text:
User:LBird BASc/sandbox/ATK/Seminar6/Evidence/Evidence in the Media

Evidence in Mass Media
The function of mass media is to deliver information through various platforms. News is a type of media, which aims to broadcast recent events and provide a sense of objectivity. Nevertheless, conflicting evidence can be found in media, where data and facts are manipulated in order to highlight a particular issue or processed in order to fit a certain political propaganda, to promote a party, ideology or conceal an event. Even though people can use the internet to find different sources and evidence regarding an event, mass media such as the news still has a significant influence on people's views. Therefore, interpreting data and information from media outlets can be misleading. Below, examples of these instances in terms of quantitative evidence will be discussed.

Quantitative evidence
Statistics and data is an aspect of evidence that can easily be manipulated in the media. A vivid example is the manipulation of public opinion polls in order to achieve a certain viewpoint in a news report. An example is Ipsos statistics about American opinion on Trump’s immigration policy. Two news magazines published contrasting articles regarding the same data. TIME magazine stated that “Most Americans Don’t Think President Trump’s Immigration Ban Will Make Them Safer”, whilst Breitbart claimed that “ Public overwhelmingly supports Trump push to limit migration.” Thus, different media outlets are able to create their own readings of data in order to appeal to their readers instead of providing accurate and unbiased information.

Alternatively, there can be a manipulation of graphical data. An example is the Fox news report about unemployment levels after Barack Obama became president. A graph shows a steep increasing line, with equal spacing between the dates, even though the time passed between the dates is very different. Therefore, to the viewer it may appear that unemployment levels are constantly rising, whilst in reality they are levelling off.


text:
User:Wanor

Kisah kehidupan seorang wanita bernama Wanor.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Wanor


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2019-20/The evolution of evidence in football

Football
The sport of football, is a game where 11 men or women face other respective 11, typically played on a green turf (artificial or natural) measuring 100-110 meters by 64-75 meters, where the objective of the game is to get the ball into the goal of the opponents mostly using the feet. Each team organise themselves in 4 positions (goalkeeper, defenders, midfielders, and attackers) and try to combine among themselves in order to score a goal. A match normally lasts 90 minutes, divided into 2 halves of 45 minutes. Along with the 22 men or women competing against each other, there are also typically 4 referees that are employed to enforce the laws of the game. What happens when a law is broken? How do we know the law has been broken? Can we be sure the law has been broken? are questions that referees typically ask themselves during the game: their task is therefore to use an available body of evidence in order to make a decision in relation to a play. For example, wondering if there was or wasn't a handball, or if a certain action should lead to a penalty or if it shouldn't.

Evidence
We will take a look at the evolution of evidence in football as it is tightly linked to the role of referees. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". These available body of facts/information are sources of evidence, and they can be of different types : quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative evidence relies heavily on numbers and mathematical observations whilst qualitative evidence is descriptive and conceptual. In football, both types of evidences are present. The role of evidence is to support and possibly prove a certain claim

Bayesian Evidence in Traditional Football
In a football game, until very very recently, referees were limited technologically, and could only base their decisions based on their immediate interpretation of the action plus their prior knowledge. For example, to determine whether there was a penalty or not for a specific action, referees could only use their own, immediate, biased observations as evidence. This very often led referees to a Bayesian way of dealing with situations: that evidence should be used to update prior knowledge. To illustrate how Bayesian thinking normally influences the decisions of referees, we will take a look at the player Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior, also known as Neymar. Often considered one of the best modern football players, Neymar is very often the target of many fouls perpetrated by the opposing team, as the only way to stop him from scoring goals is to lightly injure him, or stop him in his tracks. During the 2018 FIFA World Cup Game Brazil vs Switzerland, Neymar was fouled a record number of 10 times. This very high number of fouls on Neymar led referees to call out fouls on him much easier, because they knew he was a very high profile target. The probability that the referee would call out the 10th foul on Neymar during that game is much higher than the probability the referee would call out that exact same foul on some other player. Why is this? Because the referee was influenced by the high recurrence on fouls on Neymar, and was thus very likely to call out that 10th foul. Were a journalist to interview this referee, the actual evidence he would provide to support his decision would be very subjective: "I saw what I saw, and it was clearly a foul", and this is because the referee has supreme, irrevocable, power of decision.

The evolution of bayesian based to frequentist based evidence in football with the introduction of VAR
The actual evidence used in football to support a decision has taken a dramatic twist in the last couple of years with the introduction of the Video Assistant Referee, or VAR. This technological innovation has allowed an extra match official to review decisive actions in a game using video replays of the action in question. This new innovation requires the installation of cameras all over the stadium in order to get a maximum quantity of different angles for this extra referee to review the action. This means that when a decisive play occurs, referees will finally be able to provide concrete evidence of their decision. On the much-evoqued 10th foul on Neymar during the aforementioned game, the referee can use VAR, review the action using multiple angles, and concretely conclude that it was indeed a foul. The evidence is still partly Bayesian, as the referee will be influenced by the fact that this is the 10th time Neymar is fouled, but statistically speaking, the probability that the referee calls the foul will resemble that of Frequentist Probabilities because the referee will be able to rely more heavily on actual, independent to the other fouls, evidence, as the actual footage of the foul will be objective.


text:
User talk:41.115.63.11

Warning
—Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:41.115.63.11


text:
English-Hanzi/Surgery

Surgery is needed only if the cataracts are causing problems and generally results in an improved quality of life.

仅在白内障引起问题并通常改善生活质量时才需要手术.

title: English-Hanzi/Surgery


text:
Transportation Systems Casebook/China’s Belt and Road

Summary
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a cross-regional infrastructural initiative unveiled by China in 2013. It has since had global commentary both positive and negative and sparked criticism and support from various political regimes. It is currently as controversial as it is ambitious. Currently, China has spent an estimated $200 billion with Morgan Stanley estimating that by 2027 China would have spent between $1.2- $1.3 trillion on the BRI.[1] China plans to complete this multi-billion dollar initiative in 2049.

Annotated List of Actors
·      Hillary. R. Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State (2009-2013)

·      Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and President of China

·      Central Committee (of the Chinese Communist Party wrote the comprehensive reform blueprint of the Initiative in November 2013).

·      State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (The chief administrative authority of China)

·      National Development and Reform Commission. (NDRC)

·      Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (China)

·      Ministry of Commerce. (China)

·      Asian Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB), China-ASEAN Maritime Cooperation Fund, China-Indonesia Maritime Cooperation Fund and Silk Road Fund. These financial institutions lend out loans for infrastructure projects on BRI mostly in the Asia-Pacific region.

·      ASEAN. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is a regional intergovernmental organization of the member countries that promotes and facilitates economic, political, security, military, educational, and sociocultural integration among its members.

·      Participating countries and international organizations.

Timeline of Events

 * Initiative unveiled in September and October of 2013 by Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
 * Blueprint of the Initiative was made by the Central Committee with the approval of the State Council in November 2013.
 * In March 2015, detailed plans of the BRI were laid out by the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC), Foreign Affairs Ministry and Ministry of Commerce.
 * Asian Infrastructure Development Bank although established in 2013 began its operation in December 2015.
 * The first and inaugural forum on the Belt and Road Initiative was held in May 2017.
 * October 2017, the BRI is added to the Chinese Communist Party’s constitution.
 * Second forum on the BRI was held in April 2019.

Clear Identification of Policy Issues
The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative foster regional, economic and international development for about 64% of the World’s population. This initiative has the following:

Pros:

 * Fosters economic development and integration resulting in growth to both developed and developing countries.[1] This initiative seeks to make this integration a win-win cooperation and prosperity for all.
 * Improving upon and influencing current international economic system reforms and architecture.[2] Having had slow and difficult international economic reforms in decades, China on becoming an emerging power seeks to play an important role in shaping the global economic system.
 * Provides hard infrastructure in the form of roads, railways, pipelines ports and others which will lead to a reduction in transportation time and other costs associated with trade.[3] The creation of the infrastructure will help countries export their products easily to other countries leading to such benefits as earning of foreign currencies, creation of jobs and increased market shares of goods and services.

Cons:

 * Although not fully executed, the BRI faces certain challenges, criticisms and oppositions. Some of the major challenges of the BRI stems from the risk associated with how broad and ambitious the BRI is and also based on political values of participating countries as against that of the Chinese. Some of these challenges, criticisms and opposition include:
 * Lack of information and transparency of BRI investments. Some of the BRI investments have the requirement that they can only be awarded and undertaken by Chinese contractors.  Contractors use this requirement as a basis to not disclose information which allows them the opportunity to inflate the costs of infrastructure. This has led to over-inflated cost and increase debts on the part of borrowing countries partaking in the building of infrastructure. This has then led to mistrust and opposition and even withdrawal from the BRI in some countries.[4]
 * The BRI is considered as neocolonialism or a ploy by China to dominate Asia and trade. Given the low-interest loan rates accessible to participating countries in developing the infrastructure for the BRI, critics see this as a way of China creating unsustainable debt burdens for its neighbors and potentially taking control of regional choke points.
 * Excess exports by China are another sign that raises questions and criticisms on the dominance of China on trade. Some Chinese experts are of the view that one of the benefits of the BRI investments is to be able to absorb China’s excess capacity which although true could create unfavorable trading terms for other countries. India is one of the countries that see China as using such a ploy.[5]
 * The risk of clashes of political values and culture across countries. Since the BRI has a broad and rich mix of political regimes and economic systems such as capitalism, socialism and others, there are bound to be challenges in cooperation and coordination among countries, which may result in delays in the execution of projects. [6]|undefined
 * Difficulty in achieving financial sustainability of cross-country projects. To be able to sustain these cross-country infrastructure projects, the return on investment should outweigh the cost. Most Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) undertaken by the Chinese government and companies have not been profitable. This shows that China does not have lot of favorable outcomes running cross-border projects which makes the profits to be derived from the BRI questionable.[7]

Narrative of the Case

From ancient Silk Road to the Belt and Road Initiative: a historic perspective of transcontinental trade in Eurasia.

The human being has historically been in search of more favorable conditions to live in. This desire has been driving him to explore new destinations and open new routes.

The emergence of cross-continental trade networks in the Eurasian continent date back to the period of the Han Dynasty in China, when the unique Chinese merchandise like silk and spices reached Europe. Trade in silk and related byproducts in the broader Eurasian continent opened small-size trade linkages between and among the regional commercial hubs in the Central Eurasia, and stimulated the growth of medieval cities like Samarkand, Bukhara, Aleppo etc. These small trade linkages emerged into major trade routes connecting China to European markets as transcontinental trade began to evolve. Historians named the network of commercial trade routes connecting China to Europe as the “Silk Road”.

Transcontinental trade between China and Europe was flourishing until Constantinople – the capital city of Byzantine Empire and the major trade hub on the crossroads of Europe and Asia, fell to Ottoman Empire in 1453. Constantinople’s fall dramatically changed the geopolitics in the broader Eurasian continent and stimulated the European explorations of alternative trade routes to China.[1]

Although, the commerce in the city re-established following the conquest and Istanbul[2] regained its dominance over transcontinental trade routes shortly, overland trading eclipsed by the exploration of new maritime routes.[3] Improvement in technology which could support long maritime journeys, as well as significant scientific changes about the understanding of the World in late fifteenth century would encourage the Europeans to find new ways for trade with China, avoiding trade middlemen of Central Asia and then less friendly Turkish control of the overland trade routes.

Throughout the history wars and geopolitics significantly shaped and reshaped the Eurasian transcontinental trade routes on micro and macro levels. Decline of the overland trade via Silk Road had mirrored onto the development of the trade hubs in Eastern China, Central Asia and Caucasus. Only in eighteenth century the Silk Road region regained its strategic importance as it had become the intersection of three major geopolitical powers-Russian, British and Chinese empires – now mostly from cultural and archeological point of view.[4]

Establishment of Russian dominance over the Central Eurasian region and the Caucasus in early nineteenth century and emergence of the Soviet Union in 1920s significantly affected the flow of people and goods through the Silk Road.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened unique opportunities for the regional trade, integration and re-emergence of the ancient Silk Road, as this region become attractive again for foreign investments. In 1993, the European Union introduced the “Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia” (TRACECA) program to develop transport corridor from Europe to China, via the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia.[5] Central Asia and the Caucasus has significantly enjoyed the Western political and economic support until recently. On July 20, 2011, in Chennai, India, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton laid out the United States’ vision of the new Silk Road and the U.S. support to re-establishing the “international web and network of economic and transit connections” in Eurasia. The U.S. policy concerning the trade and transit connections in the Central Eurasia would later be dubbed as the New Silk Road Initiative.[6]

In 2013, in the light of the NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as the U.S.’ active engagement with the Central and South Asian countries to forge the regional integration, China introduced the “Belt and Road Initiative” – a new transcontinental integration policy which would stimulate closer economic ties and deepen cooperation in the greater Eurasian region – but this time, under Chinese dominance.

Belt and Road Initiative as an economic tool for the integration of regional economies

Officially, the BRI was introduced by the Paramount leader of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping during his visits to Kazakhstan in September 2013 and to Indonesia in October 2013. The multi-billion dollars initiative which covers 71 regional economies, including China involves two major components: Silk Road Economic Belt and the New Maritime Silk Road.

In his speech at the Nazarbayev University in Kazakhstan, Chinese leader Xi Jinping proposed a new integration policy to improve the transcontinental connectivity and cooperation by building “economic belt along the Silk Road” which would span from the Pacific to the Baltic Sea.[7]

A month later, Chinese leader Xi Jinping during his speech before the Indonesian Parliament introduced the New Maritime Silk Road Initiative, which envisages strengthening the China-ASEAN maritime cooperation and investments through the China-led China-ASEAN Maritime Cooperation Fund and China-Indonesia Cooperation Fund.[8]

For the implementation of this initiative China has signed intergovernmental agreements and memorandums of understanding with number of countries trying to bind the economies to the emerging transcontinental network. However, the BRI geography still remains debatable due to lack of integrated transportation linkages, disparity in regional economic development and huge cost burden that the initiative can put over smaller economies.

According to the RAND Corporation report, poor development of overland transportation networks, particularly rail connection between neighboring countries significantly affects the regional trade. Rail connection and harmonization of border-crossing processes are of the greatest importance for the trade facilitation in the Central Eurasian region as the 25% of BRI countries in this region are landlocked, thus are heavily depended on the rail communication. The RAND Corporation estimates with regard to the correlation of rail connection to the level of trade in the BRI region show that adding rail connection between trading partners increases trade by 2.8 per cent in average (Table 1).[9]

'''Table 1. Sensitivity test of the impact of transport connectivity on export trade volumes''' Source: RAND Corporation

From economic point of view, experts argue that if fully implemented, the BRI can reduce travel time for transcontinental delivery of goods and stimulate foreign investments to the regional economies. With proposed level of investment and improved regional trade relations between and among the regional countries, the BRI’s realization would not only affect the level of trade in the BRI region but also would have impact on the non-BRI markets. According to the World Bank report (2019), if fully executed the BRI transport infrastructure can reduce travel time by up to 12 per cent and increase world trade between 1.7 and 6.2 per cent.[10]

The multibillion dollar initiative is heavily dependent on the Chinese investments. It is funded through different China-led programs and financial institutions, most importantly Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China-ASEAN Maritime Cooperation Fund, China-Indonesia Cooperation Fund and the Silk Road Bank. Although most of the popular sources indicate that Chinese investments for the BRI projects is from $1 trillion -$8 trillion, the World Bank estimates that the overall BRI investments do not exceed $575 billion.[11]

According to the World Bank statistics, the BRI financing is rapidly increasing public and corporate debt in emerging markets, which have already reached the historic pick since 1980s.[12] In this circumstances, increasing debt burden in less developed economies create challenges for sovereign debt sustainability and make them vulnerable to debt distresses. The Center for Global Development has identified 23 BRI economies relevantly susceptible to the raising debt burden. Eight of them are of particular concern: Djibouti, the Kyrgyz Republic, Lao’s People’s Democratic Republic, the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, Pakistan and Tajikistan.[13]

Belt and Road as the foreign policy tool

In 2017, the 19th National Party Congress of the China’s Communist Party formally incorporated the Belt and Road Initiative into the Chinese Constitution by writing the following wording into it: “[] following the principle of achieving shared growth through discussion and collaboration, and pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative.”[14] This was significant adjustment into the BRI, as it now represents the Government’s policy rather than Chinese overseas investment program.

Although China’s BRI project has widely been seen mostly in economic terms, it has always had strategic meaning for the Chinese Government. The BRI policy identifies five major elements for the transcontinental integration: policy communication among regional countries; hardware improvement; trade facilitation; monetary policy; and people-to-people contacts.[15] Almost all these elements hold national security importance for China.

Experts assert that by investing in BRI Chinese Government aims to stabilize border regions by mitigating threats time-to-time emanating from peripheries; securing energy supply and transport routes by establishing overland oil transportation systems; and the last but least to cultivate stronger diplomatic and economic influence in the region by signing partnership agreements and memorandums of understanding and investing in the development of regional economies.[16]

Effective implementation of the BRI in a broader perspective is shaped by the expectations and reactions of the major World powers, like the United States and the European Union. Although the U.S. Government in many occasions voices that the U.S.’ New Silk Road Initiative and BRI are complementing each other, the trade confrontations between the two, as well as increasing Chinese influence over the regions once dominated by the western investments can prove the opposite. During the hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary James Mattis commented on the BRI in a following way:[17]

Regarding 'One Belt, One Road,' I think in a globalized world, there are many belts and many roads, and no one nation should put itself into a position of dictating 'One Belt, One Road.' That said, the 'One Belt, One Road' also goes through disputed territory, and I think that in itself shows the vulnerability of trying to establish that sort of a dictate.

Another factor that makes the BRI an issue of the national security for China is the security and safety concerns associated with Chinese business involvement in remote and unstable areas like Africa, Middle East and Central Asia. These threats include but not limited to examples as anti-Chinese sentiments in Yemen – deportation of 500 Chinese nationals from Yemen; killing of Chinese citizens in Syria in 2015 and in Pakistan in 2017 etc.[18]

The withdrawal of NATO and U.S. forces from Afghanistan and U.S. distancing from Central Eurasian affairs in recent years have created a geopolitical vacuum in Central Eurasian which has become more susceptible to the increasing Chinese influence, most importantly through the Belt and Road Initiative.

Lessons Learned / Takeaways
·       The BRI now a part of the Constitution of the Communist Party of China represents the Government’s policy rather than Chinese overseas investment program.

·       Although China’s BRI project has widely been seen mostly in economic terms, it has always had strategic meaning for the Chinese Government.

·       China seeks to reform existing international economic systems through the BRI.

·       There are oppositions to the BRI because the benefits to be derived by the Chinese far exceed the benefits to other participating regional countries.

·       According to the World Bank statistics, the BRI financing is rapidly increasing public and corporate debt in emerging markets

Discussion Questions
·       Is it fair to limit some contracts to Chinese contracts?

·       How can transparency be enforced for the BRI?

·       Do the overall benefits of the BRI outweigh the current human, economic and political cost?

·       How else can the BRI be funded besides Chinese investments?

·       Will BRI make fair trade more difficult?

For more information follow the link below

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31878/9781464813924.pdf


text:
User:LBird BASc/sandbox/ATK/Seminar6/Power

/Power in Arts/

Plato put forward the argument that "it is the government which must flow from the education and not education from the government.". Groups in power, their values and subsequent social policies implemented are largely shaped by education (or lack thereof). However, this relationship can be expanded and is, in fact, symbiotic where both educational and political systems exert influences upon each other. The state maintains considerable control over the degree of funding received by institutions and way past events are presented, highlighting its role in the discussion of policies surrounding education. Education itself is a social process by which children are shaped in accordance to concerns.

Different classes are still being educated for different societal functions. The Free School Movement has increased segregation and polarisation for working-class children, with fewer children being educated in receipt of free meals. Those on free meals and receiving pupil premium are 27% less likely to achieve five or more A*-C GCSEs. In addition to this, such students are typically taught in schools highly populated with immigrant or disadvantaged students, forming clusters of low-achieving schools.

Pupils in working-class comprehensives get less money per head. Even when in the same schools as middle-class children, they are in lower sets with less experienced teachers. Teacher turnover also tends to be higher in such schools. Interviews conducted also revealed that working-class children had a sense of where they were in the academic hierarchy.

Where it might be more difficult for those who have benefitted from educational systems to larger extents to make reforms on the basis of being able to empathise, wider class differentials in future and social educational policies might exist. Opportunities in education largely determine an individual’s ability to construct effective arguments and bring about effective changes. Limited early opportunities for working-class children reduce the likelihood of them being able to make future reformations towards bringing about more level playing fields in respect to education.


text:
Précis of epistemology/The love of reason

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or the love of reason.

The love of reason is desire, knowledge and act. A spirit is fulfilled by loving reason, through desire, knowledge, and action.

To know reason is to know the truth about reality and the ideal, the good. To act for the love of reason is to do the good.

What is the good? How do we do it? How do we recognize it?

The good is that the spirit lives for the spirit. A spirit lives well when he lives for all spirits to live well.

The spirit must be for the spirit. A spirit is fulfilled by thinking, speaking, and acting for all spirits to be fulfilled, so that we may freely develop the powers of the spirit and rejoice together.

More precisely, the good is that the spirit lives for the good. It is a circular definition of the good. We deduce from it that a spirit lives for the good when he lives for all spirits to live for the good. It is the circle of the perpetuation of the life of the spirit. To want the good is to want that the will of the good be perpetuated.

A remark on circular definitions. Principles such as "matter is what interacts with matter", "a natural number is either zero or the successor of a natural number" and "the good is that the spirit lives for the good" are not at fault. They determine the meaning of fundamental concepts. Formally we translate them by axioms. Informally, we can say that they are true by definition, or that they define the fundamental concepts. Circular definitions are forbidden only for derived concepts, defined from basic concepts. But they are not forbidden for fundamental concepts, because axioms can be considered as implicit definitions.

Dreams come true when they are adapted to reality, when they are within our reach, so that we can naturally find the means to achieve them. By motivating us, these dreams lead us to their realization, they reveal to us the means that enable us to accomplish them. If we had given up the dream, we would never have found the means.

The rationalist ideal resembles the dream of an enlightened: that all spirits find their happiness by living for the happiness of all spirits. But reasoning is enough to realize that it is also a dream adapted to reality, because reason gives us the means to accomplish reason.

That the spirit must be for the spirit has a very down-to-earth meaning: we must work to have good living conditions. If we do not make efforts, we necessarily live rather badly. If a spirit wants to enjoy life, he must give himself the means, he must work for himself and for others.

A spirit is fulfilled by being good for himself and for those around him. But he can also be good for all spirits. The fruits of reason are universal. The good principles are the same for everyone. When a spirit knows reason, he knows at the same time what is good for him and what is good for everyone else. By revealing reason, a spirit proves to himself, and to all others, that he can be good for all spirits, because we can all benefit from the fruits of reason.

We discover reason by becoming aware of proofs. Proofs reveal reason to all spirits. When spirits give themselves proofs, they make reason exist among them.

Observations and principles are the two sources of all proofs. As observers, we are witnesses of reality. All our good observations are proofs that the reality is as it is. As thinkers, we can learn all that good principles teach, by reasoning about their consequences.

All reasonings based on good principles and good observations are proofs that reveal reason.

We recognize the good principles by their fruits. Good principles bear fruit when they help us understand reality and do the good.

That we shall recognize the good principles by their fruits is a good principle, because it bears fruit every time it helps us recognize the good principles.

How do we recognize the fruits of reason? When it helps us to think well and live well.

A spirit is fulfilled when he thinks well, when he does the good, when he lives well. But we are easily deluded. We can very easily believe that we think or act well for very bad reasons. Reason does not always provide definite answers because the difference between real fruits and illusory fruits, between true well-being and fantasies, between good wheat and tares, is not always neat and clearly marked.

Observations reveal only crumbs of reality. We are only lifting a tiny corner of the veil, we are observing only a tiny part of reality, far too little to pretend we know it that way. Thought enables us to reason about each being and the totality of all beings. A being is known by knowing its relations with other beings, knowing its place in a totality. We know a totality knowing all the beings that it includes and their relations. By the thought one can know all the beings and the totalities that they constitute.

Through imagination and thought we can know all the possibilities, not only the reality as it is, but also as it could be and as it will never be. As observers, we only know a tiny part of reality. As thinkers, we can know everything, the real and the unreal. Reality is only a tiny part of the space of everything that can be thought of.

Thinking is rational when it adapts to reality, when it reveals what is really possible, naturally possible, what can really be.

Observations reveal beings only through what they are or have been. Thought enables us to go further because it reveals what they could be.

Knowing what is naturally possible, we find ways to act and fulfill our ideals, provided they are naturally within our reach.

By thinking we can know the truth about the good, about what we must do and must be, since it suffices to know that the spirit must live for the spirit.


text:
User:Busterofdragons554/Collections/Japanese

 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Outline/Beginner Lessons
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Outline/Beginner Lessons/Grammar
 * Japanese/Kanji
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Lesson 1
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Outline/Beginner Lessons/Lessons
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Lesson 2
 * Sugu ni Hajimemashō
 * Japanese/Practical Lessons
 * Japanese/Japanese writing system
 * Japanese/Reader
 * Japanese/Transcribing English to Japanese
 * Japanese/Kana
 * Japanese/Pronunciation
 * Japanese/Pitch accent
 * Japanese/Dialects
 * Japanese/Grammar
 * Japanese/Grammar/Nouns
 * Japanese/Grammar/Verbs
 * Japanese/Grammar/Adjectives
 * Japanese/Grammar/Pro-forms
 * Japanese/Lessons/Telling time
 * Japanese/Grammar/Basic Particles
 * Japanese/Grammar/Sentence ending particles
 * Japanese/Lessons/Giving and Receiving
 * Japanese/Grammar/Comparisons
 * Japanese/Lessons/Simultaneous action
 * Japanese/Grammar/Transitivity
 * Japanese/Verb conjugation table
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Academic subjects
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Animals
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Banking
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Body parts
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Colors
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Clothes and accessories
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Countries, languages and nationalities
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Direction
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Family and people
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Food and drink
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Health
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Numbers
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Time
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Dates
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Weather and seasons
 * Japanese Phrasebook
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Greetings and farewell
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Common phrases
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Conversation essentials
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Asking for directions and time
 * Japanese Phrasebook/At the hotel
 * Japanese Phrasebook/At the bank
 * Japanese Phrasebook/At office
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Ticketing
 * Japanese History
 * Living in Japan
 * Memorizing the Katakana
 * Memorizing the Hiragana


text:
Wikibooks:Collections/Language/Japanese

Learning Japanese

 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Outline/Beginner Lessons
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Outline/Beginner Lessons/Grammar
 * Japanese/Kanji
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Lesson 1
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Outline/Beginner Lessons/Lessons
 * User:Retropunk/Japanese Curriculum/Lesson 2
 * Sugu ni Hajimemashō
 * Japanese/Practical Lessons
 * Japanese/Japanese writing system
 * Japanese/Reader
 * Japanese/Transcribing English to Japanese
 * Japanese/Kana
 * Japanese/Pronunciation
 * Japanese/Pitch accent
 * Japanese/Dialects
 * Japanese/Grammar
 * Japanese/Grammar/Nouns
 * Japanese/Grammar/Verbs
 * Japanese/Grammar/Adjectives
 * Japanese/Grammar/Pro-forms
 * Japanese/Lessons/Telling time
 * Japanese/Grammar/Basic Particles
 * Japanese/Grammar/Sentence ending particles
 * Japanese/Lessons/Giving and Receiving
 * Japanese/Grammar/Comparisons
 * Japanese/Lessons/Simultaneous action
 * Japanese/Grammar/Transitivity
 * Japanese/Verb conjugation table
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Academic subjects
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Animals
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Banking
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Body parts
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Colors
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Clothes and accessories
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Countries, languages and nationalities
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Direction
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Family and people
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Food and drink
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Health
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Numbers
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Time
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Dates
 * Japanese/Vocabulary/Weather and seasons
 * Japanese Phrasebook
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Greetings and farewell
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Common phrases
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Conversation essentials
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Asking for directions and time
 * Japanese Phrasebook/At the hotel
 * Japanese Phrasebook/At the bank
 * Japanese Phrasebook/At office
 * Japanese Phrasebook/Ticketing
 * Japanese History
 * Living in Japan
 * Memorizing the Katakana
 * Memorizing the Hiragana

title: Wikibooks:Collections/Language/Japanese


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/December 11

Today in 1989 Dr. Joseph Popp sent diskettes containing the AIDS Trojan, the first known ransomware, to thousands of recipients.


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/January 22

...we have an opportunity to dramatically improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world... Today in 2008 was the official release of the Cape Town Open Education Declaration.


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/December 13

Today in 2004 the first batch of Vores Øl (our beer) was produced, the predecessor of FREE BEER (“free beer” as in “free speech”, not “free beer”...).


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/January 27

Today in 2011 the Internet was shut down in Egypt. Contrary to the intentions, it led to more people in the streets and was followed by an Anonymous Operation. Eventually Mubarak resigned.


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/January 28

Today in 2005 the non-profit educational project One Laptop per Child was started. Towards their eponymic constructionist-learning vision, they notably designed their utility-focused $100 Laptop. With extraordinary effort put to the engineering and putting user need above profit, they achieved revolutionary pricing, durability, environmental friendliness, openness, repairability, power consumption, and many other ground-breaking innovations. For many, radical openness seemed a logical part of the concept: openly documented hardware, easy disassembly, free software, ..., to allow users to dive in as deep as they like and tinker with every part, as so illustratively embodied by the “View Source” button. When Open Source was eliminated from the mission statement because Microsoft suddenly wanted Windows on the OLPC, many left the project disillusioned. Commercial companies scrambled to bring competing products to market, i.e. the entire Netbook category. With failing partnerships and delays, they had to settle for lower volumes and thus a higher price, and abandoned the project after one or two models. Success ratings were mixed.


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/January 29

Today in 1980 the USENIX conference began in Boulder, Colorado, where the Netnews design was presented. Since Netnews was developed for UNIX at a university, it was automatically classified as public domain software under the terms of the AT&T UNIX license. The Usenet developed into an important file-sharing platform. It itself also constitutes the original peer-to-peer application.


text:
Public-Private Partnership Policy Casebook/Denver Airport Great Hall

This case reviews the features of Denver Airport Great Hall Project. It is the collaborative work of Gentian Liko, Sid Rayaprolu, and Zongnan Wu, graduate students at George Mason University. The following casebook explores the key actors, project characteristics, policy challenges, and history associated with Denver Airport Great Hall Project. It was produced as an assignment for George Mason University's Public-Private Partnership graduate course, taught by Dr. Jonathan Gifford.

Summary
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), signed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, restructured the security requirements of all domestic and international airports across the United States, with a strict implementation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints. Inaugurated in the year 1995, the Denver International Airport (DEN) has become the 6th busiest airport in the country by 2017, connecting over 185 nonstop destinations and 23 international cities in 9 other countries. Designed to accommodate annual passenger traffic of 50 million, the airport has served 64.5 million passengers by 2018, and is expected to encounter 110 million passengers by 2040. When the airport opened in 1995, 60% of the passengers connected through DEN. Today, nearly 65% originate from DEN and only 35% connect and that puts much more stress on the terminal facility than ever anticipated. Having observed its vulnerable TSA checkpoint locations and the need for 30 additional gates due to burgeoning passenger traffic, DEN prioritized its future plans to upscale the terminal and TSA facility.

In early 2015, Denver announced the renovation project, noting that moving the TSA security check to a less exposed location was the airport’s highest priority. Part of the plan developed is making way for new restaurants, increasing check-in counters from 169 to 176 and most importantly changing security, by moving it up a floor and enclosing it. The airport narrowed the list of potential contractors down to three — Ferrovial (a Spanish infrastructure giant), Westfield Airports and Den Transformation Team. By June of 2016, Ferrovial was picked for the job.

An independent evaluation panel, along with 4 other committees selected Ferrovial and its partners, including Colorado-based Saunders Construction, as the best contractor for the job, with Ferrovial outscoring the other two competitor bidders. The project was considered to be the City’s first public-private partnership, led by a consortium made up of Ferrovial Airports, JLC Infrastructure and Saunders Concessions. The construction and refurbishment work of the Denver Airport Great Hall Project was agreed be carried out by Ferrovial Agroman and Saunders Construction.

The Great Hall Project was expected to create 400-450 construction jobs, more than 800 permanent jobs and generate an additional $3.5 million in annual taxes and general fund revenue for the City of Denver. This project would create a safer, more efficient and modernized Great Hall that serves as a warm welcome to Denver, keeps up with increasing demand, and leaves a lasting impression on all passengers and visitors.

This $1.8 billion project with 34 years contract (including 4 years of development phase) has an anticipated cost of $650-$770 million for the design and construction. The total investment was financed by a combination of governmental payments, equity committed by the consortium partners, and the bond issue completed in December 2017. The equity provided by the consortium amounts to 73 million dollars, while the bond principal amounts to 189 million dollars. The bond was rated BBB by Fitch and BBB- by S&P with an average yield to maturity of 4.083%. Great Hall Partners made an initial investment of $258 million that will be repaid over time through a combination of installments from the airport and a 20 percent share of the concession revenues from new shops and restaurants. DEN will also reimburse Great Hall Partners for operating and maintenance costs over the 30 years.

The project was planned to be executed in four phases, starting July 11th, 2018. In less than 9 months, GHP spurred controversies through their project update on April 2019, with estimated delays up to 3 years (932 Calendar days). The later analysis by CBS4 indicated whopping 4 year delays with an estimated cost overruns of $300 million. In the August of 2019, DEA moved ahead to terminate the contract with GHP as a result of substantial delays. GHP however claimed that the discovery of weak concrete from past construction, and intermediate design alterations are the primary reasons for overall delay.

According to the updated schedule, DEA is expecting the GHP to completely disengage from the project by November 2019, clearing the path for the anticipated new developers, Stantec (design) and Hensel Phelps (construction management for Phase 1). DEN is hopeful that the overall budget of the project will remain to be $770 million, which included $120 million of contingency funds.

Public Entities/Figures
Denver International Airport (DEN) The City and County of Denver owns and operates Denver International Airport. Under the city charter, the management, operation and control of Denver International Airport is delegated to the city’s Department of Aviation. The Manager of the Department of Aviation is appointed by and reports directly to the Mayor of Denver.

Mayor Michael Hancock Mayor Hancock held firm in his support of P3 partnership and the theoretical promise it offers — minimized risk for the government side in a project, the use of private capital instead of or in addition to public debt, and a set price for the work.

Legal Advisors Nossaman LLP and KPMG are the legal advisors of DEN in the Great Hall project.

DBFOM Team
Great Hall Partners is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that includes Ferrovial Airports (80%), Saunders Construction (1%) and JLC Infrastructure (19%) that signed a Development Agreement with Denver International Airport (DEN) for the redevelopment of the Jeppesen Terminal. As part of the project, Great Hall Partners will operate and maintain the new commercial area within the Great Hall located both “airside” and “landside”.

Equity partners

Ferrovial Airports International is part of Ferrovial, S.A., a Spanish multinational company, founded in 1952, involved in the design, construction, financing, operation (DBFO) and maintenance of transport infrastructure and urban services. Ferrovial Airports International is one of the main private airport investors and operators in the world. It currently has four airports in the United Kingdom: Heathrow, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Southampton.
 * Ferrovial Airports International (
 * Saunders Construction
 * JLC Infrastructure

JLC/Saunders joint venture is an investment fund created by Loop Capital and Magic Johnson Enterprises.

Design & Build Team Great Hall Builders is the Design & Build team, created by the partnership between Ferrovial Agroman West and Saunders Construction. Great Hall Builders is responsible for the design and construction of the Great Hall Renovation.

Luis Vidal + Architects, Harrison Kornberg Architects and Anderson Mason Dale are the project architects. Other local engineers and contractors include Intermountain Electric, Civil Technology, Gilmore Construction, Sky Blue Builders, and Burgess Services.

Advisors
 * Equity Partners Legal Advisors: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
 * Financial Advisor: Citibank

Timeline of Events

 * Early 2015: Competitive procurement process for qualified private partners initiated by DEN
 * June 2016: Denver Airport enters in exclusive negotiations with Great Hall Partners
 * August 2016: The pre-development contract was presented to the Denver City Council for approval
 * August 24, 2017: 34-year concession agreement signed between DEN and GHP
 * December 21, 2017: The Public Finance Authority issued $189.1 million on behalf of the SPV, Denver Great Hall, to partly finance the project
 * May 2018: GHP blames “the multitude of Owner Changes being issued on the project” for the delays
 * July 2018: Start of the modernization project construction
 * August 2018: Denver closed on $2.53 billion of revenue bonds rated A2 by Moody’s Investors Service, A by S&P Global Ratings and A-plus by Fitch Ratings.
 * December 2018: The project reached financial close by a combination of governmental payments
 * February 18, 2019: Reported that the concrete in the Jeppesen terminal is substantially below design strength, deteriorating, or unsuitable from a structural perspective for the planned project
 * April 14, 2019: GHP stated that the project is 18 months behind schedule.
 * May 3, 2019: DEN addresses Owner’s concerns regarding phase 1 work progress
 * late June 2019: Short-lived mediation started between DEN & GHP
 * August 12, 2019: Great Hall Partners LLC received a formal written notice of Termination for Convenience from the City and County of Denver (the Owner) notifying the GHP’s that it has elected to exercise its discretionary right to terminate the contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement with effect 12 November 2019
 * Aug. 13, 2019: Denver International Airport CEO, Kim Day addresses DEN’s decision to terminate the terminal project contract at a news conference
 * September 13, 2019: DEN held an open house for certified businesses to meet the design professional services companies that are proposing to finish Phase I of the project: HOK Engineering, Gensler, and Stantec.
 * 12 November 2019: Effective date for the GHP partnership termination

Project Procurement
DEN began a competitive procurement process for qualified private partners in 2015 for remodeling of the 22-year-old terminal to improve efficiency and keep up with passenger growth. Four teams to bid for a final request for proposals (RFP) for the project were identified, of which three (Ferrovial, Westfield Airports and Den Transformation Team) responded. The contract was awarded to Ferrovial by June of 2016. Led by Ferrovial, the pre-development contract includes contractors for the local, national and international companies. During the pre-development phase of the project, DEN negotiated with Ferrovial to define the terms and the scope of work. Upon reaching an agreement, the pre-development contract was presented to the Denver City Council for approval in 2016.

Project Description
Part of the plan developed is making way for new restaurants, increasing check-in counters from 169 to 176 and most importantly changing security, by moving it up a floor and enclosing it.

Airside Plaza Meeters and Greeters Plaza Ticketing Lobby TSA Security Checkpoints
 * 37,000 square feet of commercial space
 * Several passenger experiences features making the space a unique and appealing environment
 * Conveying a modern western sense of place with the use of finishes and digital features
 * 19,500 square feet of commercial space
 * This space targets passengers, meeters and greeters, hotel guests and airport workers
 * 176 new ticketing desks
 * 224 self-service kiosks
 * 12 curbside desks
 * 34 security lanes

The Great Hall project presents an opportunity to offer an upscale and strongly differentiated choice of food and beverage, retail, and service outlets. The ultimate goal of the project is to keep Denver International Airport as one of the safest, most convenient airports in the world while creating a truly experiential environment – an environment that establishes Denver as a new benchmark in US airports from which others learn and seek to emulate.

After the renovation, many of the new concessions’ spaces will be in a post-security screening section on the north side of the main floor, where passengers will pass through on their way down to the concourse trains. The project is expected to create up to 450 construction jobs and more than 800 permanent jobs. It will also annually generate $3.5m in taxes and General Fund revenues for the City of Denver.

Project Cost
The P3 contract for Denver Airport Great Hall was worth $1.8 billion, with the renovation accounting for $650 million excluding the $120 million contingency funds.

Project Renovation Cost:

The original construction (renovation) budget was estimated to be $650 million with more than 70% sourced by the airport progress payments, leaving only a modest amount needed for financing and equity contributions. The estimated cost to design and build the project is up to $770 million, which also includes an airport controlled contingency of $120 million, in large unforeseen construction and design costs, potentially because of airline needs, DEN’s decisions, surprises lurking behind the walls or changes in airport regulatory requirements. Great Hall Partners initially invested $258m in the project, which will be later recovered through installments from the airport and a 20% share of the concession revenues from new shops and restaurants.

Financial structure
Denver International Airport’s Great Hall (GHP) was the first major P3 project approved by Denver. The project approved by Denver city council in 2017. The airport secured a 34-year, $1.8 billion contracts with Great Hall Partners, led by Ferrovial Airports. The $650 million-plus project is not being paid for with taxpayer dollars. Instead, it is paid for with airport profits, such as those from airline and parking fees. The project reached financial close in December 2018 financed by a combination of governmental payments, equity committed by the consortium partners, and a bond issue completed on 21 December 2017. The Public Finance Authority − a conduit issuer based in Wisconsin − issued $189.1 million on behalf of the SPV, Denver Great Hall, to partly finance the project with an average yield to maturity of 4.083%, callable before maturity. The average yield to call was 3.34%. The bonds for Great Hall Partners are tax-exempt. S&P Global Ratings assigned a ‘BBB-’ rating to Denver Great Hall LLC’s proposed $196.1 million Series 2017 senior secured revenue bonds maturing in September 2049.

Funding structure

 * Public: 70% through airport progress payments (airline and parking fees)
 * Private: 30% through the combination of equity and debt (initially invested $258m)
 * Profit Sharing Ratio: DEN and Developer share in revenue (DEN – 80%, GHP – 20%)

Great Hall Partners initially invested $258m in the project, which will be later recovered through installments from the airport and a 20% share of the concession revenues from new shops and restaurants. Over the 30 years of concession operation, DEN will pay GHP annually for capital repayment and an operations/maintenance reimbursement, totaling $1.2 billion. At the same time, DEN will receive 80% of revenue from the new concessions, while GHP reaps 20%.

Payment terms of the termination agreement with GHP are generally based on the following: GHP’s portion of the funding it contributed to the project, approximately 25% of the design and construction cost, contract breakage costs that are a result of GHP’s other contractual relationships and the lost return on investment based on the amount of equity it contributed to the project. DEN will also reimburse GHP for any other outstanding incurred costs related to construction and design work completed to date, according to the statement.

Institutional structure
After approving the Great Hall P3 development agreement, the city council hired independent consultants to determine how best to utilize P3s for future projects in Denver and has created a new city office to review projects that can benefit from a P3 structure.

On December 21, 2017, the Great Hall Partners consortium achieved financial closure of the $1.8-billion contract for remodeling and commercial operation of the Jeppesen Terminal at Denver International Airport. Ferrovial Airports, with an 80% stake, is the majority partner of the consortium, alongside Saunders Construction and JLC (an investment fund created by Loop Capital and Magic Johnson Enterprises). The construction and refurbishment work, worth a total of $650 million, will be carried out by Ferrovial Agroman and Saunders Construction. Other consortium members are Anderson Mason Dale, Harrison Kornberg Architects and Luis Vidal + Architects.

The institutional structure of the Great Hall Project:

Great Hall Partners:
 * Contributes a combination of equity and debt
 * Designs and builds project
 * Assumes risk for price and schedule
 * Operates the concessions on levels 5 and 6

DEN Airport:
 * Pays for part of construction costs through our Capital fund
 * Splits the concession revenue 80% to DEN, 20% to Great Hall Partners
 * Reimburses Great Hall Partners for operations and maintenance costs for the operational period

Contract Type
According to a pre-sale report by S&P Global, On August 24th 2017, Denver Great Hall LLC, secured and signed the contract to design, build, finance, operate and maintain (DBFOM) a part of the Jeppesen terminal within DEN. While the construction was expected to last for four years, the consortium shall operate and maintain the facility for a 30-year period, during which the consortium is responsible for developing and managing a revamped concessions program and maintaining associated areas within the Terminal.

Under a base case scenario, S&P Global estimated that about 88% of the project revenues to be received through availability payments from DEN and 20% of the concessions revenues The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) was formed by Ferrovial-led companies, with Ferrovial Aeropuertos assuming 80% of the ownership, and the remaining 20% to be shared between Saunders Construction Inc (5%) and JLC (95%) through a joint venture partnership.

Risk Matrix
Ferrovial Airports International would help take on that risk in exchange for operating the concessions after construction was complete.

Risk allocation:

Future Development
DEN CEO, Kim Day announced after the GHP termination that her aim was to finish the project using the original budget, along with its $120 million contingency fund, even if that meant scaling the project back. In announcing the termination just 13 months after construction began, airport CEO Kim Day said her hope was to get new contractors in place by early next year. Much remains up in the air, including exactly how much DEN will pay the spurned Great Hall Partners in breakup fees. DEN finance chief, Gisela Shanahan said that is still subject to negotiation and will start with the roughly $200 million DEN must repay under the contract for the partners’ up-front costs.

DEN officials have raised the possibility of hiring contractors with airport experience in the near term to finish out the project’s first phase — which was supposed to be done in May — while they pursue a larger contract to finish the rest. But unlike the Great Hall arrangement, the new ones will be straightforward construction and design contracts, not long-term partnerships. Even so, at-large Councilwoman Robin Kniech said she would be looking for a strong construction management component.

The airport has already selected its preferred program management team and approved a construction contract for the TSA Central Monitoring Facility, which is part of the Great Hall Project. The airport selected Jacobs Engineering (the second-largest engineering firm in the Denver area) as its preferred program management team and is issuing Jacobs a “task order” so the engineering firm can become familiar with the Great Hall Project. Both contracts require approval from Denver City Council before they are put into action.

DEN selected a design firm and a Contractor for Phase 1 of the Great Hall Project. Stantec is the lead design firm while Hensel Phelps is the construction manager/ general contractor for the project pending approval Denver City Council committee on November 6. If the city council approves, work could begin in the first quarter of 2020.

Concrete Strength
The reports provided by the Developer on February 18, 2019 reported that the concrete in the Jeppesen terminal is substantially below design strength, deteriorating, or unsuitable from a structural perspective for the planned project.

The concrete samples were taken from the Phase I - MOD 2 area. About half of the cores, some of which showed the lower compressive strengths, were taken before the end of the year. Additional testing were performed to identify core locations, testing of cores, petrographic analysis and engineering evaluation to determine the concrete strength and composition of slab areas within the project.

The airport also provided GHP with a report, dated January 14, from another materials testing agency. The report confirmed the findings of the GHP tests and also indicated the aggregate samples had properties that could lead to ASR (The alkali–silica reaction, more commonly known as "concrete cancer"). A January 28 addendum to the report added: "The presence of fly ash is detected in both samples. It is well established that the use of fly ash is very effective to control ASR if the fly ash content and quality is adequate."

The owner's report from its testing firm, Olson Engineering, concluded that because the concrete is 25 years old and there have been no ASR features observed in two samples, "It looks like the use of fly ash was adequate to make the concrete ASR resistant"

Original Master plan
The architect behind the white-tented top of the Denver International Airport's iconic terminal, Jim Bradburn, reported that the terminal renovation should not have been done. Referring to the airport's master plan, Bradburn believes that someone lost sight of that vision somewhere along the way. He said the plan was designed in a way to allow for the airport's continued growth and eventual expansion of the main terminal. "Now, of course, they abandon the original master plan, which was to duplicate the terminal to the south so that what’s going on today didn’t have to happen. You could’ve built another terminal over there that met all the new requirements and had the two of them working in tandem with the train station. That was the idea of the original master plan," said Bradburn.

Project Delivery System
Denver city decided to use Public-Private Partnership model for renovation of the Denver International Airport. Public-Private Partnership (P3), defined as an agreement between a government agency and a private-sector company, is typically long-term in nature for the purpose of financing, building and operating complex projects. However, the choice of P3 was not entirely supported as a former airport official would announce: “A P3 was not the right way to go from the beginning. In a P3, you need to get out of the way, and airport management insisted on being involved in every detail. Plus, GHP said they could complete the first phase in only 11 months. That was totally unrealistic.”

Based on an email update sent by DEN about the Great Hall project, some more light was shed on the decision to use the P3 model. It said, "We approached the project through an innovative public-private partnership with Great Hall Partners, not for the money, but for their expertise and to transfer the risk of constructing within and operating 24-7 facility." Herewith, DEN did not need Great Hall Partners to finance the renovation. Instead, they were seeking expertise in undertaking such a massive project without disrupting airport operations any more than necessary. This rises questions if the P3 was right approach. The airport did two things well in setting up the contract with GHP — writing in a termination clause and an audit clause, which gave the airport the right to look at GHP's books.

The city of Denver created the office dedicated to evaluating projects in order to determine if the P3 model would be a good fit in those cases, only after awarding of the Great Hall contract. As Denver’s mayor believes, that office could have actually prevented the situation at the airport through a higher level of scrutiny.

Another puzzle in P3 selection was the level of owner's control. Why give away so much control to a partner rather than just hiring the expertise you need? Airport CEO, Kim Day says they now have that expertise in their COO, and of course, they will retain the plans drawn up by Ferrovial for this project.

Project Delays
According to GHP's report of April 2019, there are significant shifts of tasks in time due to several delays. This delays in partial projects' complications are presented in the following table. According to the table, there is a foreseen 3-year delay in the overall completion of the project.

The project delay problems started at the beginning of 2019 when the contracting team reported weak concrete in the main floor of the terminal. These delays, coupled with changes DEN has requested and other delays, would add hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns and years of delays to the project that was originally scheduled to be completed by November 2021. While the contract set the project’s completion date in November 2021, Great Hall Partners had warned that it might not be able to finish the project until as late as 2025 with cost overruns of over $300 million.

The relationship between DEN and GHP got rocky quickly, as even before the groundbreaking ceremony, the contractor was already sending warning signs that something was wrong. In a May 2018 correspondence to the airport, Ferrovial said delays were mounting, blaming “the multitude of Owner Changes being issued on the project.”

A year later in May 2019, CBS4 estimated a 3-year delay with budget overruns amounting up to $310 million due to weak compressive strength of concrete from the original structure that was built in 90's. Although the city contracted a third party who reported that the concrete needed additional testing but was fine to build on, Ferrovial maintained that the concrete problems were a legitimate issue and reason for delay.

In July 2019, the war of words between the two sides escalated as DEN accused the contractor of breaching its contract and threatened to end things. Following several reported issues with the contractor over the project’s timeline, costs, diversity and safety, DEN announced the termination the contract on August 12, 2019 with an effective date of termination in 90 days.

Termination
The ongoing dispute between Great Hall contractor and the Denver International Airport concerning the terminal renovation product went through mediation, despite a temporary lapse in negotiations. As the mediation session due to several project delays that began in late June 2019 apparently produced little progress, Great Hall faced a deadline to finalize its claims, which specify exactly how much more time and money it’s seeking. For much of this year, they have disagreed about the extent of the fallout from the discovery last fall of weak original concrete in the main level’s flooring, though that concern has dissipated. Great Hall also contended that its work was set back by a litany of airport change directives involving designs, materials and other elements. The contractors released documents showing that the renovation would have cost more than $1 billion and completed with a 3-year delay. That’s $288 million more than the contract, plus a $120-million contingency.

DEN decided to terminate the public-private partnership terminal contract using its “for convenience” clause, in the letter sent to Great Hall Partners on August 12, 2019. The termination of Great Hall was for convenience rather than for cause, which will likely allow the airport to avoid legal battles around the firing. Most construction contracts have a convenience clause, which means that the recipient of the contract can be fired for any reason. The contractors disputed many of DEN’s safety claims and suggest that the letters were meant to distract from the project’s costly disputes, which center on about 20 unresolved airport change directives and a weak concrete issue that stalled a large portion of the project for several months. Great Hall has contended that DEN’s changes in design, materials and other elements go beyond what’s standard for a large project. Airport officials insist the project can be done for the original budget.

Lessons Learned /Takeaways
According to an article, a cumbersome contract—more than 15,000 pages long and the incompatible teams were the causes leading to the contract failure. Apart from these, owner's continuous change order directives, as well as owner's lacked engagement, direction and cooperation contributed to deteriorating the relationship between DEN and GHP, ending in contract termination. As scope changes require formal and costed contract amendments or approved access to the contingency reserve, the takeaway lesson here is that P3s do not present a flexible mechanism to adapt all these changes and alternative project delivery methods shall be considered when dealing with such cases.

The failed relationship between DEN and Great Hall highlights the risk inherent in using public-private partnerships (P3) for some projects, especially those with the relatively higher risk of "designing for and building in a dynamic operating environment," such as the airport, which has remained open during the project. DEN understood the risks, indicated by its inclusion of a $120 million contingency in Great Hall's contract. "Utilizing the public-private partnership model to procure projects can only attempt to mitigate, not eliminate these risks." said Earl Heffintrayer, transportation analyst at Moody's Investors Service.

The Great Hall case tells us that a feasibility analysis and a Value for Money (VfM) analysis should be conducted in the pre-procurement stage to evaluate if a project can or should be executed as a P3 project. The feasibility analysis determines what type of P3 to use and the related contractual and risk arrangements for project implementation, in case P3 is a feasible procurement approach. As part of this analysis, the detailed scope, performance requirements, evaluation factors and financial model are prepared, as well as the initial risk assessment. Then, Value for Money analysis should be applied to promote the continuation with the project as P3 project delivery system. VfM analysis provides information that can help decision makers evaluate the relative merits and trade offs associated with using a P3 delivery option to develop a particular project versus more traditional public sector procurement options. A VfM analysis includes both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the differences between the project delivery options (public vs private) that are evaluated. The results of a cost-benefit or financial feasibility analysis can often be summarized with single number, such as a return on investment ratio or an estimate of the public subsidy that may be required to advance a project. The VFM comparison includes a financial analysis but it also has to provide the qualitative analysis of the strengths and limitations of each project delivery option and address factors that are relevant to a decision to pursue a P3 but are difficult to quantify in monetary terms Moving forward, alternatives to public-private partnerships should be searched and if none exist, the DEN airport should consider postponing the project until public financing is available.

Discussion/ Questions

 * 1) Was the Private-Public partnership (P3) the right project delivery system for the Great Hall project?
 * 2) If it had been a traditional government procurement project, would the DEN have been able to proceed with the project in the same way that GHP did? If so, what would be the critical role of DEN in the event of weak structural issues?
 * 3) Now that the DEN decided to award the contract to individual design and construction managers, can the project be successfully finished as per the schedule?
 * 4) Although the DEN finds termination of existing contract with GHP to be financially suggested, the post-termination compensation can amount up to $200 million. What do you think about the implications of intermediate contract termination on the overall cost of the project?
 * 5) Now that the revenue risks are retained in traditional contract, will the DEN be able to successfully fund the updated schedule?

Additional Readings

 * P3 Airport Projects (16 pages)
 * The District of Columbia P3 Program—A Case Example (123 pages)
 * S&P Global Ratings, Presale: Denver Great Hall LLC (14 pages)
 * P3 Value for Money Guidelines (26 pages)
 * Great Hall Update - Initial Project Details (46 pages)


text:
User:IBRAHIM SIA SILLAH

IBRAHIM SIA SILLAH WIKIBOOK

title: User:IBRAHIM SIA SILLAH


text:
Wikijunior:Asia/Oman

Oman is a country that occupies a strategically important location, for which it has long been a prize for empire builders. In the 16th century Muscat was seized by Portugal, which held the city until 1650. More than a century later the Yaʿrubid dynasty drove the Portuguese from the Omani coast, recapturing Muscat in 1650 and then occupying Portuguese settlements in the Persian Gulf and East African coastal regions. Their empire eventually crumbled in a civil war over the succession of the imam in the early 18th century, enabling the Persian ruler Nādir Shāh to invade the country in 1737. During the 18th century the Āl Bū Saʿīd dynasty expelled a Persian occupation and established Omani control over much of the Persian Gulf.

Oman capital city is Muscat and the currency is Rial.

Where is Oman?
Oman is located at the south east Arab peninsula which bordering the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. It is also share land borders with Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates to its northwest and Yemen to its south west.

How many people live in Oman?
As of 2018 census, there are estimated of 4.6million Omanis living there. Over 73% of populations are of Arab meanwhile the rest of 27% are made of Baluchi, South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi), African.The local natives identifies themselves as Omanis.

What are the most common languages in Oman?
Standard Arabic is the common language of the Oman. English and Baluchi are also common language of Oman.

What is the most common religion in Oman?
Ibadi Muslim is the most common religion practiced in Oman with 75% of population practicing it. Sunni Muslims made up of 10% and Hindus make up 14 % and other religions count for about 1%.

What is the sport of Oman?
Barka bullfighting is traditional Omani sport of bull-butting.

It is a contests are between large Brahma bulls, traditionally fed up on a diet of milk and honey. Animals are matched according to weight and led into the area to do battle, at which point (all being well) they will lock horns – although some bulls just turn around and run away, frantically pursued by their owners. The winning bull is the one which either pushes the other to the ground or forces it to give up its ground. Most fights last less than five minutes, and ropes attached to the bull mean that they can be pulled apart (with difficulty – some of the bulls weigh around a ton) if things start turning ugly.

What are some important sites?
Wahiba Sands - Stretching over 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the Eastern Hajar Mountains to the Arabian Sea, the Wahiba Sands (also known as Sharqiyah or Sharqiya Sands) is located in the center of Oman. It is a popular travel destination for those in search of the true, authentic and traditional Oman. It is renowned for its unique desert ecosystem and surprisingly rich biodiversity. Some 180 native species of plants, as well as more than 200 species of animals, can be found in the desert, including vipers, desert hares, sand foxes, and birds.

Nakhal Fort - Located at Al-Batina. This is one of the most beautiful castles in the world. It has got a very balanced spectacular on the rocky surface of the Western Hajar. This fort is standing at 200 meter up at the Hajar Mountains. It is estimated to be built during pre-Islamic era between the 3rd to 10th century.

The most unique features of Nakhal Fort is that it does not follow any uniform shape. The shape of the fort instead follows the irregular outline of the massive boulder on which the fort is built. This boulder elevates the fort above ground and gives the fort its magnificence. The fort has been expanded and renovated by many of the rulers of Oman throughout history, the oldest record of improvement to the fort is during the time ofÂ Imam Salt bin Malik Al Kharusi in the 9th century, it was later expanded during the reign of other Omani tribes such as the Yahmadi tribe, the Nabhani tribe, and the Yarubi tribe.

Nizwa Fort - It is an amazing example of old Omani architecture that provides an illustration of the way Omani people used to live in ancient times. The oldest part of Nizwa Fort was originally constructed by imam Al Sult bin Malik Al Kharusi in the ninth century and was later renovated by imam Sultan bin Saif Al Yarubi in the 17th century. It is unique among other forts in Oman due to the cylindrical shape of its main tower which also happens to be the biggest to tower in a fort in Oman. Nizwa Fort has seven wells, a number of prisons, and prosecution ground. The main tower features many defense mechanisms Omanis used in the past such as pitfalls, honey traps, and gun shooting windows.

title: Wikijunior:Asia/Oman