text:
Cheddar Beer Soup
Recipe courtesy of Claire Robinson
Recipe courtesy Claire Robinson, 2010
- 5 Ingredient Fix
- 1/4 cup garlic infused olive oil
- 3 tablespoons unbleached all-purpose flour
- 4 cups chicken stock
- 2 cups grated extra-sharp Cheddar
- 1 cup dark beer
- Salt and freshly ground black pepper
Heat the oil in a saucepan over medium heat. Whisk in the flour and cook until the mixture starts to bubble, about 3 minutes. Whisk in the stock and bring to a boil, then reduce the heat to a simmer. Slowly incorporate the cheese stirring until fully melted and smooth. Add the beer and cook until heated through. Season with salt and pepper, to taste. Ladle into serving bowls and enjoy.


text:
I've been meaning to do this post for a while and hope to do a few more like it for each park, but the idea came to me when I was sitting in Columbia Harbor House with my oyster crackers sitting on the side of my chili, taking a breather. I noticed something I hadn't [...]
The post Fish Are Friends, Not Food: Some Things You Might Think Are Vegan at WDW, But Actually AREN'T appeared first on WDW Radio - Your Walt Disney World Information Station by Lou Mongello.
© 2012 WDWRadio™ and Second Star Media™
Please note that WDW Radio, Lou Mongello, and Second Star Media are in no way part of, endorsed or authorized by, or affiliated with the Walt Disney Company or its affiliates. Visit Disney's official web site at Disney.com - As to Disney artwork/properties: © Disney - Disclosure.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

subset: commoncrawl


text:
NEW YORK — A handful of grimy New York pay phones will be reincarnated as touch-screen pads with online access to neighborhood information, the mayor's office said Monday. A pilot program starts next month that will see 250 phone booths converted to house 32-inch (81 cm) screens, instead of phones,…
By Katie Halper
Read MoreBy Gary Younge, The Guardian
Read MoreRaw Story is a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media. While giving coverage to the big stories of the day, we also bring our readers' attention to policy, politics, legal and human rights stories that get ignored in an infotainment culture driven solely by pageviews.
Founded in 2004, Raw Story reaches 9 million unique readers per month and serves more than 30 million pageviews.
Copyright © 2004-2013 Raw Story Media, Inc. All rights reserved.


text:
Article Information
- PDF (291 kb)
- Full Text with Thumbnail Figures
- Full Text with Large Figures
- Cited by in Scopus (6)
- Request permission
Related Articles
- Acanthamoeba keratitis: an emerging disease gathering importance worldwide?
Acanthamoeba keratitis: an emerging disease gathering importance worldwide?
Trends in Parasitology, Volume 29, Issue 4, 1 April 2013, Pages 181-187
Jacob Lorenzo-Morales, Carmen Mª Martín-Navarro, Atteneri López-Arencibia, Francisco Arnalich-Montiel, José E. Piñero and Basilio Valladares
AbstractAcanthamoeba keratitis (AK) is increasingly being recognized as a severe sight-threatening ocular infection worldwide. Although contact lens wear is the leading risk factor for AK, Acanthamoeba parasites are also an important cause of keratitis in non-contact lens wearers. Diagnosis of AK is challenging, and the available treatments are lengthy and not fully effective against all strains. The pathogenesis of Acanthamoeba is still under study, and the identification of the key factors involved in this process should be useful for the development of fully effective therapies. This review focuses on recent developments on AK pathogenesis and diagnosis as well as novel strategies for the evaluation of anti-amoebic agents that could be applied in the near future against these pathogens.
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (622 kb) - The pathophysiology of Acanthamoeba keratitis
The pathophysiology of Acanthamoeba keratitis
Trends in Parasitology, Volume 22, Issue 4, 1 April 2006, Pages 175-180
Daniel W. Clarke and Jerry Y. Niederkorn
AbstractAcanthamoeba keratitis is a sight-threatening infection of the ocular surface that is produced by several free-living amebae of the genus Acanthamoeba. Infection is usually initiated by Acanthamoeba-contaminated contact lenses and produces exquisite pain and ulceration of the ocular surface. The pathophysiology of this infection involves an intricate series of sequential events that includes the production of several pathogenic proteases that degrade basement membranes and induce cytolysis and apoptosis of the cellular elements of the cornea, culminating in dissolution of the collagenous corneal stroma. Targeting such proteases could lead to the development of vaccines that target the disease process rather than the pathogen itself.
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (307 kb) - Rho-family GTPases require the Arp2/3 complex to stimulate actin polymerizationin Acanthamoeba extra...
Rho-family GTPases require the Arp2/3 complex to stimulate actin polymerizationin Acanthamoeba extracts
Current Biology, Volume 9, Issue 8, 22 April 1999, Pages 405-415
R.Dyche Mullins and Thomas D. Pollard
SummaryBackground: Actin filaments polymerize in vivo primarily from their fast-growing barbed ends. In cells and extracts, GTPγS and Rho-family GTPases, including Cdc42, stimulate barbed-end actin polymerization; however, the mechanism responsible for the initiation of polymerization is unknown. There are three formal possibilities for how free barbed ends may be generated in response to cellular signals: uncapping of existing filaments; severing of existing filaments; or de novo nucleation. The Arp2/3 complex localizes to regions of dynamic actin polymerization, including the leading edges of motile cells and motile actin patchesin yeast, and in vitro it nucleates the formation of actin filaments with free barbed ends. Here, we investigated actin polymerization in soluble extracts of Acanthamoeba.Results: Addition of actin filaments with free barbed ends to Acanthamoeba extracts is sufficient to induce polymerization of endogenous actin. Addition of activated Cdc42 or activation of Rho-family GTPases in these extracts by the non-hydrolyzable GTP analog GTPγS stimulated barbed-end polymerization, whereas immunodepletion of Arp2 or sequestration of Arp2 using solution-binding antibodies blocked Rho-family GTPase-induced actin polymerization.Conclusions: For this system, we conclude that the accessibility of free barbed ends regulates actin polymerization, that Rho-family GTPases stimulate polymerization catalytically by de novo nucleation of free barbed ends and that the primary nucleation factor in this pathway is the Arp2/3 complex.
Summary | Full Text | PDF (268 kb) - …more
Get Bookmark
Switch to Enhanced Article View
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Trends in Parasitology, Volume 27, Issue 5, 185-189, 19 April 2011
Area 51: How do Acanthamoeba invade the central nervous system?
Ruqaiyyah Siddiqui1, Richard Emes2, Hany Elsheikha2 and Naveed Ahmed Khan1, 2,
1 Aga Khan University, Stadium Road, Karachi, Pakistan
2 School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, United Kingdom
Acanthamoeba granulomatous encephalitis generally develops as a result of haematogenous spread, but it is unclear how circulating amoebae enter the central nervous system (CNS) and cause inflammation. At present, the mechanisms which Acanthamoeba use to invade this incredibly well-protected area of the CNS and produce infection are not well understood. In this paper, we propose two key virulence factors: mannose-binding protein and extracellular serine proteases as key players in Acanthamoeba traversal of the blood–brain barrier leading to neuronal injury. Both molecules should provide excellent opportunities as potential targets in the rational development of therapeutic interventions against Acanthamoeba encephalitis.


text:
< Return To Hearing
Mr. Paul BenderFebruary 27, 2002 Mr. Chairman, the Property Owners Remedy Alliance (PORA) welcomes the opportunity to present its views on your bill, S.1611, the "Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2001." PORA's members greatly appreciate your and Mr. Hatch's interest in this important issue, as well as the time and effort that Committee staff has devoted to crafting this important legislation. PORA is an ad hoc group composed of a number of copyright-based companies and trade associations. Copyrights are at the core of the business of PORA's members. They market copies--or license the public performances--of millions of copyrighted works. They often sell or license works to States and their instrumentalities, which are prodigious users of copyrighted materials. In 1990, with the support of many of PORA's current members, Congress passed the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) as a response to Supreme Court cases. The CRCA--and its subsequent patent and trademark counterparts--were enacted to redress the inequity of a situation where states as intellectual property owners may avail themselves of the full array of remedies as plaintiffs, but enjoy immunity to damage awards as defendants. In 1999, the Supreme Court moved the goalposts yet again in a series of sovereign immunity decisions that resulted in the Fifth Circuit's striking down the CRCA two years ago. The Supreme Court's decisions and their progeny have immunized States from damage awards when they infringe the federal intellectual property rights of others, while leaving them free to obtain all statutory remedies--including injunctions and damages--when their own intellectual property rights are violated. This is the exact same situation that existed in 1990. Thus, the reasons that we are here are not substantive so much as technical. State immunity from money damage awards for copyright violations is of great concern to copyright owners--especially at a time when the digital revolution is dramatically increasing the scope and gravity of the piracy threat copyright owners face. PORA's members are grateful to the Committee for the responsiveness that it has shown in enacting prophylactic legislation in the past-such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the NET Act and the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999--to deal with new piracy threats caused by digital technology. PORA views S. 1611 as part and parcel of these legislative efforts. We believe that an effective and constitutional sovereign immunity bill should have three components: (1) a provision that provides an incentive for states to voluntarily waive their immunity in exchange for access to the full remedies under the intellectual property system; (2) a provision abrogating state sovereign immunity for constitutional violations; and (3) codification of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which permits injunctions against state officials. S. 1611 contains all three of these important elements. For this reason, we strongly support S. 1611. Additionally, We urge the Committee, however, to carefully consider strengthening the 'remedies bar' to preclude the award of injunctions or damages to non-waiving states. An amendment of this nature will strengthen the incentive for states to make themselves full and equal participants in the marketplace. Mr. Chairman, the Property Owners Remedy Alliance (PORA) welcomes the opportunity to present its views on your bill, S.1611, the "Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2001." PORA's members greatly appreciate your interest in this important issue, as well as the time and effort that you and your staff have devoted to crafting this important legislation. We also want to thank Senator Hatch for his long-standing interest in this issue, dating back to the original Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in the 101st Congress. PORA is an ad hoc group composed of a number of copyright-based companies and trade associations. It's members include the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers; Broadcast Music, Inc.; the Business Software Alliance; The McGraw-Hill Companies; the Motion Picture Association of America; National Music Publishers' Association; the Recording Industry Association of America; Reed Elsevier Inc.; the Software and Information Industry Association; the West Group; and AOL Time Warner Inc. PORA was formed in early 2000 in response to the Supreme Court's 1999 sovereign immunity decisions, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board. These and other decisions have created a fundamentally unfair situation in which States remain immune from financial responsibility for any harm that their infringements cause to copyright owners, while at the same time being free to obtain all statutory remedies--including injunctions and damages--against those who trespass on their rights. The inequity of States being able to play by two sets of rules caused Congress to change the law in 1990, and these new decisions make it even more important that it does so today. Copyrights are at the core of the business of PORA's members. They market copies--or license the public performances--of millions of copyrighted works. They often sell or license works to States and their instrumentalities, which are prodigious users of copyrighted materials. As a result, State immunity from money damage awards for copyright violations is of great concern to copyright owners--especially at a time when the digital revolution is dramatically increasing the scope and gravity of the piracy threat copyright owners face. In the past few years, Congress has recognized repeatedly the threat posed to copyright owners by new digital technology and has acted accordingly. Enactment of remedial legislation in light of the Supreme Court's 1999 sovereign immunity decisions is entirely consistent with these past congressional efforts. Our members' goal is to secure the passage of federal legislation that: (1) eliminates the inherent unfairness of the present situation, in which States and their instrumentalities--which are increasingly participating as competitors in the commercial marketplace--are able to enjoy the full benefits of the copyright law without shouldering one of its most important responsibilities; and (2) complies with the newly articulated constitutional boundaries established by the Supreme Court while effectively protecting rightsholders against State violations of their copyrights. PORA urges the enactment of legislation that would: Condition the availability to States of certain judicial remedies under the federal intellectual property system on State waivers of sovereign immunity from suit for state infringements from private intellectual property rights; Abrogate State sovereign immunity when State infringements of federal statutory rights also violate constitutional rights; and Codify the doctrine of Ex parte Young, thereby affirming the continued availability of injunctive and monetary relief against State officials who violate federal intellectual property laws. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that S. 1611 contains provisions addressing each of these important goals and PORA therefore strongly supports your bill. In our testimony, we will explain why we support the inclusion of these provisions in S. 1611. We will also suggest one particular, substantively important enhancement to the text of S. 1611 regarding the scope of remedies denied non-waiving States that we believe will improve the bill, and urge the Committee to give careful consideration to this suggested change. We will first discuss the legal and constitutional developments that have made S.1611 a necessity in the first place. I. The 101st Congress and the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act In November of 1990, President George Bush signed into law the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA). Drafted in response to a number of federal court decisions, that legislation expressly abrogated state sovereign immunity from money damage awards in copyright infringement suits. Two years after passage of the CRCA, Congress enacted its patent and trademark counterparts: the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Clarification Act (PRA) and the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA). When it passed the CRCA in 1990, the 101st Congress believed that it had the power to abrogate State immunity under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution--the Patent/Copyright Clause. In reaching this conclusion, Congress relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. in which the Court by a 5-4 vote ruled that Congress could use its Article I powers to abrogate State immunity if Congress made its intention to abrogate unmistakably clear. When the 102nd Congress enacted the PRA and the TRCA in 1992, it referenced two Article I powers (the Patent/Copyright and Commerce Clauses), as well as its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the constitutional basis for the legislation. Now, twelve years later, the 107th Congress finds itself revisiting this issue because, in the interim, the United States Supreme Court has changed the constitutional landscape in a way that has frustrated Congress' purpose in enacting the CRCA, PRA and the TRCA. Thus, in a real sense, the task before this Committee is technical in nature: to draft a new law to fill the gap in State responsibility created by these judicial rulings--a law that meets the Court's newly articulated constitutional understanding and is an effective means of deterring State infringements of federal intellectual property rights and compensating those who are the victims of such violations. The reasons that prompted Congress to enact the CRCA in 1990 (and the PRA and TRCA in 1992) remain compelling today. It is instructive to review briefly the history surrounding the enactment of the CRCA. Congress began its work in this area in 1987, by requesting and receiving from the United States Copyright Office a study examining State immunity from infringement actions. Specifically, Congress asked the Copyright Office to examine two issues: (1) the practical problems relative to the enforcement of copyright law against State entities; and (2) the presence, if any, of unfair business practices by copyright owners vis-à-vis State governments. The Copyright Office's detailed examination revealed that copyright owners had suffered and would continue to suffer harm if Congress did not abrogate State immunity from suit for State copyright infringements. The Copyright Office Report uncovered evidence of unremedied State copyright infringements. Those who filed comments with the Office "almost unanimously chronicled dire financial and other repercussions that would flow from State Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages in copyright infringement suits." The Copyright Office concluded that "copyright owners have demonstrated that they will suffer immediate harm if they are unable to sue infringing States in federal court for money damages." Congress' own consideration of the issue confirmed the Copyright Office's findings and conclusions. This Committee declared that "[s]tate immunity from damages critically impairs creative incentives and business investments in the country's copyright businesses that deal with State entities." Similarly, the House Judiciary Committee concluded that "actual harm has occurred and will continue to occur if this legislation is not enacted." Congress also recognized that the harm emanating from State copyright immunity was not limited to copyright owners. The Senate Report recognized that "[i]t is not only business enterprises that are hurt by State infringements, but individuals, primarily students and public colleges and universities, who pay the price of State immunity through higher prices and lower quality of materials." Thus, when Congress passed the CRCA, it acted on a record that documented the seriousness of the problem and the need for prompt legislative intervention in response to recent court decisions holding States immune from damages in copyright cases because of the failure of existing legislation to abrogate state immunity. Several additional factors motivated Congress in enacting the CRCA. First, the 101st Congress was deeply troubled by the fact that sovereign immunity confers an unfair commercial advantage on States and their instrumentalities. It permits States to operate by two sets of rules: one when their copyrights are infringed and another when they infringe the copyrights of others. When States are victims of infringement, they have at their disposal all of the remedies available under the Copyright Act; when States infringe, however, they are shielded from a key copyright remedy--monetary damages. The 101st Congress concluded that States thus unfairly received a "free ride" by being able to obtain all of the benefits conferred by the copyright law without bearing one of its most important responsibilities. The 101st Congress' concern over this unfair situation was heightened by its recognition that States are frequent and important users and owners of copyrighted works. With respect to State uses of copyright materials, a former Register of Copyrights told the 101st Congress: States and their instrumentalities are major users of copyrighted material of all sorts--not only the familiar forms of printed books and periodicals but the whole range of creative expression in the 1980's: dance and drama, music and sound recordings; photographs and filmstrips; motion pictures and video recordings; computer software and chips; pictorial and graphic material, maps and architectural plans, and so forth, ad infinitum. State exploitation of copyrighted works is by no means limited to uses that can be called educational or nonprofit. They include publishing enterprises, computer networks, off-air-taping, public performance and display, radio and television broadcasting and cable transmissions, to name only the most obvious [examples] . . . . Moreover, the 101st Congress knew that, unlike the federal government which cannot generally assert copyright in the works of its employees, States are free to claim copyright in works created by their employees and to reap the commercial benefits that result from such rights. Second, while acknowledging the importance of Ex parte Young injunctions as a remedial tool under the copyright law, Congress concluded that injunctive relief, standing alone, was inadequate to protect the interests of copyright owners against State infringers. Third, the 101st Congress knew that because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal copyright cases, sovereign immunity means "the choice [in copyright cases] is . . . between the federal forum and no forum." The reasons that drove enactment of the CRCA in 1990 are, if anything, even stronger in 2002. State use of copyrighted works is even more frequent than twelve years ago. This is certainly true on college campuses; public institutions currently house nearly 80% of the students attending institutions of higher learning in the United States. Copyrighted software is used in every university setting, public or private. Moreover, State university systems' Intranets (computer networks linking classrooms, libraries, media centers and dormitory rooms) now make it possible for a university to distribute copies or performances of copyrighted works to unlimited numbers of faculty, students, and even members of the general public. The problems posed today by State immunity are not limited to the university environment. Copyrighted software, music, motion pictures, sound recordings and other works are used by many State departments and agencies. Computer software programs are found in virtually every governmental entity performing specialized tasks or general office administration functions. Copyright users include State departments of education, taxation, and transportation. Finally, in assessing the unfairness of the current state of the law, it is also critical to take into account the fact that today States are major owners of intellectual property. As owners, they increasingly act not as sovereigns, but as commercial competitors. For example, in Florida Prepaid, the State allegedly infringed College Savings' patent in a program when it offered a competing service using the patented method. Moreover, like corporations in the public sector, States have begun to centralize the management of their intellectual property assets so that they may successfully exploit their creations. In addition, for years many States have aggressively registered their works with the Copyright Office and they continue to do so. This point was underscored in 2000 by the Register of Copyrights in testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property: We do have some sense of the extent to which States make use of the Copyright Office's registration function. The Copyright Office reviewed the registrations issued to four-year state colleges and universities for monographs since 1978. Over 32,000 such registrations were found. That is an average of 645 registrations for each State. Put differently, on average the Copyright Office has issued a registration for a work by a State (not including State entities other than four-year colleges and universities, and not including serials) once every twelve calendar days for the last twenty-two years. Clearly, States are availing themselves of the copyright protection provided by federal law. Furthermore, universities increasingly are moving away from the practice of allowing professors, rather than the State or the university, to claim copyright in faculty-created works. This development is motivated in part by the upsurge in the commercial value of technologically-oriented faculty creations such as computer software and multimedia works. Today, States are routinely reaping all the benefits of the Copyright Act--without having to expose themselves to financial liability for their infringing acts. This disparity creates an inequitable situation in the intellectual property marketplace. It should be corrected. S. 1611 would help do just that. II. The CRCA, the PTA and the TRCA Under Constitutional Attack In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida the Supreme Court overruled the Union Gas case, upon which Congress had relied in enacting the CRCA, the PRA, and the TRCA. In Seminole Tribe, the Court held that Congress could not use its Article I powers to abrogate State immunity from suit for violation of legislation passed pursuant to Congress' Article I powers. This surprising decision removed Article I as a basis for the CRCA, PRA and TRCA. After Seminole Tribe, the constitutionality of these statutes turned on whether they could be sustained under either Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment or under the so-called Parden doctrine, under which States could waive their sovereign immunity by participating voluntarily in certain commercial activities. Ultimately, the PRA, CRCA and the TRCA (to the extent it abrogated State immunity for false advertising claims) were found unconstitutional. In June 1999, the Supreme Court invalidated the PRA and the false advertising provisions of the TRCA in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board. In addition to finding that neither the PRA nor the challenged portions of the TRCA were proper exercises of Congress' Section 5 power, the Court overruled the Parden doctrine as well. Subsequently, relying on the two College Savings Bank cases, two separate panels of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit voided the CRCA. At the same time that the Court handed down the two College Savings Bank cases, June 23, 1999, it also decided Alden v. Maine. In Alden, the Court held that Congress could not use its Article I powers to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in State court. Taken together, Seminole Tribe and Alden mean that Congress cannot rely on its Article I powers to abrogate State sovereign immunity from suit in either State or federal court. Because of the critical place they occupy in the current sovereign immunity landscape, each of these three post-Seminole Tribe decisions--the two College Savings rulings and Alden--warrant some further elaboration. A. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank ("The Patent Case") In Florida Prepaid, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, struck down the PRA. Relying on the PRA, College Savings Bank had filed a patent infringement suit against defendant, Florida Prepaid, alleging that the defendant had infringed College Savings Bank's patent in the financing methodology used in its college savings program. After the Supreme Court handed down Seminole Tribe, the defendant moved to dismiss the suit. The district court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, reversed. At the outset, the Court held that, because Seminole Tribe prohibited Congress from abrogating State sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I powers, the PRA could not be sustained under either the Commerce or Patent/Copyright Clauses. Next, although the Court recognized that Congress has the power to abrogate State immunity by enacting "appropriate legislation" under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it determined that the PRA was not a proper exercise of Congress' Section 5 power. Several aspects of the Court's Section 5 discussion bear special mention. First, the majority found that patents are property for purposes of the Due Process Clause: Patents . . . have long been considered a species of property . . . . As such, they are surely included within the "property" of which no person may be deprived by a State without due process of law. And if the Due Process Clause protects patents, we know of no reason why Congress might not legislate against their deprivation without due process under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the Court noted that, while patents are property for purposes of the Due Process Clause, that clause does not protect against every State patent infringement. It only encompasses those infringements that unconstitutionally deprive patent owners of their property such as infringements that deprive owners of property without due process of law. The Court further seemed to hold that due process is violated only if intentional acts of infringement occur for which the State has failed to provide an adequate State remedy. Third, the Court found that the PRA was not "appropriate legislation" under Section 5 because (1) it included all statutory infringements, not only those infringements that amount to constitutional violations, and (2) Congress had made no record showing a need for it to reach beyond constitutional violations in order to protect constitutional rights. The Court noted in this connection that: In enacting the Patent Remedy Act . . . Congress identified no pattern of patent infringement by the States, let alone a pattern of constitutional violations. Unlike the undisputed record of racial discrimination confronting Congress in the voting rights cases . . . Congress came up with little evidence of infringing conduct on the part of the States. The House Report acknowledged that "many states comply with patent law" and could provide only two examples of patent infringement suits against the States. The Federal Circuit in its opinion identified only eight patent-infringement suits prosecuted against the states in 110 years between 1880 and 1990 . . . . At most, Congress heard testimony that patent infringements by States might increase in the future . . . and acted to head off this speculative harm. B. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board ("The Trademark Case") In College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), the Court sustained the Third Circuit's decision that the portions of the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA), which subject States to suits under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for false and misleading advertising, are unconstitutional. In College Savings, the bank alleged that Florida Prepaid had violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act by making misstatements about Florida Prepaid's postsecondary tuition savings plan in its brochures and annual report. Florida Prepaid moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the State's sovereign immunity barred the suit. Both the District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed by a 5-4 vote. The Court rejected the petitioner's assertion that the TRCA was valid Section 5 legislation. It found that neither the right to be free from a business competitor's false advertising about the competitor's own product, nor a general right to be secure in one's business interests, constituted "property" for due process purposes. Because no deprivation of property occurred, the Court saw no need to inquire "whether the prophylactic measure taken under purported authority of § 5 . . . was genuinely necessary to prevent violation of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Court acknowledged, however, that the Lanham Act may protect other interests that qualify as property under the Due Process Clause: "The Lanham Act may well contain provisions that protect constitutionally cognizable property interests--notably, its provisions dealing with the infringement of trademarks, which are the 'property' of the owner because he can exclude others from using them." The Court then addressed the argument that the State of Florida had voluntarily waived its immunity from federal court jurisdiction in false advertising cases. Finding that Florida Prepaid had not expressly consented to suit in federal court, the Court considered whether the law could be sustained under the constructive-waiver doctrine enunciated in Parden. After asserting that the Court had narrowed Parden over the years, Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court "drop[ped] the other shoe" and expressly overruled Parden's constructive waiver doctrine. Finally, the College Savings Bank Court suggested the possibility that Congress could constitutionally use its Spending Clause power to require a State to waive its immunity from suit in order to receive its federal funds, as long as "the financial inducement offered by Congress [is not] so coercive as to pass the point at which 'pressure turns into compulsion.'" C. Alden v. Maine Alden v. Maine presented the Court with the question whether Congress can use its Article I powers to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in State court. In Alden, a group of probation officers sued the State of Maine, alleging that it had violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Relying on Seminole Tribe, the district court dismissed the lawsuit on sovereign immunity grounds, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. Subsequently, the probation officers brought the same claim in Maine State court, which also dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. The Maine Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. By another identical 5-4 division, the Court held that the State immunity from suit recognized in Seminole Tribe applied in State as well as federal court. Thus, after Alden, even if Congress were to give State courts concurrent jurisdiction over federal patent or copyright statutory infringement suits, nonconsenting States would nonetheless be immune from such actions. The combination of these three Supreme Court decisions set the stage for the invalidation of the CRCA. D. Chavez v. Arte Publico Press Several months after the Supreme Court rendered its opinions in the two College Savings Bank cases and Alden, the Fifth Circuit found the CRCA invalid in Chavez v. Arte Publico Press. The litigation in Chavez commenced in 1993, when an author, Denise Chavez, filed suit against the University of Houston Press--a State entity--for copyright infringement arising out of a dispute regarding her publishing agreement with the University. Previously, a Fifth Circuit panel had found the CRCA to be constitutional in Chavez v. Arte Publico Press. That decision was based on the subsequently discarded Parden constructive-waiver theory. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Seminole Tribe. After a second panel decision, the case was again remanded to the panel for reconsideration in light of College Savings Bank and Florida Prepaid. The Fifth Circuit panel then held that the CRCA "was doomed" in light of Florida Prepaid. III. Congress' Legislative Options After The College Savings Bank and Alden Cases Congress must now assess how it can respond to these decisions in a constitutional and effective manner. Despite the fact that Congress can no longer use its Article I powers to abrogate State sovereign immunity, we believe that Congress has sufficient tools at its disposal to fashion legislation that fits within the contours of the Court's recent decisions and also effectively implements Congress' desire to remove the harm to copyright owners caused by States' freedom to infringe copyrighted works without having to pay damages. As noted above, in PORA's view, any forthcoming legislation should: Condition the State's ability to obtain judicial remedies available under the federal intellectual property system on State waivers of sovereign immunity from suit in federal court for state infringements of private intellectual property rights; Abrogate State sovereign immunity in suits brought to redress unconstitutional infringements of federal intellectual property rights; and Codify the doctrine of Ex parte Young, thereby affirming the availability of injunctive and monetary relief in infringement suits brought against state officials and employees. A. Conditioning Certain Federal Intellectual Property Benefits on State Mr. Chairman, we agree with you that it is critical that any forthcoming legislation should contain a "waiver" provision that conditions a State's ability to obtain judicial remedies under the federal intellectual property system on the State's waiver of its sovereign immunity from such remedies. We believe that Congress has power to condition a State's ability to obtain a federal judicial remedy upon the State's waiver of its own immunity. 1. The Remedies Bar Section 3 of S. 1611 would deny a non-waiving State the ability to recover monetary damages when it sues to protect its own intellectual property rights, but leave it free to obtain injunctions. We wholeheartedly agree that non-waiving States should not be eligible to obtain money damages. While we strongly support this provision of the bill, we respectfully question whether permitting States to retain their sovereign immunity while still allowing them to obtain injunctive relief is fair or would provide many States with a sufficient reason to waive their immunity. For that reason, we urge the Committee to give careful consideration to amending S. 1611 so as to bring both injunctive relief and damages within the remedies bar for non-waiving States. In deciding whether to expand the reach of the remedies bar to include injunctions, we urge you to keep in mind that S. 1611--unlike S. 1835, from the prior Congress--does not condition a State's ownership of intellectual property rights on a waiver of its sovereign immunity. Rather, under S. 1611, non-waiving States would be free both to obtain these rights and to exploit them in the marketplace. We propose only that they (or their assignees) lose the ability to obtain judicial remedies unless the State waives its immunity from such remedies. 2. Straightforward Process College Savings and Florida Prepaid made clear that a waiver of State sovereign immunity must be both knowing and voluntary. Thus, the waiver provision must offer States a clear and unambiguous choice between waiving their immunity from suit or foregoing access to certain judicial remedies. The waiver provision must clearly spell out the consequences for the State in making this choice. We believe that Section 3 of S. 1611 achieves that goal. S. 1611 also sets forth in clear and straightforward language the procedural steps governing the waiver process. Most importantly, the bill: Specifies that, if a State chooses to waive its immunity, the waiver is to be made in accordance with the constitution and laws of the State; and Gives States a reasonable amount of time--up to two years--to make the decision to waive without any risk of losing existing rights. 3. Safeguards Against End-Runs We share your goal of incorporating language into the voluntary waiver provision to help prevent "end runs" around the remedies bar applicable to non-waiving States. We certainly do not want States to be free to easily evade making the choice required by the Act. A non-waiving State should therefore be subject to the remedies bar, regardless of whether it acquired ownership by being the author of the work (by virtue of its creation by an employee or pursuant to a valid work-made-for-hire agreement), or by exclusive license or assignment. We also agree that this bar should not only affect States bringing suits, but also those plaintiffs who exclusively license or assign works to or from the State under certain circumstances. Otherwise, for example, a State could evade the bar by assigning its exclusive rights to a private party for a one-time payment. Without an anti-end-run provision, the private party would, on the State's behalf, have access to all available remedies. By barring remedies where the State "is or was at anytime the legal or beneficial owner," S. 1611 provides a useful way to thwart unfair circumvention of the remedies bar. At the same time, we agree that the bill should not unfairly prejudice private parties; Section 3 of your bill appears to achieve that important goal. It makes the remedies bar inapplicable in two instances where to do otherwise would be extremely unfair to a private party where: (1) applying the remedies bar "would materially and adversely affect a legitimate contract based expectation that was in existence before January 1, 2002"; and (2) a downstream bona fide purchaser of an intellectual property right did not know that a State was once the legal or beneficial owner of that right. B. Abrogation of Immunity In Suits Based on Constitutional Violations 1. The Scope of Abrogation Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to remedy unconstitutional State deprivations of life, liberty and property through "appropriate legislation" and in the past few years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Congress has the power to abrogate State immunity by invoking this authority. Yet, in College Savings and Florida Prepaid, the Court voided congressional efforts to do this, holding that the federal laws involved were not "appropriate" legislation under Section 5. We believe that, by closely adhering to the Court's opinions--particularly that in Florida Prepaid--Congress can craft a constitutional and effective abrogation provision. As S. 1611 recognizes, the key to fashioning an appropriate abrogation provision is to have it remove State immunity only in those cases where State infringements constitute unconstitutional deprivations of the property rights of intellectual property owners. Thus, unlike the CRCA which applied to all State copyright infringements, S. 1611 is expressly limited to unconstitutional violations of federal intellectual property rights--i.e., those violations that violate either the due process or the takings clause. Such an approach directly follows the central teaching of Florida Prepaid that not every infringement of a federal intellectual property right violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In July 2000, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Harvard Law School Professor Daniel Meltzer suggested enactment of this form of abrogation legislation. At that time, and again in a subsequent law review article, Professor Meltzer suggested that such a form of abrogation was not dependent upon Congress making a record of widespread unconstitutional activity by States: I do not read these recent decisions as holding that any exercise of Section 5 power is valid only upon such a showing of widespread violations; that showing is demanded, rather, only when the congressional measure reaches broadly to regulate conduct that is not independently unconstitutional. For in each of the cases in which the Supreme Court has found a federal statute regulating the States to fall beyond the scope of Section 5 power, the enactment regulated at least some conduct that itself did not violate Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in Florida Prepaid, for example, the Court found that the statute--by regulating patent infringement that was unintentional, and whether or not state post-deprivation remedies were available--regulated conduct that did not itself constitute a deprivation of due process. Where Congress does reach beyond regulating actual constitutional violations, these recent decisions clearly require a strong showing of legislative need . . . . By contrast, the proposed legislative measure just discussed would be tailored so that it, unlike the statutes recently invalidated by the Court, extends only to instances of constitutional violations. Such a measure is more easily viewed as "remedial," and in my view the validity of a statute that merely regulates unconstitutional conduct itself should not require an additional showing of widespread violations by the states. Examination of the record of state violations is significant only when a statute reaches well beyond the scope of constitutional violations. At least one federal appeals court has acted in a manner consistent with S. 1611's treatment of abrogation and Professor Meltzer's suggested approach. In Cherry v. University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, the Seventh Circuit upheld Congress' abrogation of state sovereign immunity from suits brought under the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA). In finding the congressional abrogation under the EPA to be constitutional, the appeals court, citing Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, noted that "the lack of [evidentiary] support in the legislative record 'is not determinative of the § 5 inquiry'" and went on to distinguish the situation in Cherry from recent Supreme Court rulings where the Court found the absence of evidence critical: But unlike the statutes at issue in City of Boerne, Kimel, Florida Prepaid, and Garrett, all of which pervasively prohibit constitutional State action, the EPA 'prohibits very little constitutional conduct.' Precisely because the EPA essentially targets only unconstitutional gender discrimination, the importance of congressional findings of unconstitutional State action is 'greatly diminished.' (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). In its recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that State infringements are unconstitutional only if: (1) they are intentional or non-negligent; and (2) the State provides no adequate remedy for them. S. 16l1 makes specific reference to the inadequacy-of-remedies element of unconstitutionality, but not to the scienter element. While we believe that a case can be made for including express reference in the statute to both elements, in our view it is especially important that the statute make clear that the State, not the plaintiff, has the burden of demonstrating that it provides an adequate remedy and that this determination should be made by the judge in the federal proceeding. Section 5(d)(2) of S. 1611 correctly places this critical burden on the State or its instrumentality. 2. The Breadth of the Evidentiary Record As Professor Meltzer observes, although perhaps not constitutionally necessary, it is advisable for Congress to "assemble the most complete record possible of instances in which state governments have violated federal intellectual property laws and, beyond that, of instances in which those violations appear also to constitute violations of the Due Process Clause." In part to help develop such a record, in June 2000, then-Chairman Hatch requested that the GAO undertake a study that, among other things, would compile instances of alleged State infringements of intellectual property rights. While GAO felt compelled to characterize the number of accusations of state infringements as "few," this characterization fails to take into account a number of critical factors. First, GAO itself acknowledged that it faced substantial difficulties in attempting to come up with an accurate assessment of all past accusations of state infringements of intellectual property, in part because "there are no summary databases providing such information." In addition, GAO acknowledged that: "The published case law is an incomplete record, because (1) both the federal and state courts report only those cases in which decisions were rendered and (2) state courts usually report only appellate decisions. Thus, lawsuits that were dropped or settled by any court prior to a decision as well as those decided by state trial courts might not appear in the published case law"; Accusations set forth in cease and desist letters are often resolved administratively, do not result in the filing of a lawsuit, and thus are not reflected in published case law; and Some lawsuits are not easily identified as either involving (1) unauthorized use of intellectual property, or (2) a state entity that could claim sovereign immunity. Second, in reviewing GAO's findings, it is imperative to keep in mind two critical factors: (1) too short a period of time has elapsed since the decisions by the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit to assess whether they will result in changed State practices; and (2) States were considered fully liable for copyright infringement for the vast majority of the last twenty-five years. This latter point deserves some elaboration. Until the Court's 1986 decision in Atascadero, it was widely understood that when Congress passed the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, it intended States to be liable for their acts of infringement just like any other party, except in those circumstances where they were expressly exempted from liability. This was, for example, the view set forth in the House and Senate Committee Reports on the CRCA. It was also the position of Representative Kastenmeier, who chaired the House Judiciary Subcommittee involved in the consideration of both the CRCA and the 1976 Act, and of the Registers of Copyrights at the time of the passage of the CRCA and the 1976 Act. This general understanding of the 1976 Act's reach was not drawn into question until after the Supreme Court's decision in Atascadero. Indeed, just prior to Atascadero, one federal court ruled that the 1976 Act had effectively abrogated State copyright immunity. After Atascadero, federal courts started reaching the opposite result. This change from full State liability to immunity was short-lived, however. As noted above, the 101st Congress moved quickly after Atascadero, and, in November, 1990, the CRCA became law. As a result, between late 1990 and the Supreme Court's 1999 decisions, States were once again subject to the full panoply of remedies available under the Copyright Act. In sum, from 1976 until 1985, and from 1990 until at least 1999, States have necessarily operated under the assumption that they were fully liable for copyright infringements. The States may just be beginning to grasp the potential impact of the College Savings Bank decisions in the copyright context. It is entirely reasonable for the 107th Congress to conclude that State infringements will become commonplace in the absence of the enactment of remedial legislation by Congress--especially given the ease with which digital copies can be made and disseminated and the growth of State university and agency Intranets. When viewed against this background, one can better understand why the Patent and Trademark Office did not view the 58 documented cases identified by GAO as few in number, and the Copyright Office expressed no surprise at the number of cases identified in the GAO's report. 3. Due Process and Takings Violations PORA agrees that the new statute should expressly provide for abrogation of State immunity in suits for State infringements that constitute violations of either the Due Process or the Takings Clauses. In our view, Section 5 of S. 1611 wisely sets forth these two bases for abrogation in separate provisions so that the statute's severability clause can preserve one should the other be held unconstitutional. 4. Congressional Review of the Adequacy of State Remedies In his opinion for the Court in Florida Prepaid, Chief Justice Rehnquist chided Congress for not thoroughly examining the availability of State remedies with respect to patent infringements. In the CRCA context, however, Congress had before it, as part of the Copyright Office Report, the aforementioned Congressional Research Service study. That study revealed the very limited, inconsistent nature of State remedies available to copyright owners victimized by State infringements. A more recent analysis of the sovereign immunity practices in fourteen States made by an amicus curiae in Florida Prepaid demonstrated the limited, haphazard remedies those States afford for State patent infringements (and presumably for State copyright infringements as well). In the same vein, the recent GAO report concluded that intellectual property owners have few alternatives or remedies against state infringement remaining after Florida Prepaid. The GAO report recognizes that a State currently cannot be sued for damages in federal court except in the unlikely event that the State waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Absent such a waiver, the GAO states accurately that the intellectual property owner is limited to seeking an injunction in federal court against the infringing official. GAO correctly terms such injunctions as an "incomplete remedy." With regard to the state court proceedings, the GAO's study questioned whether litigants would obtain damage awards in such cases because of a number of factors: federal preemption of state claims; exclusive federal court jurisdiction over federal patent and copyright (but not trademark) claims; the absence of recognized causes of action under state laws; and the fact that, in addition to their Eleventh Amendment immunity, States typically enjoy immunity from suit in their own courts via statutory or constitutional provisions. 5. Recital of Congressional Authority We urge that the statute, or at least the accompanying legislative history, state in unambiguous and unequivocal terms that Congress is relying on its 14th Amendment enforcement powers in abrogating State sovereign immunity. The Court's treatment of the just compensation issue in Florida Prepaid raises some concern that, in the future, the Court may formally break away from its "no recital" rule and require Congress expressly to refer to the relevant constitutional provisions when seeking to enact "appropriate" remedial legislation under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. To avoid any such problem here, Congress should clearly and explicitly state its reliance on its Section 5 power to enforce the due process and takings clauses. 6. "Property" For Purposes of the Due Process and Takings Clauses The Court's Florida Prepaid and College Savings decisions leave little doubt that copyrights, patents and, presumably, trademarks are considered property for purposes of the Due Process Clause. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the accompanying legislative history should: (1) refer to the Court's discussion of the "property" issue in both Florida Prepaid and College Savings; and (2) review the general treatment in law of intellectual property as property. C. Codification of the Ex Parte Young Doctrine S. 1611 properly calls for the codification of the Ex parte Young doctrine. Under this doctrine, an injured party can sue to enjoin a State official from violating federal law, even though the State itself remains immune from suit. In Ex parte Young, the Court held that State officials are stripped of any sovereign immunity when they perform acts that violate valid federal law: If the Act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in the proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The Court has frequently alluded to the Ex parte Young doctrine as a means by which private parties can obtain relief against State officials for violations of federal law. Most recently, the Court in Alden v. Maine, citing Ex parte Young, noted that sovereign immunity "does not bar certain actions against State officers for injunctive or declaratory relief." Nonetheless, two recent Court decisions, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, and Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, have raised concerns that, in some situations, the doctrine may not continue to provide the scope of relief it has afforded private parties in the past. In Seminole Tribe, the Court found the doctrine inapplicable where Congress creates a detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement of a particular federal right. In such instances, the Court "hesitates" to allow a different and potentially broader remedial path under Ex parte Young. Thus, there is concern that the more elaborate the remedial scheme accompanying a federal statute, the less likely a court will be to find the doctrine applicable. To avoid that result here, Section 4 of S. 1611 simply codifies the Ex parte Young doctrine so as to ensure its continued applicability in the future. In Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Court found the Ex parte Young doctrine inapplicable to "special circumstances" affecting a State's sovereignty. Moreover, two members of the Court stated that, in their view, the Court should engage in an exacting case-by-case review before approving an Ex parte Young injunction. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy opined that each potential grant of Ex parte Young jurisdiction should be evaluated by balancing the interests served by permitting federal jurisdiction against a State's interests in keeping the federal forum closed. Section 4 of S. 1611 is designed to: (1) prevent future judicial reliance on a "special sovereignty" exemption to the doctrine; and (2) preclude the adoption by a Court majority of a case-by-case approach in intellectual property infringement cases. CONCLUSION Mr. Chairman, PORA supports the enactment of a constitutional and effective response to the Supreme Court's 1999 sovereign immunity/intellectual property decisions. Your bill, S. 1611, contains the three components that we believe should be part of any forthcoming legislation in this area--waiver, constitutional abrogation and codification of the Ex parte Young doctrine. We also believe that the effectiveness of the bill's waiver provision can be enhanced by precluding non-waiving States from obtaining damages and injunctions when they bring intellectual property infringement suits. We urge the Committee to act favorably on this legislation and to take the steps necessary to help ensure its enactment in the 107th Congress. |


text:
Lance Cpl. James Michael Gluff
DALTON, Ga. — Friends and family gathered today to remember Lance Cpl. James Michael Gluff, 20, during his funeral service at Love Funeral Home in Dalton, Ga.
"I can't explain it, how much I miss him," said the Marine's father, James Gluff, of Jamestown, Tenn. "He was a special, precious person."
Lance Cpl. Gluff, of Tunnel Hill, Ga., was killed Jan. 19 in a suicide bomber attack in Al Anbar province in Iraq. His wife said today that the family is numb and overwhelmed.
"I just can't cry anymore," said Hope Gluff, also 20. "You cry so much, day and night, you run out of tears."
The Marine, who also leaves behind a 14-month-old son, will be buried with full military honors today at 2:30 p.m. in Chattanooga National Cemetery.
For complete details, see tomorrow's Chattanooga Times Free Press.


text:
A 16-yard touchdown reception by wide receiver Santonio Holmes with just 1:01 to go in regulation Sunday helped the New York Jets escape with a 28-24 victory over the Buffalo Bills in an AFC East showdown at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ. The Jets improve to 6-5 overall and are now right back into the thick of the AFC playoff race, while the Bills' postseason dreams are all but over.
Holmes' fifth touchdown catch of the season capped a 12-play, 82-yard drive, which featured two third-down situations that were converted. The most important coming on a 3-and-11 from the Bills' 36-yard line when Sanchez floated a pass to wide receiver Plaxico Burress, who used all of his 6-foot-5 frame to snag the ball out of the air for a 18-yard gain. Two plays later, Holmes was wide open in the corner of the end zone.
On its final possession of the game, Buffalo (5-6) marched inside the Jets' 30-yard line, but its final attempts to win the game failed. Buffalo took a 24-21 lead after field goal kicker Dave Rayner nailed a 53-yard field goal with 9:46 to play.
Sanchez, who completed just 17-0f-35 passes for just 180 yards, didn't put together his best performance of the season, but he did finish the game with four touchdown passes. Tight end Dustin Keller caught four passes, two of them for touchdowns, for team-best 64 yards. Starting running back Shonn Greene ran for a game-best 78 yards on 13 carries.


text:
Courtesy of Brighton High SchoolAlabama was the first to offer Charles Mosley and tried to keep his potential a secret, but when the Crimson Tide come calling, other schools listen.
Alabama recruiters tried their best to hide Charles Mosley.
It at least seemed plausible at the time, since Mosley is from a rural area of West Tennessee. Brighton High is 30 miles north of Memphis, far from the more established, well-known programs that beckon for college football recruiters.
To continue reading this article you must be an Insider


text:
Steve Hegge and Andrea Herzig
Barbara Kellar talks with Steve Hegge and Andrea Herzig about the Greater Cincinnati Planned Giving Council. The 11th Annual Voices of Giving Awards Ceremony will be held on June 17th at the CET Studios. They will be honoring one of CET's own, Alice Sparks, along with 19 others.
7 minutes
Date Recorded:


text:
- previous
- 1
- 2
- | single page
Dan Capodicci, whose 10-year-old daughter attends the school at St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church, said he thinks it's time for her to get back to classes.
"It's the right thing to do. You have to send your kids back. But at the same time I'm worried," he said. "We need to get back to normal."
Gina Wolfman said her daughters are going back to their seventh- and ninth-grade classrooms tomorrow. She thinks they are ready to be back with their friends.
"I think they want to be back with everyone and share," she said.
Newtown police Lt. George Sinko said whether to send children to school is a personal decision for every parent.
"I can't imagine what it must be like being a parent with a child that young, putting them on a school bus," Sinko said.
The district has made plans to send surviving Sandy Hook students to Chalk Hill, a former middle school in the neighboring town of Monroe. Sandy Hook desks that will fit the small students are being taken there, empty since town schools consolidated last year, and tradesmen are donating their services to get the school ready within a matter of days.
"These are innocent children that need to be put on the right path again," Monroe police Lt. Brian McCauley said.
With Sandy Hook Elementary still designated a crime scene, state police Lt. Paul Vance said it could be months before police turn the school back over to the district.
The shooting has put schools on edge across the country.
Anxiety ran high enough in Ridgefield, Conn., about 20 miles from Newtown, that officials ordered a lockdown at schools after a person deemed suspicious was seen at a train station.
Two schools were locked down in South Burlington, Vt., because of an unspecified threat. A high school in Windham, N.H., was briefly locked down after an administrator heard a loud bang, but a police search found nothing suspicious.
Lanza is believed to have used a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle, a civilian version of the military's M-16. It is similar to the weapon used in a recent shopping mall shooting in Oregon and other deadly attacks around the U.S. Versions of the AR-15 were outlawed in this country under the 1994 assault weapons ban, but the law expired in 2004.
Private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management announced Tuesday it plans to sell its stake in Freedom Group, maker of the Bushmaster rifle, following the school shootings.
Cerberus said in a statement Tuesday that it was deeply saddened by Friday's events, and that it will hire a financial adviser to help with the process of selling its Freedom Group interests.
The outlines of a national debate on gun control have begun to take shape. At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said curbing gun violence is a complex problem that will require a "comprehensive solution."
Carney did not offer specific proposals or a timeline. He said President Barack Obama will meet with law enforcement officials and mental health professionals in coming weeks.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, flanked by shooting survivors and relatives of victims of gunfire around the country, pressed Obama and Congress to toughen gun laws and tighten enforcement after the Newtown massacre.
"If this doesn't do it," he asked, "what is going to?"
At least one senator, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, said Monday that the attack in Newtown has led him to rethink his opposition to the ban on assault weapons.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who is an avid hunter and lifelong member of the National Rifle Association, said it's time to move beyond the political rhetoric and begin an honest discussion about reasonable restrictions on guns.
"This is bigger than just about guns," he added. "It's about how we treat people with mental illness, how we intervene, how we get them the care they need, how we protect our schools. It's just so sad."


text:
MILK AND COOKIE STORYTIME (at Panera) | |
Event Type: Children's Program Date: 3/18/2013 Start Time: 9:30 AM End Time: 10:30 AM Description: Come join us for stories at PANERA BREAD (2484 North Randall Road in Elgin - near I90 tollway). Let your preschooler enjoy stories, milk and cookies!!! REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED (For ages 3-6)Registration begins March 12, 2013.
Library: Fox River Valley Public Library DistrictLocation: PANERA BREAD (2484 N. Randall Rd in Elgin - near I90 tollway) Registration Ends: 3/16/2013 at 5:00 PM Status: We're sorry. This event is currently full. |
Please Note | |


text:
This 1931 Ford pickup is one of those rods that just gets better and better the more you look at it. It's professionally built... More
This 1939 Cadillac 60 Special is a rather amazing car. On the outside it's one of Bill Mitchell's finest designs a car that set... More
This 1931 Ford 5-window coupe is one of those rods where you can tell that someone was really sweating the details. It has an... More
There are many who believe that the 1937 Buicks were the best-looking cars of the late-30s. Sleek yet imposing this incredible resto-mod embodies all... More
There are a lot of things to love about this 1937 Ford pickup truck: the outrageous bodywork the slippery Extreme Green paint and the... More


text:
Abrams, Marshall (2006) How Do Natural Selection and Random Drift Interact? In: [2006] Philosophy of Science Assoc. 20th Biennial Mtg (Vancouver) > PSA 2006 Contributed Papers.
BenDaniel, David Jacob (2011) Constructibility in Quantum Mechanics. In: [2010] 16th UK and European Meeting on the Foundations of Physics (Aberdeen, 5-7 July 2010).
Boumans, Marcel (2004) Measurement Outside the Laboratory. In: [2004] Philosophy of Science Assoc. 19th Biennial Meeting - PSA2004: Contributed Papers (Austin, TX; 2004) > PSA 2004 Contributed Papers. (Unpublished)
Boumans, Marcel (2004) Measurement outside the laboratory. In: [2004] Philosophy of Science Assoc. 19th Biennial Meeting - PSA2004: Contributed Papers (Austin, TX; 2004) > PSA 2004 Contributed Papers. (Unpublished)
Brading, Katherine (2011) Unity and change in Newton's physics. In: [2011] Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science (Toronto; 13-15 May 2011).
Cohen, Jonathan and Callender, Craig (2009) Special Sciences, Conspiracy and the Better Best System Account of Lawhood. In: [2009] Pitt-Paris II: Emergence and Reduction in the Sciences (Pittsburgh, PA, December 11-13, 2009).
Ford, Sharon R (2009) The Viability of a Pure-Power Ontology. In: [2009] Metaphysics of Science (Melbourne, July 2-5, 2009).
Frisch, Mathias (2010) From Arbuthnot to Boltzmann: The Past-hypothesis, Special Sciences and the Best System. In: [2009] EPSA09: 2nd Conference of the European Philosophy of Science Association (Amsterdam, 21-24 October, 2009) > EPSA 2009 Symposia.
Griesel, Carsten (2008) The Type-Token Distinction and the Mind and Brain Sciences. In: [2008] Reduction and the Special Sciences (Tilburg, April 10-12, 2008).
Hartmann, Bruno (2013) Physical Determination of the Action. In: [2013] Foundations of Physics 2013: The 17th UK and European Meeting on the Foundations of Physics (Munich; 29-31 July 2013).
Jantzen, Benjamin (2013) Dynamics, Symmetry, and the Levels of Selection. In: [2013] International Conference on Evolutionary Patterns (Lisbon; 27-29 May 2013).
Kowalenko, Robert (2007) A Curve-Fitting Approach to Ceteris Paribus-Laws. In: [2007] EPSA07: 1st Conference of the European Philosophy of Science Association (Madrid, 15-17 November, 2007).
Molnár, Attila and Székely, Gergely (2013) Axiomatizing Relativistic Dynamics using Formal Thought Experiments. In: [2013] Foundations of Physics 2013: The 17th UK and European Meeting on the Foundations of Physics (Munich; 29-31 July 2013).
Nelson, William (2013) Local and global definitions of time: Cosmology and quantum theory. In: [2013] Workshop on Cosmology and Time (State College, PA; 16-17 April 2013).
Pietsch, Wolfgang (2013) Big Data – The New Science of Complexity. In: [2013] 6th Munich-Sydney-Tilburg Conference on Models and Decisions (Munich; 10-12 April 2013).
Reutlinger, Alexander (2010) A Theory of Non-Universal Laws. In: UNSPECIFIED.
Roberts, Bryan W. (2013) Three Merry Roads to T-Violation. In: [2013] Workshop on Cosmology and Time (State College, PA; 16-17 April 2013).
Wilson, Brad (2009) From Laws to Models and Mechanisms: Ecology in the Twentieth Century. In: [2009] &HPS2: Integrated History and Philosophy of Science 2. (Notre Dame, 12-15 March 2009).
Bitbol, Michel (1998) SOME STEPS TOWARDS A TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. UNSPECIFIED.
Bitbol, Michel, Guy, Simon (1991) PERSPECTIVAL REALISM AND QUANTUM MECHANICS. UNSPECIFIED.
Chakalov, Dimi (2005) Are Gravitational Waves Directly Observable? UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
Grandpierre, Attila (2003) The Dynamics of Time and Timelessness: Philosophy, Physics and Prospects for our Life. UNSPECIFIED.
Hoefer, Carl (2005) The Third Way on Objective Probability: A Skeptic's Guide to Objective Chance. UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
Lavenda, B.H. (2001) Relativistic Thermodynamics and the Classical Model of the Electron. UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
Liu, Chuang (2001) Approximations, Idealizations, and Models in Statistical Mechanics. UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
Liu, Chuang (2001) Laws and Models in a Theory of Idealization. UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
Muller, F.A. (2003) The Deep Black Sea: Observability and Modality Afloat. UNSPECIFIED. (In Press)
Roberts, John T. (2009) Laws About Frequencies. UNSPECIFIED.
Schliesser, Eric (2008) Newtonian Emanation, Spinozism, Measurement, and the Baconian Origins of the Laws of Nature. UNSPECIFIED.
Szabó, László E. (2003) On the meaning of Lorentz covariance. UNSPECIFIED.
Vaas, Ruediger (2006) Dark Energy And Life's Ultimate Future. UNSPECIFIED.
Wilson, Alastair (2006) Modal Metaphysics and the Everett Interpretation. UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished)
Wilson, Jessica Metaphysical Emergence: Weak and Strong. unpublished stable ms..
Abbott, Russ (2009) The reductionist blind spot. [Preprint]
Abbott, Russ (2008) The reductionist blind spot. [Preprint]
Asoulin, Eran (2013) The Creative Aspect of Language Use and the Implications for Linguistic Science. [Preprint]
Atkinson, David (2006) A Relativistic Zeno Effect. [Preprint]
Ballinger, Clint (2008) Initial Conditions and the 'Open Systems' Argument against Laws of Nature. [Preprint]
Binder, Bernd (2003) A Natural Mass Unit Hidden in the Planck Action Quantum. [Preprint]
Binder, Bernd (2003) Natural Nonlinear Quantum Units and Human Artificial Linear System of Units. [Preprint]
Bishop, Robert (2011) Fluid Convection, Constraint and Causation. [Preprint]
Bod, Rens (2004) Explaining New Phenomena in Terms of Previous Phenomena. [Preprint]
Bogen, Jim (2001) What We Talk About When We Talk About Causality. [Preprint]
Callender, Craig (2004) Measures, Explanations and the Past: Should 'Special' Initial Conditions be Explained? [Preprint]
Cei, Angelo and French, Steven (2010) Getting Away from Governance: A Structuralist Approach to Laws and Symmetries. [Preprint]
Cirkovic, Milan (2002) The Thermodynamical Arrow of Time: Reinterpreting the Boltzmann-Schuetz Argument. [Preprint]
Davies, E Brian (2007) The Mechanical Philosophy 1660 - 1675. [Preprint]
Davies, E Brian (2006) Scientific Understanding. [Preprint]
Dorato, Mauro and Esfeld, Michael (2009) GRW as an ontology of dispositions. [Preprint]
Dorato, Mauro and Laudisa, Federico (2014) Realism and instrumentalism about the wave function. How should we choose? [Preprint]
Ducheyne, Steffen (2006) Lessons From Galileo: The Pragmatic Model of Shared Characteristics of Scientific Representation. [Preprint]
Ducheyne, Steffen (2005) Mathematical Models in Newton's Principia: A New View of the "Newtonian Style". [Preprint]
Ellerman, David (2014) Partitions and Objective Indefiniteness in Quantum Mechanics. [Preprint]
Farr, Matt (2011) On A- and B-Theoretic Elements of Branching Spacetimes. [Preprint]
Farr, Matt and Reutlinger, Alexander (2013) A Relic of a Bygone Age? Causation, Time Symmetry and the Directionality Argument. [Preprint]
Fenton-Glynn, Luke (2014) Unsharp Best System Chances. [Preprint]
Fleming, Gordon / N (2011) On the Quantum Deviations from Einstein Dilation of Unstable Quanton* Decay Evolution and Lifetimes. [Preprint]
French, Steven and McKenzie, Kerry (2011) Thinking Outside the Toolbox: Towards a More Productive Engagement Between Metaphysics and Philosophy of Physics. [Preprint]
Gao, Shan (2013) Space-time, relativity and quantum mechanics: In search of a deeper connection. [Preprint]
Gao, Shan (2013) Three possible implications of spacetime discreteness. [Preprint]
Gao, Shan (2011) The Wave Function and Its Evolution. [Preprint]
Gao, Shan (2001) The basis of indeterminism. [Preprint]
Gildenhuys, Peter (2008) Causal Equations without Ceteris Paribus Clauses. [Preprint]
Glynn, Luke (2013) Is There High-Level Causation? [Preprint]
Glynn, Luke and Dardashti, Radin and Thebault, Karim P Y and Frisch, Mathias (2013) Unsharp Humean Chances in Statistical Physics: A Reply to Beisbart. [Preprint]
Gomori, Marton and Szabo, Laszlo E. (2011) Is the relativity principle consistent with classical electrodynamics? Towards a logico-empiricist reconstruction of a physical theory. [Preprint]
Gomori, Marton and Szabo, Laszlo E. (2009) Is the relativity principle consistent with electrodynamics? Towards a logico-empiricist reconstruction of a physical theory. [Preprint]
Grandpierre, Attila (2002) The Fundamental Principles of Existence and the Origin of Physical Laws. [Preprint]
Groisman, Berry (2007) What is Dialectic? Some remarks on Popper's criticism. [Preprint]
Harokopos, Efthimios (2003) Virtual Gravity and the Duality of Reality. [Preprint]
Hoefer, Carl (2004) Causality and Determinism: Tension, or Outright Conflict? [Preprint]
Hoefer, Carl (2003) Humean Effective Strategies. [Preprint]
Hoefer, Carl (2007) The Third Way on Objective Probability: A Skeptic's Guide to Objective Chance. [Preprint]
Holster, Andrew (2004) Time Flow Physics: Introduction to a unified theory based on time flow. [Preprint]
Huggett, Nick (2002) Mirror Symmetry: What is it for Relational Space to be Orientable? [Preprint]
Hüttemann, Andreas and Reutlinger, Alexander (2013) Against the Statistical Account of Special Science Laws. [Preprint]
Iurato, Giuseppe (2013) Some historical aspects concerning the rise of the first exact measurements of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. [Preprint]
Kallfelz, William Ontic Structural Realism, Information, and Natural Necessity: Where Naturalism and Analytic Metaphysics Can Find Common Ground. [Preprint]
Kantorovich, Aharon (2006) Particles vs. Structures: Weak Ontic Structuralism. [Preprint]
Lipkin, Arkadiy (2012) The "Object Theoretic Operational" View of Natural Science. [Preprint]
Lisker, Roy (2002) On Counter-Intuitive Science. [Preprint] (Unpublished)
Liu, Chuang (2006) How we can be free from physics. [Preprint]
Lyre, Holger (2009) Humean Perspectives on Structural Realism. [Preprint]
Lyre, Holger (2009) The "Multirealization" of Multiple Realizability. [Preprint]
Lyre, Holger (2011) Structural Invariants, Structural Kinds, Structural Laws. [Preprint]
Majid, Shahn (2007) Algebraic Approach to Quantum Gravity: relative realism. [Preprint]
Maxwell, Nicholas (2012) Has Science Established that the Cosmos is Physically Comprehensible? [Preprint]
Muller, F.A. and Seevinck, M.P. (2009) Discerning Elementary Particles. [Preprint]
Nasmith, Benjamin B (2011) Presentism in a World Denied Instantaneous Signals. [Preprint]
Primas, Hans (2003) Time-Entanglement Between Mind and Matter. [Preprint]
Reutlinger, Alexander (2013) Can Interventionists be Neo-Russellians? Interventionism, the Open Systems Argument and the Arrow of Entropy. [Preprint]
Reutlinger, Alexander (2012) Getting Rid of Interventions. [Preprint]
Rickles, Dean (2008) Econophysics and Financial Market Complexity. [Preprint]
Roberts, John (2009) Laws about Frequencies. [Preprint]
Roberts, John (2008) A Puzzle about Laws, Symmetries and Measurability. [Preprint]
Roberts, John (2009) Some Laws of Nature are Metaphysically Contingent. [Preprint]
Roberts, John T. (2009) Laws About Frequencies. [Preprint]
Scoular, Spencer (2013) The Universal Arrow of Time. [Preprint]
Seevinck, M.P. (2010) Can quantum theory and special relativity peacefully coexist? [Preprint]
Seevinck, M.P. and Uffink, J. (2010) Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell's condition of local causality mathematically 'sharp and clean'. [Preprint]
Soltau, Andrew (2011) Times Two. [Preprint]
Spurrett, David Jon (2000) Cartwright on Laws and Composition. [Preprint]
Stemmer, Nathan (2004) THE GOODMAN PARADOX: THREE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND A NATURALISTIC SOLUTION TO TWO OF THEM. [Preprint]
Stenger, Victor J. (2007) Where do the laws of physics come from? [Preprint]
Sterrett, Susan G. (2001) Physical Models and Fundamental Laws: Using One Piece of the World to Tell About Another (Pavia MBR'01 version). [Preprint]
Stoica, Ovidiu Cristinel (2008) World Theory. [Preprint]
Székely, Gergely (2008) On Why-Questions in Physics. [Preprint]
Terekhovich, Vladislav E. (2012) Probabilistic and Geometric Languages in the Context of the Principle of Least Action. [Preprint]
Thebault, Karim P Y and Smart, Benjamin T H (2013) On the Metaphysics of Least Action. [Preprint]
Tosh, Nick (2014) Finite frequentism in a big world. [Preprint]
Woodward, James (2011) Laws, Causes, and Invariance. [Preprint]
huneman, philippe (2006) Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. [Preprint]
Andersen, Holly (2011) Mechanisms, Laws, and Regularities. [Published Article]
Bitbol, Michel (2011) Traces of Objectivity: Causality and Probabilities in Quantum Physics. [Published Article]
Dorato, Mauro (2012) Mathematical biology and the existence of biological laws. [Published Article]
Dorato, Mauro (2011) TRUTH, LAWS AND THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE. [Published Article]
Glynn, Luke (2010) Deterministic Chance. [Published Article]
Reutlinger, Alexander (2011) A Theory of Non-Universal Laws. [Published Article]
Reutlinger, Alexander and Schurz, Gerhard and Hüttemann, Andreas (2011) Ceteris Paribus Laws. [Published Article]
Schrenk, Markus (2007) Can Capacities rescue us from cp Laws. [Published Article]
Schrenk, Markus (2010) From Reductionist Semantics to a Realist Ontology of Dispositions. [Published Article]
Schrenk, Markus (2011) Interfering with Nomological Necessity. [Published Article]
Schrenk, Markus (2010) The Powerlessness of Necessity. [Published Article]
Szabo, Laszlo E. (2012) Mathematical Facts in a Physicalist Ontology. [Published Article]
Tamir, Michael (2012) Proving the Principle: Taking Geodesic Dynamics too Seriously in Einstein's Theory. [Published Article]
schrenk, markus (2010) ANTIDOTES FOR DISPOSITIONAL ESSENTIALISM. [Published Article]
schrenk, markus (2006) A Lewisian Theory for Special Science Laws. [Published Article]


text:
I was previously using the Photoshop CS6 Beta.
I have uninstalled.
I have installed all the Creative Cloud Apps.
Successfully launched Dreamweaver and so on.
Photoshop however prompts this it is a trial and requires a Serial!!!
whats going on?
Please use CS6 cleaner tool to remove left content of any Beta in case and then re-install.
Ok, Lets once again unistall PS CS6 and then Run the Cleaner Tool and try installing PS CS6 again from creative cloud.
Hmnn, that's actually strange. Do you have any other adobe appliactions installed on your machine?
Could you try removing all the adobe CS6 applications and running the Cleaner Tool and then try re-installing PS CS6 from adobe.com
I have the exact same problem as Andy. I have tried everything suggested above. Nothing works. I have been in four chat support sessions, which have been absolutely ridiculous. The support staff does not seem to know wheter you need a license number or not to activate...
I have Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom installed on the same machine. Do you mean I must remoe those as well in order to resolve this issue?
A resolution of sorts.
At this time I am waiting for my monthly Dreamweaver subscription to be upgraded to a yearly Creative Cloud subscription.
I have been advised this takes 2-3 days to invoke (ridiculous in itself).
I therefore expect Monday or Tuesday for this upgrade to have completed.
And I assume at that point that installing the CC Apps will have them licenced correctly without Serial prompt.
This has been nothing but a shambles in my opinion.
I wasted far far too much time over this issue on Friday. Not only did it affect Photoshop but also Acrobat (and who knows it may affect other apps also)
And to be honest I suspected as much there would be problems due to the complete and total lack of information concerning upgrades when CC was launched a couple of weeks back.
Why this basic and obvious upgrade path from montly app subscription to yearly CC subscription could not be invoked automatically god only knows.
As I said. SHAMBLES.
Check this link it might help:-
http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/creative-cloud-trial-mode.htm l |


text:
surroundedbylove - 18 May, 2010
Love you Bono!!!
Like I said, seeing this just put one big smile on my face!!!
adventure101 - 17 May, 2010
D. H. Leadership Award
I read your transcript it was brilliant as usual. "When the most powerful nation on earth puts its creativity, its moral purpose, its strategic sensibilities to work, the world shits" powerful stuff. Idea's do have to be reborn and you do have to think anew. So it didn't feel like the Grammies :) Congratulations on your Award, well done.
vickyabdalla - 10 May, 2010
Bono, Happy birthday!!!
Only love can change minds, touch cold hearts and yours is absolutely doing it in the world. You DO make a difference! May God keep blessing your beautiful life. Congratulations!!
Best wishes from your fan Vivian Abdalla (Rio de Janeiro-Brazil)
- 10 May, 2010
Happy Birthday Bono ! :)
Hi Bono, my name is Sarah, and I'm with a friend called Inês. We're both 15 years old, we're portuguese, and maybe people think that with our age we would's listen to U2's songs, but we think they're wrong, U2's songs are the best songs in the world. We are your biggest fans, we sing your songs all the time, and we know you've 50 years old now, and you're old enough to be our dad, bue you're so cute :$ we should't say this, bue we will: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, WE LOVE YOU BONOO :$
BrunoVox - 10 May, 2010
Great Discourse
Congratulations man! You're the best, I'm your fan because you speak without fear and speak the things that have to be listened.
nick1 - 08 May, 2010
Great Humanitarian
Congrats on you award and much thanks for being such an inspiration! Keep their eyes open!
Can't wait to see you and the guys in Miami/Ft Lauderdale this July!
ChgoKim - 07 May, 2010
Chgo Kim
God, I love this man!
DonnaO\'Neil - 05 May, 2010
Extremely good man working for an extremely good cause. And he does it in an extremely sex way :)
iris75 - 05 May, 2010
Bono, you are the voice of our hearts.
Matty t - 02 May, 2010
Well done Bono its fantastic to be recognized for your service to humankind... you have the great art to use your music and the fame that goes with it to make a difference... we are all ONE, even if most don't recognize it!
jschmitt20 - 01 May, 2010
Way to go Bono!
Thanks for speaking for all of us, Bono. We need your voice to keep Washington honest. Keep speaking about the inequity in Africa. No one should die because of the country they live in. America needs to stand up and take care of our brothers and sisters throughout the world.
u23604life - 01 May, 2010
I am a member of one and red good to see things like this happining
Marleenie - 30 April, 2010
Frontman and U3
It is inspiring to be acknowledged by the Atlantic Council. It's not easy being a frontman but rest assured at 5'10 you and your cohorts measure up.
TheUltravylet - 30 April, 2010
Glad Bono has been successful with the One and Red campaigns, it been a long road in the making. Good to see him making paths towards "carrying each other".
dianep - 30 April, 2010
Atlantic Council award
Well done again, Bono. Back in the lion's den to make the case for reality. Justice flows again. Whatever happened to this debate in the UK general election build-up? Time to get onto the parties, folks...


text:
- News
WXXI News
Special Coverage
Innovation Trail, Capitol Bureau
News Programs
1370 Connection, Need to Know Rochester
Latest News
Interactive Grid, Printable Listings, Kids TV Schedule
Watch Online
Full PBS Episodes, More Online Video
WXXI-TV 21, World, Create, City 12
Homework Hotline, OnStage, Second Opinion, New York Wine and Table, Biz Kid$, All WXXI Productions, Other Programs A-Z
- Radio
- Events
Upcoming Events
Other Events
- Support WXXI
Support WXXI
Membership, Corporate Sponsorship, Planned Giving, Volunteer, Vehicle Donation
Pledge Now!
more... - From the President
Billy Kelly and The Blahblahblahs in Concert
Billy Kelly and The Blahblahblahs in Concert
Sun, 04/14/2013 - 10:00am - 12:30pm
Join WXXI for a special children's concert with singer/songwriter Billy Kelly and the Blahblahblahs!
If your little ones are avid PBS Kids viewers then chances are they've seen I'm Thinking of an Animal with Billy Kelly segments on WXXI-TV/HD. Produced by singer/songwriter Billy Kelly, the segments borrow from the popular car-ride kids' game of the same name. Billy Kelly sings clues about an animal he is thinking of, and supports his clues with animation, and performances by a professional dance troupe. You can check out the series online, by clicking here. Now WXXI is proud to bring Billy Kelly to Rochester for a special performance on Sunday, April 14th at the Little Theatre (240 East Avenue). The doors open at 10 a.m. and the concert starts at 11 a.m. WXXI Kids Club Members receive four free tickets. For general admission -- tickets are: $25 for a family four-pack, $7 for additional kids tickets, $10 for additional adult tickets. Tickets are available for purchase the day of the show at the Little Theatre Box Office starting at 10 a.m.
More about Billy Kelly:
In January 2009 Billy Kelly made a New Year's resolution to record a CD of songs he had written for his two daughters. He kept to his resolution and a few months later released "Thank You for Joining the Happy Club." Critics and kids alike love his music, including NPR who gave Billy Kelly positive marks in an "All Things Considered" segment. Since the launch of his first album Billy Kelly has released two others, "The Family Garden", and "Is This Some Kind of Joke?," which includes a duet with The Monkees' Davy Jones. To learn more, visit Billy Kelly's web site at thebillykellyshow.com.
Support for our this event is provided by:


text:
Gov. Bentley says he'll vote for almost all amendmentsSay he will not vote on local amendments The Governor says he is somewhat concerned that some people will vote against the amendment because it was written using rather technical language. But he said there is no organized opposition to it that he's aware of. Regarding the more controversial Amendment #4, which supporters say will remove racist language from Alabama;s 1901 Constitution, Bentley says he doesn't understand why anyone objects to it and he will vote for it. the AEA and others have advised voters to reject the amendment because it also removes other wording that they say requires the state to fund public education. (Montgomery) -- Governor Bentley says he'll vote in favor of all of the amendments to the state constitution, except for two that are strictly local in nature. He won;t vote on those at all. Bentley met with reporters in his office this morning to promote the amendment he says is the most important...amendment two allowing the refinancing of some bond issues. it would free up additional money for industrial development recruitment. "Right now we get our bonds at 3% and about half the bonds that we have are at 5% so if we re-finance these we save a tremendous amount of money, plus the fact that we're getting low on incentives money to recruit industries into the state or to help companies expanding as they try to create more jobs", Bentley said. |
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
PollWhat's onFull ScheduleCW Link |


text:
Capacity, performance and security
The PowerVault™ LTO-4-120 storage features fourth-generation Linear Tape-Open (LTO) technology with excellent capacity, performance and security.
All component options may not be available on all configurations.
Double the Storage Capacity and Reduce Your Backup Window
The Linear Tape-Open Ultrium 4 (LTO-4) technology offers up to 800-GB* native capacity with a transfer rate of 432 GB/hr. That is 100 percent growth in capacity — while shrinking the backup window by one-third — over previous generations of LTO drives. With a 3-GB* Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) interface, the PowerVault LTO-4-120 HH leverages higher transfer rates over traditional SCSI interfaces.Excellent Security
PowerVault LTO-4-120 HH is the first drive in its class to offer device-level encryption. This enables organizations to protect their data efficiently without the added cost and expense of software-based encryption.
- Single external LTO-4 tape drive, internal model available within server configurations
- High performance and capacity that back up a maximum of 800 GB* (native) of information at up to 432 GB/hr (native)
- Read-and-write compatible with LTO-4 and LTO-3 media and read compatible with LTO-2
- Available with LTO-4, write-once, read-many (WORM) media to protect your data from being altered or changed
- Device-level encryption that simplifies the encryption process by helping to eliminate the need and cost of software-based encryption
Tape Backup Technology
- LTO-4 Ultrium tape drive
Media Types
- Read and write to LTO-3 and 4, read with LTO-2
- Native: 800GB*
Transfer Rate and Backup Rate
- Native Maximums: 120MB/s; 432GB/hr
Server Compatibility
- Dell and x86 IBM and HP Servers
Support for NX4 and other NDMP products
Please refer to compatibility matrix for complete listing
Drive Controllers
- Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) at 3GB/s
- Full height linear tape drive
Internal and External Drive Available
Internal Drive
1.69" (h) x 5.8e" (w) x 18.29" (d)
Weight (3.75 lbs)
External Drive
2.56" (h) x 8.74" (w) x 12.87" (d)
Weight (9.7 lbs)
Optional Hardware Support Service Plans
Dell Infrastructure Services: Execution Without Excuses
Dell brings pure execution to IT services. The planning, implementation and maintenance of your IT infrastructure deserve nothing less. Variability in execution can compromise user productivity, IT resources, and ultimately, your reputation. By leveraging our heritage of process-driven excellence, Dell services can deliver a smarter way. That's pure Dell.
Gold Enterprise Support
Gold Enterprise Support provides 24/7 rapid response and resolution of critical issues including escalation management and On-Site* Emergency Dispatch procedures to quickly restore operations. This level of support is appropriate for servers that are used for e-mail systems, database applications and virtualization.
Silver Enterprise Support
Silver Enterprise Support provides convenient 24/7 phone access for hardware and core software troubleshooting with four-hour2 24/7 on-site services following completion of phone-based troubleshooting. This level of support is appropriate for file and print servers and other nonproduction testing and development.
Take Your Support to the Next Level
Platinum Plus Enterprise Support
Dell's most comprehensive level of premium support for storage systems combines rapid response and resolution for critical issues with customized account planning and reporting to proactively help improve uptime. With Platinum Plus, you receive direct access to the Enterprise Command Center and a designated Platinum technical account manager and can enjoy the benefits of these two new innovative features:
- Operations Performance Benchmarking — Innovative management tools and processes, providing customers with exceptional visibility into their IT operations and a mechanism for continuous improvement
- ECC Real-time Tracking Window — A real-time, Web-based tool that allows customers to track the real-time position and status of every open incident they are experiencing around the world, without picking up the phone
Additional Service Offerings
In today's environment, businesses depend on their advanced server and storage systems running like clockwork. Maximum uptime is crucial. IT professionals' success and credibility depend on knowing they can reliably deliver business-critical operations and rapidly resolve problems when they arise. They also need the flexibility to match support to the different needs of various end users and applications environments, smartly balancing quality and costs.
Backup and Recovery
Dell offers comprehensive project management to help you optimize your technology, improve efficiencies and minimize downtime. All these can be achieved with a tailored archiving, backup and recovery solution engineered to provide increased flexibility, scalability and manageability.
Storage and Server Consolidation
Consolidation services provide a common platform to allocate and manage growing demands for data storage and help reduce administrative effort by establishing a single management console. Dell's comprehensive approach to storage and server consolidation is designed to help you accelerate productivity by delivering customized systems, software and services that ease management and can result in lower total cost of ownership. Consolidation can offer these key benefits:
- Simplify operations
- Improve utilization
- Cost-effective scaling
Comprehensive Storage Training and Certification
Arm your employees with the knowledge and skills that they need to be as productive as possible. Dell offers comprehensive training services which include hardware and software training, as well as PC skills and professional development classes. Dell training can help improve system reliability, maximize productivity, and reduce end-user requests and downtime.
On-Site Installation and Remote Installation Services
Remote Configuration Setup
- Assistance configuring or setting up your new server's operating system for the first time
- Flexibility with Dell remotely "driving" the install through through online Web-Ex session or allowing you to perform through phone-based instruction
- Can be the most cost-effective solution to quickly get your server OS up and running
On-Site Installation: Hardware and OS
- An on-site Dell technician to ensure proper physical setup and functionality of the hardware and Windows® operating system in your business environment
- Assistance installing your new server into a Dell support rack
- Reduced time required to get your new server completely up and running