spending with $61 billion in cuts through September, including riders to end financing for Planned Parenthood and the health care law. They had hoped to use the pressure of a potential shutdown to achieve much of their goal, but, so far, all they have accomplished is a cut of about $10 billion, mostly from earmarks or programs that the president himself proposed to cut. (The new bill cuts $6 billion.)
House Republican leaders, who say they do not want a government shutdown, have, so far, held off their more fanatical freshmen, who want to slash everything in sight. But the leadership cannot do so forever, and the evidence of that was clear on Tuesday. More than 50 Republicans refused to go along with the three-week resolution because it did not cut enough. Several specifically complained that it allowed financing for Planned Parenthood and the health care law to continue.
This is not a group that cares much for pragmatic compromise, and the three weeks are just a timeout. Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, a Republican who voted no on the new bill, spoke for many of his colleagues when he said the budget could not be resolved without a willingness to shut down government. "By giving liberals in the Senate another three weeks of negotiations," he said, "we will only delay a confrontation that must come."
He is absolutely right about that. If Democrats, including the president, do not draw a clear line soon, making their priorities and their limits unmistakable, they will be harried by these kinds of votes for years. Even in the unlikely case that an agreement is reached in three weeks to finance the government through September, a different vote will be necessary just a few weeks from now to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans have already vowed to vote that down — even though it could be financially disastrous — if they do not get their way. And then there is the vote for the fiscal 2012 budget, which begins Oct. 1, and then the year after that.
At some point, Mr. Pence will get his confrontation. If Republicans continue to press for cuts of tens of billions from discretionary spending, setting back the economic recovery largely for ideological purposes, Democrats will have to say no, even if that results in a short-term shutdown. The American people will be able to figure out who is at fault. Responsible governing means agreeing quickly to a deal to finish out the fiscal year, and then starting a serious talk about entitlement programs and taxes — the real causes of a soaring deficit.
By: The New York Times, Editorial, March 15, 2011
March 16, 2011 Posted by raemd95 | Budget, Congress, Deficits, Economy, Federal Budget, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Politics	| Democrats, Federal Government, Head Start, Health Care Law, House Republicans, Obama, Pentagon, Planned Parenthood, Pragmatism, Rep Mike Pence, Social Security, Spending Cuts | Leave a comment
Iraq Then, Libya Now: The Case Has Yet To Be Made
Five years ago, in the darkest days of insurgent violence and Sunni-Shia strife, it seemed as if the Iraq war would shadow American foreign policy for decades, frightening a generation's worth of statesmen away from using military force. Where there had once been a "Vietnam syndrome," now there would be an "Iraq syndrome," inspiring harrowing flashbacks to Baghdad and Falluja in any American politician contemplating an intervention overseas.
But in today's Washington, no such syndrome is in evidence. Indeed, it's striking how quickly the bipartisan coalition that backed the Iraq invasion has reassembled itself to urge President Obama to use military force against Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The Iraq war became known as George W. Bush's war after Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction didn't turn up, because at that point no liberal wanted to take responsibility for the conflict. But the initial invasion was supported by Democrats as well as Republicans, liberal internationalists as well as neoconservatives — Hillary Clinton as well as John McCain, The New Republic as well as The Weekly Standard.
Now a similar chorus is arguing that the United States should intervene
directly in Libya's civil war: with a no-flight zone, certainly, and perhaps with arms for the Libyan rebels and air strikes against Qaddafi's military as well. As in 2002 and 2003, the case
for intervention is being pushed by a broad cross-section of politicians and opinion-makers, from Bill Clinton to Bill Kristol, Fareed Zakaria to Newt Gingrich, John Kerry to Christopher Hitchens.
The justifications for military action, too, echo many of the arguments marshaled for toppling Saddam Hussein. America's credibility is on the line. The Libyan people deserve our support. Deposing Qaddafi will strike a blow for democracy and human rights.
It's a testament to the resilience of American power that we're hearing these kind of arguments so soon after the bloodiest years of the Iraq war. It's also a testament to the achievements of the American military: absent the successes of the 2007 troop surge, we'd probably be too busy extricating ourselves from a war-torn Iraq to even contemplate another military intervention in a Muslim nation.
But that resilience and those achievements may have set a trap for us, by encouraging the American leadership class to draw relatively narrow lessons from the Iraq war — lessons that only apply to wars premised on faulty W.M.D. intelligence, or wars led by Donald Rumsfeld.
In reality, there are lessons from our years of failure in Iraq that can be applied to an air war over Libya as easily as to a full-scale invasion or counterinsurgency. Indeed, they can be applied to any intervention — however limited its aims, multilateral its means, and competent its commanders.
One is that the United States shouldn't go to war unless it has a plan not only for the initial military action, but also for the day afterward, and the day after that. Another is that the United States shouldn't go to war without a detailed understanding of the country we're entering, and the forces we're likely to empower.
Moreover, even with the best-laid plans, warfare is always a uniquely high-risk enterprise — which means that the burden of proof should generally rest with hawks rather than with doves, and seven reasonable-sounding reasons for intervening may not add up to a single convincing case for war.
Advocates of a Libyan intervention don't seem to have internalized these lessons. They have rallied around a no-flight zone as their Plan A for toppling Qaddafi, but most military analysts seem to think that it will fail to do the job, and there's no consensus on Plan B. Would we escalate to air strikes? Arm the rebels? Sit back and let Qaddafi claim to have outlasted us?
If we did supply the rebels, who exactly would be receiving our money and munitions? Libya's internal politics are opaque, to put it mildly. But here's one disquieting data point, courtesy of the Center for a New American Security's : Eastern Libya, the locus of the rebellion, sent more foreign fighters per capita to join the Iraqi insurgency than any other region in the Arab world.
And if the civil war dragged on, what then? Twice in the last two decades, in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, the United States has helped impose a no-flight zone. In both cases, it was just a stepping-stone to further escalation: bombing campaigns, invasion, occupation and nation-building.
None of this means that an intervention is never the wisest course of action. But the strategic logic needs to be compelling, the threat to our national interest obvious, the case for war airtight.
With Libya, that case has not yet been made.
By: Ross Douthat, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, March 13, 2011
March 15, 2011 Posted by raemd95 | Foreign Policy, Iraq, Libya, National Security, Neo-Cons, No Fly Zones, Qaddafi, War	| Bill Clinton, Christopher Hitchens, Conservatives, George Bush, Iraq Syndrome, John Kerry, Military Force, Newt Gingrich, Obama, Rebels, Saddam Hussein, WMD | Leave a comment


text:
Presečno may refer to:

 Presečno, Slovenia, a village near Dobje
 Presečno, Croatia, a village near Novi Marof

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
// --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// <copyright file="CompositeInjectionStore.cs" company="Bijectiv">
//   The MIT License (MIT)
//
//   Copyright (c) 2014 Brian Tyler
//
//   Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
//   of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
//   in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
//   to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
//   copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
//   furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
//
//   The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
//   all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
//
//   THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
//   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
//   FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
//   AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
//   LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
//   OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
//   THE SOFTWARE.
// </copyright>
// <summary>
//   Defines the CompositeInjectionStore type.
// </summary>
// --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

namespace Bijectiv.Kernel
{
    using System;
    using System.Collections;
    using System.Collections.Generic;
    using System.Linq;

    using JetBrains.Annotations;

    /// <summary>
    /// A store that resolves <see cref="IInjection"/> from other <see cref="IInjectionStore"/>s.
    /// </summary>
    public class CompositeInjectionStore : IInjectionStore, IEnumerable<IInjectionStore>
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// The stores from which this store is composed.
        /// </summary>
        private readonly List<IInjectionStore> stores = new List<IInjectionStore>();

        /// <summary>
        /// TAdds a new store to the composite store.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="store">
        /// The store.
        /// </param>
        /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException">
        /// Thrown when any parameter is null.
        /// </exception>
        public void Add([NotNull] IInjectionStore store)
        {
            if (store == null)
            {
                throw new ArgumentNullException("store");
            }

            this.stores.Add(store);
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Returns a strongly typed enumerator that iterates through a collection.
        /// </summary>
        /// <returns>
        /// An <see cref="IEnumerator{T}"/> object that can be used to iterate through the collection.
        /// </returns>
        public IEnumerator<IInjectionStore> GetEnumerator()
        {
            return this.stores.GetEnumerator();
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Returns an enumerator that iterates through a collection.
        /// </summary>
        /// <returns>
        /// An <see cref="IEnumerator"/> object that can be used to iterate through the collection.
        /// </returns>
        IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
        {
            return this.GetEnumerator();
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Resolves a <typeparamref name="TInjection"/> that injects instances of type <paramref name="source"/> into
        /// instances of type <paramref name="target"/> if one exists, or; returns <c>null</c> otherwise.
        /// </summary>
        /// <typeparam name="TInjection">
        /// The type of <see cref="IInjection"/> to resolve.
        /// </typeparam>
        /// <param name="source">
        /// The source type.
        /// </param>
        /// <param name="target">
        /// The target type.
        /// </param>
        /// <returns>
        /// A <typeparamref name="TInjection"/> that injects instances of type <paramref name="source"/> into
        /// instances of type <paramref name="target"/> if one exists, or; <c>null</c> otherwise.
        /// </returns>
        public TInjection Resolve<TInjection>(Type source, Type target) where TInjection : class, IInjection
        {
            if (source == null)
            {
                throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
            }

            if (target == null)
            {
                throw new ArgumentNullException("target");
            }

            // The result of this method should be cached, so performance is not critical.
            return this.stores
                .Select(t => t.Resolve<TInjection>(source, target))
                .FirstOrDefault(transform => transform != null);
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
NOWCAST WYFF News 4 at 6pm
Dale's School Salute
MeTV Carolina
Live updates: President Biden signs executive orders on COVID-19, Paris climate agreement 6 MIN Breaking News: COVID-19 in SC, NC, GA: Tracking cases, deaths and latest restrictions Breaking News: Sign up for our Coronavirus & Rossen Reports Newsletters <% if ( weatherAlerts > 0 ) { %> Severe Weather <% var weatherAlertsMessage = "There " + ( weatherAlerts > 1 ? "are" : "is" ) + " currently " + weatherAlerts + " active weather " + ( weatherAlerts > 1 ? "alerts" : "alert" ); %>
96-year-old World War II veteran celebrates Veterans Day with tandem jump
Updated: 1:37 PM EST Nov 11, 2020
KMBC 9 News Reporter
MATT: EVEN THOUGH THIS VETERAN'S DAY LOOKS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN OTHER OTHER VETERAN'S DAY IN OUR PAST BECAUSE OF THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC, THE NATIONAL WORLD WAR I MUSEUM AND MEMORIAL STILL FINDING WAYS TO HONOR OUR NATION'S VETERANS ON VETERANS DAY. EARLIER THIS MORNING, A SPECIAL JUMP TEAM FELL FROM THE SKIES, SKYDIVERS, 20 IN ALL AND EACH OF VETERAN. EACH HAD A TANDEM JUMP AND EACH VETERAN JUMPER, AND WITH THEM, A VETERAN ALL THE WAY FROM WORLD WAR II TO CURRENT CONFLICTS. WE SPOKE TO SOME TODAY, SAYING THIS WAS AN EXTRAORDINARILY EMOTIONAL AND SPECIAL EXPERIENCE FOR THEM ON THIS VETERANS DAY. >> IT'S GREAT TO SEE SO MANY PEOPLE AROUND AND HELPING US CELEBRATE. WE REALLY, REALLY ARE THANKFUL FOR THAT. I MEAN, ALL OF US JUMPERS TODAY WERE MOST APPRECIATIVE OF THE ATTENDANCE HERE TO SHOWING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE VETERANS. MATT: TODAY, THE NATIONAL WORLD WAR I MUSEUM AND MEMORIAL WAS FREE FOR ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS AND VETERANS TODAY THROUGH THE END OF THE WEEK TO
The National World War I Museum in Kansas City honored veterans with a special jump team that landed on the iconic lawn of the Liberty Memorial Wednesday morning. The jump team was led by former Navy Seal and Purple Heart recipient Ryan "Birdman" Parrott.The all-veteran parachute team tandem skydived onto the lawn Wednesday morning. The 20-person group featured a veteran from each war, from World War II through the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The oldest veteran that made the jump was 96-year-old Peter Bielskis, a former Army Air Corps Staff Sgt. in World War II.Parrott capped off the jump with a symbolic World War I soldier and missing man base jump off the 217-foot Liberty Memorial.
The National World War I Museum in Kansas City honored veterans with a special jump team that landed on the iconic lawn of the Liberty Memorial Wednesday morning.
The jump team was led by former Navy Seal and Purple Heart recipient Ryan "Birdman" Parrott.
The all-veteran parachute team tandem skydived onto the lawn Wednesday morning. The 20-person group featured a veteran from each war, from World War II through the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
The oldest veteran that made the jump was 96-year-old Peter Bielskis, a former Army Air Corps Staff Sgt. in World War II.
Parrott capped off the jump with a symbolic World War I soldier and missing man base jump off the 217-foot Liberty Memorial.
Participants in the Legacy Jump this morning are veterans from World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan War and Iraq War, as well as Sept. 11. pic.twitter.com/eggP2ShR2o
— National WWI Museum (@TheWWImuseum) November 11, 2020
Beautiful capture of the Legacy Jump WWI soldier BASE jump from the Tower. Today was chilly but energetic as we welcomed large crowds to observe in-person as well as our national audience tuning in on Fox & Friends live coverage. | 📷Jeff Biernbaum | #VeteransDay pic.twitter.com/KlBTzKxzFj
WYFF Greenville
©2021, Hearst Television Inc. on behalf of WYFF-TV.


text:
Emphasis Added: The Foreign Policy Week in Pieces (4/1)
Emphasis, as always, added.
Russ Wellen
War: Not Just Hell, But the Tenth Circle Thereof
War is obscene. I mean that in every sense of the word. Some veterans will tell you that you can't know war if you haven't served in one, if you haven't seen combat. These are often the same guys who won't tell you the truths that they know about war and who never think to blame themselves in any way for our collective ignorance.
Who Did You Rape in the War, Daddy?, Nick Turse, The Nation
Thank Goodness for Small Favors
The very fact that our policy of regime change is aimed at the same rulers our principal enemy wishes to overthrow should give logical pause. … Yet for all the clarity of this logical fallacy in the American democracy project, it has not stopped President Obama from helping to overthrow Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya, or from calling for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad in Syria — even though the fall of the former and the uprising against the latter have given al Qaeda new "active fronts" (to use the jihadis' own term) in which to operate. … So far, it hasn't. But at least there are some limits to the American pursuit of folly; there is no call in Washington for overthrow of the regime in Riyadh. For this we should at least be thankful.
The Illogic of Iraq, John Arquilla, Foreign Policy
Transparency About Drones May Only Serve to Legitimate Them
So, moving [drone] operations to the Pentagon may modestly improve transparency and compliance with the law but — ironically for drone critics — it may also entrench targeted-killing policy for the long term.
For one thing, the U.S. government will now be better able to defend publicly its practices at home and abroad. The CIA is institutionally oriented toward extreme secrecy rather than public relations, and the covert status of CIA strikes makes it difficult for officials to explain and justify them. The more secretive the U.S. government is about its targeting policies, the less effectively it can participate in the broader debates about the law, ethics, and strategy of counterterrorism. … Under a military-only policy, the United States would also be better positioned to correct lingering misperceptions about targeted killings and to take remedial action when it makes a mistake.
Moreover, clearer legal limits and the perception of stricter oversight will make drone policy more legitimate in the public's eyes.
Going Clear, Matthew Waxman, Foreign Policy
Two-Score Years Hence
Furthermore, since launching an ICBM from Iran towards the United States or Europe requires going somewhat against the rotation of Earth the challenge is greater. As pointed out by missile and space security expert Dr. David Wright, an ICBM capable of reaching targets in the United States would need to have a range longer than 11,000 km. Drawing upon the experience of France in making solid-fuel ICBMs, Dr. Wright estimates it may take 40 years for Iran to develop a similar ICBM – assuming it has the intention to kick off such an effort. [Author's emphasis.] A liquid fueled rocket could be developed sooner, but there is little evidence in terms of rocket testing that Iran has kicked off such an effort.
… The central conundrum of midcourse missile defense remains that while it creates incentives for adversaries and competitors of the United States to increase their missile stockpiles, it offers no credible combat capability to protect the United States or its allies from this increased weaponry.
Q&A Session on Recent Developments in U.S. and NATO Missile Defense with Dr. Yousaf Butt and Dr. George Lewis, Charles Blair, FAS Strategic Security Blog
At This Point, the Only Defense Against Missile Defense May Be Black Humor
Now for the really fun part: Let's say one of these interceptors does manage to hit an incoming North Korean missile. While the folks at Greely are celebrating with a little Harlem Shake, what's happening with the other interceptors we shot off? If you said "They are lighting up the early-warning radars as they streak into the heart of Mother Russia," you win a prize! I am sure there is no chance that will spark an accidental nuclear war, the firing-missiles-into-Russia-on-purpose thing. There is no way the Russians could miss a North Korean missile launch or get an itchy trigger finger when they see missiles converging on their country. [Double emphasis — bold and italic — added.]
Billion Dollar Baby, Jeffrey Lewis, Foreign Policy


text:
Q: Trouble with Replacement for base case of recursive function I have defined a recursive function W[g_,n_], with the base case values W[0,3] and W[1,1].
Now I want to total W[g,n] for fixed values of 2g-2+n, which I do like so:
pairs[k_] := Solve[2 g - 2 + n == k && g >= 0 && n > 0, {g, n}, Integers]

S[m_]:= Total[W[g, n] /. pairs[m - 1]]

This seems to be working, except when I compute S[2], which should be W[1,1]+W[0,3]. Instead I get zero.
I see that both
W[g, n] /. {g -> 0, n -> 3}
W[g, n] /. {g -> 1, n -> 1}

give me zero, when I have defined these values, and they are not zero.

A: Your function S[m] isn't well defined. The function pairs[k] returns a list of rules for g and n, so W[g,n] does not know what are the values for them.
This definition solves your problem:
S[m_] := Total@(W[Sequence @@ #] & /@ ({g, n} /. pairs[m - 1]))


text:
In computer storage, multipath I/O is a fault-tolerance and performance-enhancement technique that defines more than one physical path between the CPU in a computer system and its mass-storage devices through the buses, controllers, switches, and bridge devices connecting them.

As an example, a SCSI hard disk drive may connect to two SCSI controllers on the same computer, or a disk may connect to two Fibre Channel ports.  Should one controller, port or switch fail, the operating system can route the I/O through the remaining controller, port or switch transparently and with no changes visible to the applications, other than perhaps resulting in increased latency.

Multipath software layers can leverage the redundant paths to provide performance-enhancing features, including dynamic load balancing, traffic shaping, automatic path management, and dynamic reconfiguration.

See also
 Device mapper
 Linux DM Multipath

External links
 Linux Multipathing, Linux Symposium 2005 p. 147
 VxDMP white paper, Veritas Dynamic Multi pathing
 Linux Multipath Usage guide

Computer data storage
Computer storage technologies
Fault-tolerant computer systems