text:
Want to buy this product?
Currently you can buy Paula's Choice products directly from this site and a few top-rated products from other brands are available via links to affiliate websites. We review and recommend products from other brands because we are dedicated to helping you find the best products for your skin, whether they're from Paula's Choice or other lines.
Paula's Choice products are formulated using the same exacting standards we use to review products from other brands.
You have chosen to add to your My Faves.
Optional: You can enter notes about this product below. If you do not wish to add notes, click the 'Add' button.
No7 Intensive Line Filler is packaged in a tube and has a slightly thick texture that includes mineral pigments (what the company refers to as "light-diffusing particles"), but shine isn't skin care. This is an OK option to temporarily fill in and smooth superficial wrinkles and enlarged pores, but there are better products for this purpose, including those from BeautiControl's Regeneration Tight line. The amount of peptides in Intensive Line Filler is inconsequential for skin.
Magic away the years with our best kept beauty secret. Velvety soft and quickly absorbed, it's a clever quick-fix that leaves skin looking softer, smoother and more youthful looking. With light-diffusing particles to blur away the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles. It's been created to improve the appearance of deeper wrinkles too, with skin looking plumper and less lined in just 2 weeks. It's all down to an exciting new development: hyaluronic acid spheres. They absorb water in the upper layers of the skin and inflate to many times their original size, appearing to push wrinkles up and away from within.
Cyclopentasiloxane, Water, Butylene Glycol, Dimethicone Crosspolymer, Arabinogalactan, Hdi/Trimethylol Hexyllactone Crosspolymer, Cyclohexasiloxane, Phenyl Trimethicone, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Silica, Glycerin, Magnesium Sulfate, Dimethicone Copolyol, Phenoxyethanol, Dextrin, Hydrolyzed Hibiscus Esculentus Extract, Cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 Dimethicone, Hexyl Laurate, Polyglyceryl-4 Isostearate, Fragrance, Methylparaben, Silica Dimethyl Silylate, Tetrasodium EDTA, Butylparaben, Ethylparaben, Lupinus Albus Seed Extract, Propylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Carbomer, Polysorbate 20, Sodium Hyaluronate, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-3, Titanium Dioxide, Iron Oxides
How do you begin discussing a cosmetics line that's named after a type of footwear? Although the name is odd, Boots is a well-known brand, at least outside the United States. Originating in England, it's named after founder John Boot, and it already had a worldwide presence before its 2004 pilot launch in the U.S. retail market through select Target and CVS drugstores. Its success in these stores led to a full-scale launch in spring 2007. Boots has been part of England's cosmetic history since 1839, and now over 1,500 freestanding Boots stores dot the British landscape. Of course, history has its place, but Boots, on the basis of their longevity, believes that it offers consumers the best products full of quality ingredients and also at a value price. Although it's true that Boots' price point is lower than many other drugstore lines (at least those whose products make similar claims and have the same target audience), their formulas are not nearly as impressive as their lineage might suggest. Antioxidants, retinol, and peptides are popular ingredients in each Boots product line, and the claims surrounding them are standard antiwrinkle, skin-firming fare. However, the amount of the beneficial ingredients is more often than not minuscule, and not a single Boots product contains pure retinol. Instead, they contain retinyl palmitate, a fatty acid ester form of vitamin A that is similar to retinol. Retinyl palmitate is not by any means a throwaway ingredient for skin, but it should not be passed off as pure retinol for those looking for it. Even if Boots did put copious amounts of this or other antioxidants in their products, their potency would suffer due to their pervasive use of jars or translucent glass bottle packaging. Boots does offer a handful of products in better packaging, but these products don't contain enough light- or air-sensitive ingredients to earn state-of-the-art status, though the opacity and smaller openings do help.
Another drawback for those who choose to be Boots-exclusive is that despite dozens of (mostly repetitive) products, there are no effective options for those dealing with blemishes, skin discolorations, or skin whose barrier function is compromised by age or environmental damage. Their sunscreens provide sufficient UVA protection, but several have SPF ratings below the benchmark SPF 15, and all of them have base formulas that will leave sun-exposed skin wanting more. And although there are dozens of moisturizers available, the similarities among them are shocking, as is the fact that only a few of them approach meeting the criteria for what makes a great moisturizer. Reading the product descriptions says otherwise, but keep in mind that wordplay doesn't translate into perfected, lineless skin. As it turns out, although Boots has a prodigious amount of products, very little of their assembly is worth cheering for. You'll find some great options for cleansers, scrubs, sunless tanners, and treatments for dry, chapped lips, all at fair prices, and that's good news. What's not as good, regardless of what country you're in shopping for Boots products, is that assembling a skin-care routine around this line leaves several important pieces of the skin-care puzzle missing. The "top health and beauty experts" responsible for developing the Boots products missed some fundamentals, glossed over much of the current research as to what skin needs to function optimally, and must believe that, at least in the case of moisturizers, standard emollients and thickening agents along with shimmer pigments are the answer to making wrinkles and other signs of aging a thing of the past. Of course that isn't true in the least, but it is nevertheless the story that most of Boots' formulas tell, though the claims serve as teasers to convince you the product you're considering is revolutionary skin care.
For more information about Boots, call (866) 752-6687 or visit www.boots.com.
Note: Boots No7 and Botanics brands (only) are sold in Canada at Shoppers Drug Mart stores.
Boots Makeup
Does England's #1 mass-market beauty brand have what it takes to assemble a beautiful makeup wardrobe? Sadly, no. Although there are some great products to consider either from the Boots' No7 collection (which is supposed to be more makeup artist–oriented but doesn't distinguish itself in that manner) or their Botanics line, we were surprised that such a popular (at least according to company press releases) and widely distributed line didn't have more compelling color products. A frustrating element of trying to shop Boots makeup is that it is needlessly huge. There is no reason the best products from Botanics couldn't be added to the No7 collection or vice versa. As is, there are many similarities between the two that appear to have more to do with marketing than with creating truly different products from a performance standpoint. Yes, the Botanics makeup products have some plant extracts and oils included to support the name, but more often than not these don't affect the outcome. The No7 line, for all its sleek, curvy packaging, isn't a makeup artist's dream come true (though you could cherry-pick the best products and be pleased, whether you're an artist or not).
Without question, the most exciting feature of Boots makeup is that their displays (at least those in Target; we did not view this line in CVS stores) include testers for almost every product. Finally! I wish more drugstore and mass-market lines would follow suit, but we'll take what we can get, right? Along with the testers you'll find built-ins for tissues, disposable applicators, and a trash receptacle. Thank you, Boots, for making this available (but please rethink the structural elements of your product displays, most of which were falling apart or hard to retrieve product from).
The top choices from the Boots color collections include several foundations with reliable sunscreens, some powders with beautifully smooth, light textures, reliable matte blush options, mostly good lipsticks and lip glosses, and a few impressive mascaras (though none that beat those from L'Oreal, Maybelline New York, Revlon, or Almay). Disappointments are peppered throughout the line, including products in nearly every category with unappealing textures or poor colors. Expecting No7 or Botanics makeup from Boots to meet your every need is expecting too much; expecting to find select products to enhance your features without blowing your budget is more realistic.
Paula Begoun is the best-selling author of 20 books on skin care and makeup. She is known worldwide as the Cosmetics Cop and creator of Paula's Choice. Paula's expertise has led to hundreds of appearances on national and international television including:
View Media Highlights
Iframes Required
The Paula's Choice Research Team is dedicated to helping you find the absolute best products for your skin, using research-based criteria to review beauty products from an honest, balanced perspective. Each member of the team was personally trained by Paula herself.
We respect your privacy and the information you provide will NOT be sold, shared, or disseminated in any way.
Read More →
Call us Mon–Fri 6am-6pm PT, Sat–Sun 8am-4:30pm PT
Connect with us:
© Copyright 2014 Paula's Choice. All rights reserved. Paula's Choice and Cosmetics Cop are registered trademarks of Paula's Choice, LLC.
Our Privacy Policy: We will not sell or share any of the information you provide.
*Promotion expires 9pm PT, December 30, 2014. No cash value. Cannot be combined with other offers or applied to previous purchases.
**Promotion expires 9pm PT, December 30, 2014. No cash value. Applies to US and Canada only.
***Promotion expires 9pm PT, December 30, 2014. No cash value. Cannot be combined with other offers or applied to previous purchases. Limit one free per order while supplies last.
***Promotion expires 9pm PT, December 30, 2014. Choose any 3 from 28 available FREE samples on orders of $5 or more.
Please sign in and access your saved member information.
You will have the option to create an account after you have submitted your order.


text:
Take control of your Workforce data. See your business in new ways.
EmployeeBoss is a Big Data solution that unlocks the valuable insights hiding in your employee data
Experience self-service analytics, dynamic organisational charts and predictive modelling across all your employee data, no matter what it is or where it lives.
We can help any company with a large-scale workforce improve profitability and empower the C-suite to execute on fact-based operational decisions

subset: commoncrawl


text:
[Do you have an idea for a future Mind Meld? Let us know!]
When Mark London Williams and I decided to move our long running SF Site column Nexus Graphica to SF Signal, we decided that we needed to announce our presence with a bang. Hence, this Mind Meld was born, in which we asked our esteemed panelists this question:
The only caveat we gave the contributors that their selections could not include the obvious books such as Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, Maus, and their ilk.
I'll return next month with the first installment of the new Nexus Graphica and Mark issues his first SF Signal contribution in March. We'll alternated columns every other month, culminating with a special two parter in December, featuring our annual best of the year lists. But more on this in February.
For now, enjoy the confab.
(And be sure to check out Part 1!)
DC archives. All of them. Dell and Gold Key archives. End of story


text:
Retro 80s Banana ClipProduct Sku: CSTM015
- Back in the 80's, banana hair clips were the rage amongst all the ladies. We at 80sTees brought these retro banana clips into the present. Now you can once again tease, crimp, and perm your hair to your heart's content-- then finish your look with an easy banana clip ponytail! For true 80s style, try a "side ponytail" with extra-big bangs! The clip measures 7 inches across the convex side.
Size Width (A) Length (B) One Size 0"
*Measurements are listed in US Inches.
*Bust or chest is done by doubling the width measurement.
*For full circumference of the waistline, double the waist measurement.
- • Product Type: Costumes
• Color: Green & Pink
• Gender: Not Gender Specific
Distressed refers to the worn appearance in the image or lettering on a garment. A distressed print may include faded areas, missing color, or other irregularities. This is an intentional occurrence in the product and adds to the vintage look of the design.• Fits like: True To Size


text:
Monthly Archives: May 2012
Strategic Patient Adherence Awards: This Year's Winner…
By William Looney | Published: May 11, 2012
CBI conference highlights three turnaround strategies to plug the gaps in patient adherence. New insights into customer behavior fostered by the revolution in information technology are finally being applied to the age-old quandary of why most patients stop taking prescribed medications after a few months of therapy. This was a key conclusion of last month's […]
Posted in Events, patient compliance | Tagged Center for Business Intelligence, pateint adherence | 2 Comments
Taxing Times for French Pharma
By Guest Blogger | Published: May 11, 2012
By Nathan Jessop. While French politics has taken a decisive shift to the left with the election of the country's first socialist president for 17 years, it does not look like Francois Hollande will be changing or derailing any of the existing — and sometimes quite radical — healthcare reforms that the outgoing Nicolas Sarkozy had […]
Posted in Global, Guest Blog | Tagged France, healthcare, Holland, Pharma, Presidential election, Sarkozy, tax | Leave a comment
Going the Distance in Digital Advertising
By admin | Published: May 9, 2012
For pharma, simply moving traditional marketing materials and tactics from print to online is not enough—a true digital transition must be interactive to be effective. According to a new report from comScore, which works with health industry marketers to quantify the success of their online programs and provides competitive intelligence and benchmarking solutions, the most […]
Posted in Advertising, Legal, Marketing | Tagged comScore, David Shronk, digital advertising | Leave a comment
Drug Shortages Still in Focus
By Guest Blogger | Published: May 9, 2012
By Patricia Van Arnum. Drug shortages, particularly those for sterile injectable drugs, took center stage last year. In response, industry and the federal government, including FDA, took steps to address the problem. Progress has been made, and Congress is further evaluating if additional steps need to be taken.
Posted in Guest Blog, Regulatory | Tagged AMA, drug shortages, FDA, HELP, Margaret Hamburg | Leave a comment
Using Social Networks to Increase Sales
Social networks existed long before Mark Zuckerberg came along. What hasn't existed until recently are the tools, metrics and case studies necessary to understand how physicians influence each other within professional networks, and how these relationships can be used to change prescribing behavior.
Posted in Advertising, leadership, Marketing, Sales, social media, Strategy, Technology | Tagged Activate Networks, analytics, conference, Genentech, Launch, marketing research, physicians, Sales, sales force, sales rep, social networks | Leave a comment


text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
Sensitivity and specificity are statistical measures of the performance of a binary classification test, also known in statistics as classification function. Sensitivity (also called the true positive rate, or the recall rate in some fields) measures the proportion of actual positives which are correctly identified as such (e.g. the percentage of sick people who are correctly identified as having the condition). Specificity (sometimes called the true negative rate) measures the proportion of negatives which are correctly identified as such (e.g. the percentage of healthy people who are correctly identified as not having the condition). These two measures are closely related to the concepts of type I and type II errors. A perfect predictor would be described as 100% sensitive (i.e. predicting all people from the sick group as sick) and 100% specific (i.e. not predicting anyone from the healthy group as sick); however, theoretically any predictor will possess a minimum error bound known as the Bayes error rate.
For any test, there is usually a trade-off between the measures. For example: in an airport security setting in which one is testing for potential threats to safety, scanners may be set to trigger on low-risk items like belt buckles and keys (low specificity), in order to reduce the risk of missing objects that do pose a threat to the aircraft and those aboard (high sensitivity). This trade-off can be represented graphically as a receiver operating characteristic curve.
Source: Fawcett (2006).
Imagine a study evaluating a new test that screens people for a disease. Each person taking the test either has or does not have the disease. The test outcome can be positive (predicting that the person has the disease) or negative (predicting that the person does not have the disease). The test results for each subject may or may not match the subject's actual status. In that setting:
In general, Positive = identified and negative = rejected. Therefore:
Let us define an experiment from P positive instances and N negative instances for some condition. The four outcomes can be formulated in a 2×2 contingency table or confusion matrix, as follows:
(as determined by "Gold standard")
|Condition positive
|Condition negative
|True positive
|False positive
(Type I error)
|Precision =
Σ True positive
Σ Test outcome positive
|False negative
(Type II error)
|True negative
|Negative predictive value =
Σ True negative
Σ Test outcome negative
|Sensitivity =
Σ True positive
Σ Condition positive
|Specificity =
Σ True negative
Σ Condition negative
Sensitivity relates to the test's ability to identify positive results.
The sensitivity of a test is the proportion of people that are known to have the disease who test positive for it. This can also be written as:
Again, consider the example of the medical test used to identify a disease. A 'bogus' test kit that always indicates positive regardless of the disease status of the patient will achieve, from a theoretical point of view, 100% sensitivity. This is because in this case there are no negatives at all, and false positives are not accounted for in the definition of sensitivity. Therefore, sensitivity alone cannot be used to determine whether a test is useful in practice.
However, a test with high sensitivity can be considered as a reliable indicator when its result is negative, since it rarely misses true positives among those who are actually positive. For example, a sensitivity of 100% means that the test recognizes all actual positives – i.e. all sick people are recognized as being ill. Thus, in contrast to a high specificity test, negative results in a high sensitivity test are used to rule out the disease.
Sensitivity is not the same as the precision or positive predictive value (ratio of true positives to combined true and false positives), which is as much a statement about the proportion of actual positives in the population being tested as it is about the test.
The calculation of sensitivity does not take into account indeterminate test results. If a test cannot be repeated, indeterminate samples either should be excluded from the analysis (the number of exclusions should be stated when quoting sensitivity) or can be treated as false negatives (which gives the worst-case value for sensitivity and may therefore underestimate it).
A test with a high sensitivity has a low type II error rate. In non-medical contexts, sensitivity is sometimes called recall.
Specificity relates to the test's ability to identify negative results.
Consider the example of the medical test used to identify a disease. The specificity of a test is defined as the proportion of patients that are known not to have the disease who will test negative for it. This can also be written as:
From a theoretical point of view, a 'bogus' test kit which always indicates negative regardless of the disease status of the patient, will achieve 100% specificity, since there are no positive results and false negatives are not accounted for by definition.
However, highly specific tests rarely miss negative outcomes, so they can be considered reliable when their result is positive. Therefore, a positive result from a test with high specificity means a high probability of the presence of disease.[1]
A test with a high specificity has a low type I error rate.
In medical diagnostics, test sensitivity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those with the disease (true positive rate), whereas test specificity is the ability of the test to correctly identify those without the disease (true negative rate). If 100 patients known to have a disease were tested, and 43 test positive, then the test has 43% sensitivity. If 100 with no disease are tested and 96 return a negative result, then the test has 96% specificity. Sensitivity and specificity are prevalence-independent test characteristics, as their values are intrinsic to the test and do not depend on the disease prevalence in the population of interest.[2] Positive and negative predictive values, but not sensitivity or specificity, are values influenced by the prevalence of disease in the population that is being tested.
It is often claimed that a highly specific test is effective at ruling in a disease when positive, while a highly sensitive test is deemed effective at ruling out a disease when negative.[3][4] This has led to the widely used mnemonics SPIN and SNOUT, according to which a highly SPecific test, when Positive, rules IN disease (SP-P-IN), and a highly 'SeNsitive' test, when Negative rules OUT disease (SN-N-OUT). Both rules of thumb are, howevever, inferentially misleading, as the diagnostic power of any test is determined by both the sensitivity and specificity.[5][6][7]
The sensitivity index or d' (pronounced 'dee-prime') is a statistic used in signal detection theory. It provides the separation between the means of the signal and the noise distributions, compared against the standard deviation of the noise distribution. For normally distributed signal and noise with mean and standard deviations and , and and , respectively, d' is defined as:
An estimate of d' can be also found from measurements of the hit rate and false-alarm rate. It is calculated as:
where function Z(p), p ∈ [0,1], is the inverse of the cumulative Gaussian distribution.
d' is a dimensionless statistic. A higher d' indicates that the signal can be more readily detected.
|Patients with bowel cancer
(as confirmed on endoscopy)
|Condition Positive
|Condition Negative
|True Positive
|False Positive
|Positive predictive value
= 20 / (20 + 180)
= 10%
|False Negative
|True Negative
|Negative predictive value
= 1820 / (10 + 1820)
≈ 99.5%
= 20 / (20 + 10)
≈ 67%
= 1820 / (180 + 1820)
= 91%
Related calculations
Hence with large numbers of false positives and few false negatives, a positive screen test is in itself poor at confirming the disorder (PPV = 10%) and further investigations must be undertaken; it did, however, correctly identify 66.7% of all cases (the sensitivity). However as a screening test, a negative result is very good at reassuring that a patient does not have the disorder (NPV = 99.5%) and at this initial screen correctly identifies 91% of those who do not have cancer (the specificity).
Sensitivity and specificity values alone may be highly misleading. The 'worst-case' sensitivity or specificity must be calculated in order to avoid reliance on experiments with few results. For example, a particular test may easily show 100% sensitivity if tested against the gold standard four times, but a single additional test against the gold standard that gave a poor result would imply a sensitivity of only 80%. A common way to do this is to state the binomial proportion confidence interval, often calculated using a Wilson score interval.
Confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity can be calculated, giving the range of values within which the correct value lies at a given confidence level (e.g. 95%).[10]
In information retrieval, the positive predictive value is called precision, and sensitivity is called recall.
The F-score can be used as a single measure of performance of the test. The F-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall:
In the traditional language of statistical hypothesis testing, the sensitivity of a test is called the statistical power of the test, although the word power in that context has a more general usage that is not applicable in the present context. A sensitive test will have fewer Type II errors.


text:
M.J. Sullivan Chevrolet Cadillac Buick
452 Broad Street
New London, CT 06320
(866) 247-5189
M.J. Sullivan Hyundai
452 Broad Street
New London, CT 06320
(866) 227-5206
Welcome to MJSullivanAuto.com!
A family-owned-and-operated dealership located in New London CT, we have been serving families in Eastern Connecticut since 1983. We offer the best selection and price for all new Hyundai, Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick models as well as more than 150 of the highest-quality pre-owned vehicles found in Connecticut. We back everything we sell with superior service and unmatched customer satisfaction. We invite you to stop in and become a member of the MJ Sullivan family.
Please click on one of our two virtual showrooms below to start saving!


text:
My Account
Contact Us
Hot Food Bar Menu
About Us
News & Features
Find A Practitioner
Events Calendar
Reference Library
Health Calculators
Delicious Living
Healthy Recipes & Coupons
Ingredient Glossary
Table of Contents
Health Dictionary
> Hypostasis
1. Formation of a sediment at the bottom of a liquid. 2. The phenomenon whereby the phenotype that would ordinarily be manifested at one locus is obscured by the genotype at another epistatic locus; in humans, the phenotype for the ABO blood group locus can be expressed only in the presence of its precursor, H substance. The Bombay factor in the homozygous state blocks H formation and obscures the ABO phenotype.
Healthy Living Marketplace
Hot Food Bar Menu
About Us
Events Calendar
Reference Library
Healthy Recipes & Coupons
My Email Subscription
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
All contents © Copyright 1999-2014 Living Naturally and Real Food Market & Deli. All rights reserved. This internet site is hosted by Living Naturally, a Web site service provider to natural health stores nationwide. Living Naturally and Real Food Market & Deli have no means of independently evaluating the safety or functionality of the products offered by their suppliers and affiliates and thus can neither endorse nor recommend products. Information presented is of a general nature for educational and informational purposes only. Statements about products and health conditions have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. Products and information presented herein are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a physician or other healthcare professional. Your use of this site indicates your agreement to be bound by our
Terms and Conditions


text:
Promotion Terms & Conditions
- Up to 40% offer expires no later than 12/22/14 6:00AM ET. Offer excludes select merchandise. Discounts for qualifying merchandise will be represented in the advertised product price.
- If the order contains at least $60 of merchandise, use the coupon CUPID to receive a coupon discount equal to the cost of 2-Business-Day shipping to the 48 continental U.S. States. Products that are eligible for delivery by 12/24/14 carry a message on the product page that states the item can be delivered by 12/24/14 and defines the shipping method that must be used.
- Custom products and special event items are not included. Eligible destinations that will receive their orders by 12/24/14 include the 48 continental U.S. States and AK/HI/PR/PO Box/APO/FP. Non-US destinations are not included. To receive by 12/24/14 orders must be placed before the advertised cutoff time and be placed using the prescribed ship method below:
- 48 Continental U.S. States:
- Use Standard Shipping by 3AM ET Wednesday, 12/17
- Use 3-Business-Day Shipping by Noon ET Friday, 12/19
- Use 2-Business-Day Shipping by 3PM ET Monday, 12/22
- Use Next Business Day Shipping by 3PM Tuesday, 12/23
- AK/HI/PR/PO Box/APO/FPO:
- Use Standard Shipping by 3AM ET Wednesday, 12/17
- Use 2-Business-Day Shipping by 3PM ET Monday, 12/22 (no 3-Business-Day Shipping)
- Use Next Business Day Shipping by 3PM Tuesday, 12/23
- This offer may be modified at any time without notice. Due to delays by shipping carriers, acts of war, terrorism, acts of nature, or other events beyond our control, some orders may not be received by 12/24/14.
See delivery information on product page to confirm product eligibility. See details for non-continental U.S. addresses and for PO Box, APO and FPO.
Main Content
Order by 3:00 p.m. EST on Monday, 12/22 with 2-Day shipping, receive by 12/24.
$4.99 3-day shipping. Need it faster?
You are such a die-hard Minnesota Vikings fan, you feel like part of the team. Dress the part in this players polo from Antigua, featuring a quality embroidered Vikings team logo on the upper left chest and team colors. It also utilizes Antigua's Desert Dry Xtra-Lite technology that allows for maximum moisture-wicking while the ultra-light fabric keeps you cool. Take a page from the Vikings' playbook and annihilate your competition on the green or just stay comfy and casual on a sunny afternoon in this polo!
- 100% Polyester
- Desert Dry Xtra-Lite technology for ultimate comfort
- Imported
- Officially licensed
- Placket with three buttons
- Quality embroidery
- Side slits at hem
- Tagless collar
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Grey's Anatomy Caption Contest XIIIby Steve Marsi at Comments
It's a new beginning here at the Insider. At least it feels like one, with this week's Caption Contest featuring a healthy dose of MerDer...Continue Reading
It's a new beginning here at the Insider. At least it feels like one, with this week's Caption Contest featuring a healthy dose of MerDer...Continue Reading
It's that time again. The time we know and love. Fourth of July weekend. Warm weather, fireworks, cookouts... can't be beat. Oh, and it's...Continue Reading
Another fine Caption Contest this past week, we have to say. A lot of responses regarding flatulence, some of which were amusing, and...Continue Reading
Thanks to all who participated in our fun weekly feature. Once again, we got a good number of responses, many of which were serious title...Continue Reading
And the winner is... After reviewing the week's responses, it was a tough call once again. But our staff determined that Amy wins top...Continue Reading
Another strong week of Caption Contest replies at the Insider. Voting has now closed. It was a close one among our staff, but Nicole K.,...Continue Reading
Wow, we are beside ourselves with joy at the Insider after receiving a record number of submissions to our weekly Caption Contest. It was...Continue Reading
Another week, another Grey's Anatomy Insider Caption Contest. There were some great submissions from this past week, along with some...Continue Reading
It's that time of the week once again. Following a thorough review of the Caption Contest submissions from this past week (which you can...Continue Reading
As in "four," not intravenous. You should know the drill by now. A reviewing of all the submissions for last week's Caption Contest...Continue Reading


text:
Taylor's Latest Breakup
Another breakup for Taylor Swift. Read More »
Taylor Not A Feminist
Taylor Swift doesn't consider herself to be a feminist. Read More »
Taylor Does Dubstep
Taylor Swift dabbles in dubstep for "I Knew You Were Trouble." Read More »
Taylor Vs. John, Again
Taylor Swift and ex John Mayer go for round 37. Ding ding ding! Read More »
Okay, fine, her skin looks amazing, but I really want to come at Tay Tay with some cotton swabs, makeup remover, and a blending brush right about now, because all that rust eyeshadow is making her look rather corpse-y. On the plus side, her breasteses look fab! Harry Styles, boy, eat your clam-loving heart out.


text:
News & Events
July 10, 2014
Orientation leaders discuss the important work they do
July 10, 2014
New magazine highlights members of BSU community winning awards, hanging with Obama and more
July 7, 2014
President honors Bartlett's generosity which 'knows no bounds'
July 3, 2014
Consulate of Cape Verde celebrates those who've made a difference for the island nation
June 26, 2014
It's another busy break for construction crews around campus
June 24, 2014
'Stetson Street' earns top honors at Campus MovieFest
June 18, 2014
Leading in diversity is topic of annual conference
June 17, 2014
Area students showcase research into water quality, conservation and more
June 17, 2014
Many students spend this time of year in class. Find out why.
June 13, 2014
CARS event showcases research of faculty, librarians and others
May 14, 2014
Student honored as one of '29 Who Shine'
May 9, 2014
Alumna publishes book on iPhone use for kids
May 9, 2014
Alumnus-educator celebrates as his students head to his alma mater
May 9, 2014
Alumni Chamber Choir hits quarter-century mark, founder honored
May 9, 2014
A timely study of child welfare professionals
May 1, 2014
Professor earns Fulbright grant to travel to Lithuania to study national cinema
May 1, 2014
Muslim Student Association shares global perspective
May 1, 2014
A look at this year's Springfest celebration
April 23, 2014
Mike Verlezza, '13, earns Fulbright student award to study healthcare in Canada
April 18, 2014
Student uses bees as a research project
April 24, 2014
Awards for Excellence recognizes 'highest achievement'
April 22, 2014
Head monk, Ven Mongkol Kuapool, seated left, of the Thai Temple in Raynham, with his fellow monks
April 22, 2014
Sustainability is week-long focus across campus
April 18, 2014
Conference brings to campus educators from across the region
April 18, 2014
Regional students visit campus for annual 'Kangaroo'
April 18, 2014
Canadian Studies event puts focus on critical issue
April 15, 2014
Event held to remember the late Seamus Heaney
April 4, 2014
Shea Scholar Tea allows honorees to share research plans
March 31, 2014
Renowned geographer delivers Class of '42 Lecture
March 27, 2014
One Book, One Community event held


text:
Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
Filing 413
RESPONSE in Opposition re 389 First MOTION to Compel Defendants - NOTICE, 385 MOTION to Strike 318 MOTION to Dismiss, 326 Continuation of Exhibits, 319 Memorandum in Support of Motion NOTICE, 396 MOTION for Discovery Notice of Motion filed by Facebook, Inc., Mark Elliot Zuckerberg. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Snyder, Orin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------PAUL D. CEGLIA, Plaintiff, v. MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG and FACEBOOK, INC., Defendants. ------------------------------------ x : : : : : : : : : : x Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00569RJA DEFENDANTS' OMNIBUS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE, FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL, AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY Thomas H. Dupree, Jr. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-8500 Terrance P. Flynn HARRIS BEACH PLLC 726 Exchange Street Suite 1000 Buffalo, NY 14210 (716) 200-5120 June 4, 2012 Orin Snyder Alexander H. Southwell GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166-0193 (212) 351-4000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. THE COURT SHOULD DENY CEGLIA'S MOTION TO STRIKE ........................... 3 II. THE COURT SHOULD DENY CEGLIA'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL ............. 8 III. THE COURT SHOULD DENY CEGLIA'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY .............. 11 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Paul Ceglia's recent flurry of frivolous motions is his latest effort to derail the orderly discovery processes established by this Court. More than eleven months ago, on July 1, 2011, the Court granted Defendants' motion for expedited discovery so that Defendants could gather additional evidence establishing that Ceglia's claims are fraudulent and efficiently bring this case to an end. Doc. No. 83. Ceglia hijacked the ensuing expedited discovery process by filing countless bad-faith motions, concealing and destroying evidence, and defying court orders. Although Ceglia's obstruction caused the expedited discovery period to extend over a period of nearly nine months, it did not prevent that process from serving its purpose: Defendants and their experts found overwhelming evidence that the Work for Hire Document on which Ceglia's suit is based is a forgery, that the purported emails quoted in Ceglia's Amended Complaint are fabrications, and that this entire lawsuit is a fraud. On March 26, 2012, Defendants presented that evidence to the Court in their Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 319, and moved to stay general discovery in this case pending the resolution of that motion and Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. Nos. 321, 323. On April 4, 2012, after more than four hours of oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Stay, this Court entered a carefully calibrated Order that stayed general discovery and provided for a "limited period of expert discovery," to be followed by further briefing and a decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Doc. No. 348. The Court also provided for limited discovery relating to the statute of limitations and laches defenses raised in Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. See Doc. Nos. 366, 401. Ceglia now seeks to disrupt these targeted discovery processes, and to obstruct an ultimate decision on Defendants' dispositive motions, through a series of vexatious filings meant to harass and delay, all in support of Ceglia's overarching objective of coercing Defendants to settle his fraudulent claims before the Court 1 dismisses his suit. Because the Court has directed Defendants to respond to three of Ceglia's motions on the same date, Defendants present their combined responses to those three motions in this omnibus opposition. First, Ceglia has filed a slanderous Motion to Strike. Doc. No. 385. That motion seeks to strike both the expert report of Gerald LaPorte and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, a 74-page document supported by seven sworn expert reports and declarations. Ceglia requests that extraordinary relief based on a charge that is completely false—that LaPorte, a world-renowned forensic chemist and document dating specialist, provided "perjured testimony" in his expert report when he concluded, with virtual certainty, that the ink on the first page of Ceglia's Work for Hire Document is less than two years old. Doc. No. 386 at 1. Ceglia's scurrilous accusations against LaPorte are untrue, resting entirely on patent mischaracterizations of LaPorte's testimony in previous cases. Second, Ceglia has filed an abusive Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 389. That motion demands the production of numerous documents that this Court's Orders simply do not require Defendants to produce. For example, Ceglia asserts that the Court's July 1 Order and Defendants' representations during the April 4, 2012 oral argument necessitate the production of voluminous discovery underlying the examinations conducted by Defendants' experts. That argument blatantly misconstrues this Court's orders and Defendants' representations, and should be rejected. Moreover, this motion is procedurally defective: Defendants are prepared to meet and confer with Ceglia regarding his discovery requests to determine whether there should be a mutual exchange of documents between the parties in preparation for expert depositions. Ceglia's Motion to Compel is an improper attempt to avoid his meet-and-confer obligations and obtain unilateral and unwarranted written discovery from Defendants' experts. 2 Third, Ceglia has filed a frivolous Motion for Discovery Regarding Harvard Emails. Doc. No. 396. That motion insists that Ceglia should be allowed to obtain discovery of (1) backup tapes of Harvard's email servers and (2) Zuckerberg's personal computers, so that Ceglia can search for purported emails exchanged between Zuckerberg, Ceglia, and persons associated with StreetFax. These discovery demands are not authorized by the Court's discovery orders. Indeed, Defendants have fully complied with those orders by producing all relevant emails "captured from Zuckerberg's Harvard email account," and Ceglia does not contend otherwise. Doc. No. 83 at 3. Ceglia instead seeks to expand the scope of discovery in this case. But Ceglia has made these same discovery requests, based on the same arguments, numerous times before—and this Court has rejected them on every occasion. See Doc. Nos. 250, 272, 284. In fact, Ceglia argued as recently as the April 4 oral argument that he was entitled to the same discovery that he seeks in his Motion for Discovery, and this Court rejected those arguments. See Doc. No. 348. There is no reason for the Court to revisit those previous rulings now. The Court should again deny Ceglia's requests for wide-ranging discovery that will serve no purpose other than to harass Defendants and disrupt the orderly expert discovery process that this Court has established. ARGUMENT I. THE COURT SHOULD DENY CEGLIA'S MOTION TO STRIKE. Ceglia's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 385) seeks to strike the entirety of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss based solely on the demonstrably false and outrageous allegation that Defendants' expert, Gerald LaPorte, offered "perjured testimony" in his expert report in support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Doc. No. 386 at 1. That slanderous accusation relies on claims that are either completely unsupported, patent mischaracterizations, or both. 3 LaPorte is a highly distinguished forensic chemist and document dating specialist who trained with the United States Secret Service and has nearly two decades of experience in forensic science. He works full time for the United States Department of Justice as the Forensic Policy Program Manager and Acting Associate Director in the Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences at the National Institute of Justice. He has permission to operate as an independent consultant in civil matters and has done so since 2008. See Doc. No. 326 at 1 (Report of Gerald M. LaPorte (Declaration of Alexander H. Southwell dated March 26, 2012 ("Southwell Decl."), Ex. B) ("LaPorte Report")). In this case, LaPorte conducted a well-established chemical ink dating test in August 2011 and concluded that it was "highly probable"—meaning that the evidence was "very persuasive" and that LaPorte was "virtually certain"—that the ink on the first page of the Work for Hire Document was less than two years old. LaPorte Report at 2 & n.2. LaPorte's analysis involved the measurement of a solvent found in many inks called phenoxyethanol (PE). The ink is dated by comparing the PE ratio of the ink before and after heating. The standard benchmark in the field is that, if the amount of PE that evaporates is greater than 25%, it indicates that the ink is "fresh"—i.e., less than two years old. LaPorte conducted this test twice on ink samples taken from the interlineation on page 1 of the Work for Hire Document. He determined that the level of PE decreased an average of 64%, more than twice the accepted benchmark for ink that is less than two years old. He thus concluded—to a virtual scientific certainty—that the ink was placed on the Work for Hire Document after August 2009, and not in 2003, as Ceglia claims. See id. at 15, 23. In his Motion to Strike, Ceglia challenges the validity of the ink dating analysis performed by LaPorte. But Ceglia fails to cite a single source of authority—not one scholarly 4 article, research paper, case, or anything else—that supports his bald assertions that LaPorte's analysis is unreliable. For example, Ceglia states that LaPorte's PE analysis is a "variation" of a test developed by Ceglia's former expert, Valery Aginsky, and asserts that "Aginsky's version of the PE test . . . has never satisfied any court, much less the other experts in Aginsky's field, of its validity or reliability." Doc. No. 386 at 3-4. Ceglia cites nothing in support of these assertions, much less anything that would call into question the validity of the PE testing performed by LaPorte in this case. In reality, Aginsky is one of many researchers who have developed PE analysis for ink dating over the past 20 years, a period during which there have been several validation studies and refinements of the test. LaPorte's expert report specifically cited a series of scholarly articles that support the development and validity of the analysis of PE for ink dating purposes. See LaPorte Report at 7-8. Ceglia also makes recklessly false and wholly unsupported statements about the purported policies of the United States Government. He asserts that "LaPorte's own employer with the U.S. Government prohibits him from using his variation of the PE test or any variation of the PE test in case work," and that it was "not permitted to be used by the Secret Service in casework, LaPorte's previous employer." Doc. No. 386 at 4. But Ceglia's own brief demonstrates that these assertions are false: As Ceglia recognizes, in United States v. Rago, LaPorte performed PE testing in his capacity as an employee of the Secret Service. See United States v. Rago, No. 1:08-cr-10268 (D. Mass., filed Sep. 11, 2008); see also Doc. No. 386 at 11. Ceglia nonetheless argues that his unsupported assertions about U.S. Government policy are "indisputable because Plaintiff's expert, Larry Stewart, was LaPorte's supervisor while LaPorte was at the Secret Service." Doc. No. 386 at 4. That assertion cannot be credited for numerous reasons—the most obvious being that, for more than half of LaPorte's tenure at the Secret 5 Service, Stewart was not his supervisor. LaPorte worked at the Secret Service from 2001 to 2009, but Stewart was the Secret Service's lab director only until May 2004, when he was arrested and charged with perjury.1 See Press Release, United States Attorney S.D.N.Y., Secret Service Laboratory Director Charged with Committing Perjury at Martha Stewart - Peter Bacanovic Trial (May 21, 2004). Ceglia simply has nothing to say about LaPorte's work at the Secret Service from May 2004 to 2009. Because he can cite no authority to support his argument that the PE test is unreliable, Ceglia also alleges that LaPorte himself has made "previous sworn statements that the PE test is not reliable." Doc. No. 386 at 3. That allegation is based on blatant mischaracterizations of LaPorte's testimony in other cases. For example, Ceglia disfigures LaPorte's testimony from the 2007 Padilla trial, claiming that LaPorte "specifically denies that PE is a reliable test." Id. at 6. LaPorte said no such thing during the Padilla trial, nor has he ever. In fact, Mr. LaPorte testified that there is no scientifically reliable way to determine "exactly when ink was put to paper." Doc. No. 386-1 at 54 (emphasis added). That is fully consistent with LaPorte's expert report in this case, which explained that PE testing determines whether ink was applied to paper within a two-year time period, not on an exact date. See LaPorte Report at 7-8. LaPorte did not claim anywhere in his report that he can determine the exact date an entry was written. 1 Stewart was indicted by a grand jury and tried for perjury for his testimony in the Martha Stewart case. While he was ultimately acquitted, see Judgment of Acquittal, United States v. Stewart, No. 04 CR 554 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2004), ECF No. 44, interviews with jurors indicate that his acquittal was due in part to the jury's skepticism of the prosecution's primary witness, who had previously lodged a sexual harassment claim against Stewart. See Colin Moynihan, Ink Expert in Stewart Trial Found Not Guilty of Perjury, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 6, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/business/06ink.html?_r=1&ex=1254715200&en= 97c6f9e5fe220d8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland (noting jurors' disbelief of Susan Fortunato's testimony). In any event, Stewart left the Secret Service when he was charged with perjury in 2004, and he did not return to the Secret Service thereafter. 6 Moreover, Ceglia intentionally distorts LaPorte's testimony regarding the conclusiveness of his results. Based on prior testimony, Ceglia asserts that LaPorte "never obtained a 'positive result'" or a "conclusive result." Doc. No. 386 at 7, 10. As a general matter, as explained in the LaPorte Report, the results of PE testing reveal either that ink is less than two years old with some degree of certainty based on the known characteristics of the document, or that it cannot be determined whether the ink is less than two years old. See LaPorte Report at 7-8, 15-16. That the results of the test may sometimes be inconclusive in no way undermines the validity of the test, nor does it undermine the validity of the positive result in this case that the ink on the first page of the Work for Hire Document is less than two years old. Ceglia's contrary characterization of LaPorte's prior testimony is baseless. LaPorte testified only that, at the time of his testimony, he had not previously performed a PE test in a case, obtained a result that the ink was less than two years old, and testified about that result. See, e.g., Doc. No. 386 at 7 (citing LaPorte's testimony in the Padilla trial, in which he testified that he had "never testified about . . . a positive result," but had "testified about the procedure itself"). Ceglia flatly misrepresents that testimony in claiming that LaPorte testified that he had never achieved a conclusive result in a PE test. * * * In short, the Court should deny Ceglia's Motion to Strike because it is wholly unsupported by any facts and is instead premised on mischaracterized sound-bites taken out of context from LaPorte's prior testimony. In any event, this Court need not even consider the substance of Ceglia's Motion to Strike at this time because the motion is procedurally improper. In its April 4 Order, this Court provided that Ceglia will have the opportunity to oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in 7 October 2012, after expert discovery is complete. Doc. No. 348. The proper time and place for Ceglia to present the mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods contained in his Motion to Strike is in that opposition, not in a premature motion filed even before expert depositions have commenced—a motion that is plainly intended to harass Defendants and undermine this Court's well-considered orders. Indeed, the substance of Ceglia's brief highlights its procedural impropriety: The purported issues that Ceglia raises regarding the use of PE testing and LaPorte's prior testimony are the stuff of deposition questions, and are in no way grounds to "strike" a detailed report and a 74-page brief supported by an "avalanche" of evidence (Apr. 4, 2012 Tr. at 98:12) from the record before the limited period of expert depositions authorized by this Court have even begun. II. THE COURT SHOULD DENY CEGLIA'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL. Ceglia's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 389) should be denied. Ceglia seeks extensive discovery of documents relating to the examinations conducted by Defendants' experts. This Court's Orders do not require the production of those documents. In its April 4 Order, this Court granted Ceglia 60 days to submit expert reports and 60 days thereafter to conduct expert depositions. See Doc. No. 348. It did not, however, grant Ceglia's request for "expert written discovery under Rule 26" related to Defendants' experts, made during oral argument by Ceglia's lawyer Sanford Dumain (who now seeks permission to withdraw from this case). Apr. 4, 2012 Tr. at 203:11-12. Furthermore, in granting Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery in part, the Court's April 4 Order confirmed that "[g]eneral discovery" under Rule 26 was "stayed." Doc. No. 348. Going forward, only the "limited period of expert discovery" expressly authorized by that Order would be permitted. Id. Ceglia's Motion to Compel—and the underlying May 7, 2012 letter from Mr. Dumain that it incorporates by reference, see Doc. No. 390 at 1—impermissibly attempt to broaden this 8 "limited period of expert discovery." Ceglia does not seek a small number of identified documents necessary to respond to specific findings in Defendants' expert reports. Rather, the Motion to Compel and underlying May 7 letter are pretexts for broad discovery that, taken together, constitute an end-run around this Court's explicit stay of "general" plenary discovery. Doc. No. 348. For example, Ceglia demands a native copy of Zuckerberg's email records from Harvard, and demands computer forensic analysis of the so-called Parmet assets (i.e., "the forensic copies of relevant computers currently in the possession of Parmet and Associates"). See Doc. No. 390-1 at 2. However, as explained in detail below with respect to Ceglia's Motion for Discovery, which also presses these demands, this Court has already repeatedly rejected these same discovery requests. See Doc. Nos. 250, 272, 284, 348. Ceglia fails to identify any authority to support his unwarranted requests. Contrary to Ceglia's claim, the Court's July 1 Order does not obligate Defendants to report every factual observation made by their experts or produce every piece of paper documenting the experts' findings. The July 1 Order simply directs Defendants to "provide to the Court and Plaintiff all reports documenting the findings of [their] examination." Doc. No. 83 at 3 (emphasis added). Defendants have fully complied with this directive, filing publicly each and every report prepared by Defendants' experts during expedited discovery. Notwithstanding Ceglia's assertions, the July 1 Order says nothing about the production of underlying documentation, including the "case notes," correspondence with counsel, and "verbal reports" that Ceglia seeks. Doc. No. 390 at 5. Ceglia's citation of various colloquies from the April 4, 2012 oral argument is similarly unavailing. As described above, the Court rejected Ceglia's request for "expert written discovery under Rule 26" related to Defendants' experts. Apr. 4, 2012 Tr. at 203:11-12; Doc. 9 No. 348. In his Motion to Compel, Ceglia notes that the Court asked Mr. Dumain whether his client wanted some "sort of . . . safety mechanism" to capture documents on which Defendants relied but did not "reveal." Apr. 4, 2012 Tr. at 203:23-204:1; see Doc. No. 390 at 3. Ceglia then misleadingly asserts in his Motion that Mr. Dumain "respectfully deferred the issue until something arose that the [C]ourt needed to address[,] to which the [C]ourt responded favorably." Doc. No. 390 at 3. But in fact, Mr. Dumain responded that the parties would "deal with" any newly disclosed documents "in the deposition"—a binding admission that any dispute regarding document discovery would be resolved after the submission of expert reports and during the twomonth phase of the case dedicated to expert depositions. Apr. 4, 2012 Tr. at 204:2-4 (emphasis added). Defendants agree with the position Mr. Dumain took during the hearing: Requests for the production of specific documents necessary to prepare for and conduct expert depositions should be addressed during the next phase of the case. Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Ceglia after the submission of his expert reports to resolve consensually and without Court intervention any such specific requests.2 But the broad production of documents that Ceglia now demands is not supported by any of the Court's expedited discovery orders, nor has Ceglia shown that he would be entitled to these documents under the Federal Rules in any event. Accordingly, Ceglia's Motion to Compel should be denied. 2 Plaintiff complains that he requested documents underlying Defendants' expert reports some weeks ago and has not yet received a response. See Doc. No. 390 at 4. In fact, the request came from Ceglia's counsel at Milberg LLP, and just as Defendants were about to respond to propose a meet-and-confer following the submission of expert reports, the Milberg attorneys abruptly removed their names from Ceglia's filings, and soon thereafter announced their intent to withdraw. See Doc. No. 410 ¶¶ 2-6; Doc. No. 377 at 11; Doc. No. 376 at 11-12. 10 III. THE COURT SHOULD DENY CEGLIA'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. Ceglia's Motion for Discovery Regarding Harvard Emails (Doc. No. 396) is also frivolous, and is yet another example of Ceglia alleging intentional, bad-faith misconduct without any factual basis. The invasive discovery sought by that motion—a wide-ranging search of Harvard's email servers and Zuckerberg's personal computers—is not authorized by this Court's orders. In fact, the Court has denied Ceglia's requests for this very discovery numerous times, including as recently as April 4. See Doc. No. 348. Ceglia ignores those rulings and continues to raise meritless arguments that this Court has already considered and rejected. Because there is no reason for the Court to reconsider its previous rulings, and because Ceglia's expansive discovery requests directly contravene the narrowly tailored discovery process established by this Court, Ceglia's Motion for Discovery should be denied. This Court's July 1 Order provided that, after Ceglia complied with his production obligations, Defendants were required to "produce all emails in their original, native and hardcopy form between Defendant Zuckerberg and Plaintiff and/or other persons associated with StreetFax that were captured from Zuckerberg's Harvard email account." Doc. No. 83 at 2-3. Defendants have fully complied with that Order. When this Court ruled on April 4 that Ceglia had, after nine months of obstruction, satisfied the Court's July 1 Order (Doc. No. 348), Defendants produced all emails between Zuckerberg, Ceglia, and other persons associated with StreetFax that were captured from Zuckerberg's Harvard email account. The process through which those emails were captured is detailed in the Declaration of Bryan J. Rose, submitted in support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Doc. No. 333. Ceglia does not dispute that Defendants' email production fully satisfied this Court's July 1 Order. Indeed, he "accepts" that Defendants "have produced all emails they could recover from their analysis of the Harvard email system." Doc. No. 397 at 7. That should be the end of 11 the matter. Ceglia nevertheless argues that he should be granted broader discovery than permitted by this Court's existing orders. He alleges, without any basis, that Zuckerberg has "deleted emails from his account that are relevant to this case," and that the Court should therefore expand the scope of discovery by issuing an order (1) "authorizing a subpoena to be issued to Harvard University for all backup tapes of the Harvard email server from 2003-2004 containing or potentially containing the email account of Defendant Zuckerberg," and (2) "authorizing Plaintiff's computer expert to acquire all native format email messages from Defendant Zuckerberg's computers used during 2003-2004[,] forensic copies of which are currently in the possession of Parmet and Associates." Id. This Court has already considered and rejected these same requests for expansive discovery of Harvard's email servers and Zuckerberg's personal computers, based on the same accusations, on numerous occasions. For example, in his November 1, 2011 motion for sanctions, Ceglia demanded "discovery of all emails from Zuckerberg's Harvard email account wherever copies of those emails may reside." Doc. No. 198 at 1. In support of that motion, Ceglia made the allegation that Zuckerberg had "deleted emails" from his Harvard account. Doc. No. 199 at 4. This Court rejected Ceglia's discovery request. See Doc. No. 272 (ordering that Ceglia's motion for sanctions be withdrawn). Similarly, in a motion filed on November 17, 2011 seeking to preclude Defendants from arguing that Ceglia's purported emails are fabrications, Ceglia again insisted that his experts should be granted access to "the complete email record of Defendant Zuckerberg." Doc. No. 223 at 1. He argued, based on the bald allegation that Zuckerberg may have "hit the 'delete' key," that he should be allowed to investigate whether Harvard made periodic "backups" of its "user email accounts" and whether those backups were available. Doc. No. 224 at 13, 17. He also argued that he was entitled to 12 discovery regarding "devices connected to the Harvard email server at any relevant time that could have retained copies of Mr. Zuckerberg's deleted or un-deleted emails." Id. at 15. Again, this Court rejected those arguments. See Doc. No. 272. And in his frivolous, November 25, 2011 "emergency" motion for a temporary restraining order and sanctions, Ceglia claimed that he was entitled to access "the forensic copies of at least five computers belonging to and used by Defendant Zuckerberg while a student at Harvard" in the possession of Parmet and Associates. Doc. No. 232 at 1; see also Doc. No. 231. This Court rejected that claim. See Doc. No. 284 at 13-14. On April 4, in its ruling on Defendants' Motion to Stay, this Court again rejected the same discovery requests that Ceglia raises in his Motion for Discovery. Doc. No. 348. In his opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay, Ceglia argued that, to determine "why Mr. Ceglia and Mr. Zuckerberg have differing email records," he should be granted "discovery of the records and record retention practices of Harvard and Mr. Zuckerberg." Doc. No. 345 at 3. At oral argument, Ceglia repeated his bald allegation that Zuckerberg may have "delete[d]" emails from his Harvard account, and argued at length that he should therefore be granted discovery of the "backup tapes" of the Harvard servers and "the computers that Parmet currently has in its possession." Apr. 4, 2012 Tr. at 136:21, 138:15, 139:9-10; see also id. at 124, 132, 136-41, 14345, 152, 157, 175. This Court rejected those arguments when it stayed general discovery and permitted only limited expedited discovery related to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Doc. No. 348. Outrageously, Ceglia fails to address this Court's numerous previous rulings denying him the same invasive discovery that he seeks in his Motion for Discovery, much less present any legitimate justification for overturning those rulings. Nor does Ceglia demonstrate that he would 13 be entitled, under the Federal Rules, to the discovery he seeks even if this Court had not stayed general discovery pending the resolution of Defendants' dispositive motions. Instead, he merely continues to recycle his allegation that Zuckerberg "deleted emails from his [Harvard] account that are relevant to this case," and argues that he is therefore entitled to examine the Harvard email servers and Zuckerberg's personal computers. Doc. No. 397 at 7. Nothing in Ceglia's Motion for Discovery, however, remotely supports that claim. Ceglia argues, based on a newly submitted declaration (Doc. No. 398), that he and Zuckerberg exchanged emails prior to June 2, 2003, and that Defendants have not produced any of those purported emails. Doc. No. 397 at 2-3. But Ceglia does not identify any specific email from that time period that Defendants have failed to produce. See id. Moreover, Ceglia's own production of purported emails does not include any emails exchanged between Ceglia and Zuckerberg prior to June 2, 2003. See Doc. No. 224, Ex. A. Rather, the earliest purported email in Ceglia's production is dated July 16, 2003. See id. at 94. Because Ceglia has asserted that he saved the text of "each of the emails between" him and Zuckerberg, Doc. No. 224 at 2, and because this Court's July 1 Order required Ceglia to produce all of his purported emails with Zuckerberg, Doc. No. 83, the absence of any emails prior to June 2, 2003 in Ceglia's production contradicts his allegation that Zuckerberg "deleted" those emails from his Harvard account. In fact, Ceglia's newly-minted assertions in his declaration conflict not only with his own production of purported emails, but also with the allegations in his Amended Complaint. Ceglia's declaration asserts that he exchanged emails with Zuckerberg in February, March, and April 2003 that "included drafts of what became the eventual Facebook Contract that we signed on April 28, 2003 in Boston." Doc. No. 398 ¶ 7; see also id. ¶ 6. However, Ceglia told a far 14 different story regarding the creation of the Work for Hire Document in his Amended Complaint, where he alleged: From his home office in Wellsville, New York, on April 25, 2003, Ceglia prepared the agreement on his computer, combining two different forms of agreements that were given to him in the past and modifying them to capture the terms that Zuckerberg and Ceglia agreed to over the telephone. The agreement covered both the work Zuckerberg agreed to do for StreetFax.com and their agreement concerning The Face Book. Ceglia printed and saved the agreement on April 25, 2003. Doc. No. 39 ¶ 21 (emphasis added). This account, in which Ceglia prepared the Work for Hire Document on April 25, 2003 by combining two previous agreements "to capture the terms that Zuckerberg and Ceglia agreed to over the telephone," is flatly inconsistent with Ceglia's sworn statement now that he and Zuckerberg jointly prepared the Work for Hire Document by exchanging multiple drafts by email over a period of months in early 2003. Thus, in attempting to support his false allegation that Zuckerberg deleted his early emails with Ceglia, Ceglia has only further confirmed that his entire lawsuit is a lie. Ceglia also alleges that Zuckerberg "deleted" emails from his Harvard account because copies of 22 emails appear in "threads" of email chains that Defendants produced, but do not appear as independent, native emails within the account. Doc. No. 397 at 4-6. As an initial matter, Ceglia's allegation that Defendants have attempted to conceal these emails is absurd: Defendants' production contains copies of the 22 emails that Zuckerberg supposedly "deleted." In any event, that these 22 emails appear only in "threads" in Zuckerberg's Harvard email account is not a basis for alleging, as Ceglia does, that Zuckerberg must have "deleted" these emails. Ceglia—who himself has not produced a single email with Zuckerberg in native form— fails to grasp that there could be any number of reasons, having nothing to do with Zuckerberg, that these emails do not appear in the account in native form, and Ceglia is free to pursue these issues in his deposition of Stroz Friedberg. Merely repeating his ipse dixit assertion that 15 Zuckerberg "deleted" emails from his Harvard account does not make it so, and certainly does not provide a valid justification for expanding the scope of discovery authorized by this Court's orders. Again, Defendants fully complied with this Court's orders by producing "all emails in their original, native and hard-copy form between Defendant Zuckerberg and Plaintiff and/or other persons associated with StreetFax that were captured from Zuckerberg's Harvard email account." Doc. No. 83 at 2-3. As Ceglia himself accepts, there are no relevant, native emails in Zuckerberg's Harvard email account that Defendants did not produce. Doc. No. 397 at 7. Ultimately, Ceglia's Motion for Discovery is another attempt to further Ceglia's ongoing campaign of harassment and abuse of the litigation process. Ceglia and his counsel have made clear that the purpose of their abusive barrage of discovery demands is to coerce Defendants to settle Ceglia's fraudulent claims before the Court dismisses the case. See Doc. No. 323 at 2-4; see also, e.g., Doc. No. 331, Southwell Decl., Ex. H (Ceglia stating in an email to the Daily Reporter in Wellsville: "You won't go public Mark [Zuckerberg], you won't IPO, you won't pass go . . . . I won't let you sell this company out from under me not while I have the power to stop you."). Rather than condone Ceglia's bad faith litigation strategy, the Court should adhere to its numerous previous rulings and reject Ceglia's request that he be permitted to harass Defendants through a fishing expedition into the Harvard email servers and Zuckerberg's personal computers. 16 CONCLUSION The Court should deny Ceglia's (1) Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 385), (2) First Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 389), and (3) Motion for Discovery Regarding Harvard Emails (Doc. No. 396). Dated: New York, New York June 4, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Orin Snyder Orin Snyder Alexander H. Southwell Matthew J. Benjamin Amanda M. Aycock GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166-0193 (212) 351-4000 Thomas H. Dupree, Jr. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-8500 Terrance P. Flynn HARRIS BEACH PLLC 726 Exchange Street Suite 1000 Buffalo, NY 14210 (716) 200-5120 Attorneys for Defendants Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc. 17


text:
Spring, 2014 Assignments
Assignment is due on specified date
April 9 (actually, April 8 at 11:59 pm)
Written reports and
team evaluation
Refer to the reports in the course pack to see models.
What they should include: design goals, parts used, circuit modifications, and functionality of the Max patch and Reason rack. Problems encountered and how they were solved (or not); what you would do differently; what you might do if you were to continue to work on the project.
Also include (this will be kept confidential) a summary of which team members, including yourself, did which tasks, and how well they fulfilled their roles. Also include whether you think there were skills underrepresented in your group.
All reports must be written individually, but you may share materials, e.g., photos, screen dumps, diagrams.
March 24
Read: NIME articles: Bardos, Cook, Dannenberg, Funk, Melo, Allen
Sunday, March 9, 11 pm: First project proposal due by email.
Mar 10
Mid-term exam is due at class time.
Read in course pack: Wiimote article
Mar 5
in course pack: "The Wind Cries MIDI"
Read in course pack: "The griDJ MIDI grid system"
Read in course pack: "The Laser Harp"
Read online: http://www.tufts.edu/programs/mma/emid/projectreportsS07/drumpantsfein.doc
Read online: http://www.tufts.edu/programs/mma/emid/projectreportsS05/SchwinnophoneWolinski.doc
Watch these videos:
Do: Go through the Gesture/sensor list posted here and think of sensors for each movement. Fill in the list and e-mail it to the instructor before 9 pm, Sunday March 2.
Lab: Do Max Tutorials: Basics>Encapsulation, Remote Messaging, Timing, Controlling Data Flow; Data>List Processing (it's long!)
Lab: do a more complex Max patch
Read: Tips for Max by Phil Acimovic
Feb 26
Read: article
on variable resistors
Read: Electronics Club article on switches: http://electronicsclub.info/switches.htm
Read: Article on Sharp IR sensors: http://www.acroname.com/robotics/info/articles/sharp/sharp.html
Read: Analog Devices paper on capacitive sensing
Read: Sparkfun catalog on softpots: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8607 and https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8678
Feb 24
Additional assignment!
Create an original Max patch using the MPD or Oxygen keyboard, linked to Reason. Remap notes and controllers as you like in Max.
Additional readings:
Read: sensorsandcircuits.pdf, everybody read through page 10, engineers read to page 24
Read: PowerPoint presentation by Roberto Aimi, sensors4music2008.ppt.htm
Do Max
Tutorials (launch Max, look under Help menu for "Max Tutorials")
Basics: Hello through Keyboard & Mouse input;
MIDI: Basics, Note Management, Parsing
Make sure you don't save over Tutorial patches!! If you want to save your versions of them, use Save As...
Feb 19
Read Lehrman: Report on NIME for SoundOnSound (long version) online
Read Lehrman: Performing Musician NIME 2009 in course pack
Lab: do something with MPD and one or more Reason modules. Save your MPD patch!
No class Monday Feb 17
Feb 12
Lab: Make a Subtractor patch, starting from scratch or from another
patch, that uses the Oxygen controls in an interesting way.
Make an NN19 patch, using samples from Reason's own library or samples from the "sounds" folder inside the "Useful stuff..." folder on the desktop. Or bring in sounds of your own (AIFF, WAV, not MP3) on a flash drive or downloaded from somewhere else.
Note: If you don't have much Reason experience, you might want to connect with Jasper, Ruben, Brian, Chris, or Nate and have them work with you in the lab.
Read on computers: Reason 5 Getting Started , chapter 3—p.28, and Reason 6 Operation manual chapter 29, 32, and 18 (in that order).
Read in course pack: "Sample Solutions"
Feb 10 (Vessela Stoyanova visit)
Read online http://www.tufts.edu/programs/mma/emid/IRCAM/Goldstein.pdf
Feb 3
Read online Tanaka: Sensor-based instruments sections 1-7
Jan 29
Read: "What
Is MIDI" part 3
Read Samchillian article in course pack
Read Synth School in course pack
Jan 27
Make a
table of physical gestures.
There are three columns on the table:
• physical gesture
• a musical gesture in common use that uses that physical gesture (can be more than one, or leave blank if you can't think of any)
• a musical gesture that you can imagine would use that physical gesture (can be more than one)
Include at least three gestures for each of these parts of the body:
Head Mouth Neck & Shoulders Arms
Hands & Fingers Torso & Hips Legs Feet
Template is here.
Save your version as a Word document and email it to the
instructor before
Sunday 9 pm.
Read in course pack:
Profile: Michel Waisvisz
Article "The Outer Limits" - it's long!
Get "What Is MIDI" from the music department main office, Read Parts 1 & 2
Jan 22
Read in
course pack:
• Wilkinson chapters 1 ("Musical Physics" pp 2-5) and 2 "Synthesis" (pp 9-15, up to "Physical Modeling"). Even if you have read this for another class, it's good to review it anyway!
• "Bikes Harps & Yo-Yos " (also on line here [pdf])
• "The Fanciest Washboard…" (also online here)


text:
RDA Microelectronics Announces Pricing Of ADS Offering
SHANGHAI, China, March 28, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- RDA Microelectronics, Inc. (Nasdaq:RDA) (the "Company"), a fabless semiconductor company that designs, develops and markets wireless systems-on-chip and radio-frequency semiconductors for cellular, connectivity and broadcast applications, has announced that the follow-on public offering of an aggregate of 8,350,000 American depositary shares ("ADSs") by the Company and certain selling shareholders was priced at US$9.25 per ADS. Each ADS represents six ordinary shares of the Company. The Company will be selling 100,000 ADSs and the selling shareholders will be selling 8,250,000 ADSs.
The bookrunners of the offering are Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc and Barclays Capital Inc.
A registration statement relating to these securities was declared effective by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 27, 2013. The offering of these securities in the United States will be made by means of a prospectus that contains detailed information about the issuer, which prospectus may be obtained free of charge from EDGAR on the SEC website at www.sec.gov . Alternatively, the Company, any underwriter or any dealer participating in the offering will arrange to send an investor the prospectus if the investor requests it by calling 1-800-221-1037.This notice is not an offer of the securities for sale in the United States of America. This announcement shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of, these securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. The securities referred to herein have not been and will not be registered under the applicable securities laws of any jurisdiction outside of the United States of America.
Select the service that is right for you!COMPARE ALL SERVICES
Action Alerts PLUSTry it NOW
Jim Cramer and Stephanie Link actively manage a real portfolio and reveal their money management tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
- Weekly roundups
TheStreet Quant RatingsTry it NOW
Only $49.95/yr
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
- Upgrade/downgrade alerts
Stocks Under $10Try it NOW
David Peltier, uncovers low dollar stocks with extraordinary upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
- Weekly roundups
Dividend Stock AdvisorTry it NOW
Jim Cramer's protege, David Peltier, identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Alerts when market news affect the portfolio
- Bi-weekly updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Real Money ProTry it NOW
All of Real Money, plus 15 more of Wall Street's sharpest minds delivering actionable trading ideas, a comprehensive look at the market, and fundamental and technical analysis.
Product Features:
- Real Money + Doug Kass Plus 15 more Wall Street Pros
- Intraday commentary & news
- Ultra-actionable trading ideas
Options ProfitsTry it NOW
Our options trading pros provide daily market commentary and over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- 100+ monthly options trading ideas
- Actionable options commentary & news
- Real-time trading community
- Options TV


text:
With enthusiastic local support, exposure at film fests and an Indiegogo fund-raising campaign underway, the documentary film This Living Salish Sea is gaining support and momentum.
Sunshine Coast filmmaker Sarama is working full-time to complete his film which will bring the beauty of and the potential threats to the Salish Sea to the screen for all to see. This is not a commercial film, but a documentary film from the heart to help save the Salish Sea.
Sarama has travelled to the tar sands in Alberta, gone to rallies and meetings on the proposed oil and gas pipelines and thermal coal shipments, interviewed scientists, fishermen and First Nations elders and filmed the life and beauty of the waters of this unique second largest inland sea in North America. He hopes his film will help people become aware of just what there is to lose if large tankers by the hundreds ply the waters off the B.C. coast.
"When I started to work on this film over one and a half years ago, I felt that the single biggest issue that threatened our local environment was the Kinder Morgan tar sands bitumen shipments," he said. "However, the issues have grown alarmingly to include proposed massive increases in thermal coal shipments, LNG exports, large scale waste incineration, new gravel mines and clear cutting forests on local islands. We also face weakened federal environmental laws, federal approval for large increases in salmon feedlot licences, diminished federally sponsored scientific research, and the muzzling of scientists, preventing them from presenting the facts to the public, who have paid for existing research results."
The film preview was first screened on the Sunshine Coast at the Green Film Series this spring. It was picked up recently by both the Salish Sea Film Festival in Seattle and the Halifax Oceans Film Festival. It also has received a boost in social media by being chosen as the Crowdfunding Project of the Week by the Toronto Film Scene magazine.
The filmmaker has spent his own money to make this film, a film he feels must be made. The fundraising Indiegogo campaign is raising funds for production, travel and promotional expenses. The goal is to raise $10,000, and it is 35 per cent funded so far. The final date is set for July 4. You can view the campaign and make a contribution at www.indiegogo.com/projects/this-living-salish-sea
© Coast Reporter


text: Preheat oven to 250°. In casserole dish, blend salt and pepper, sugar (optional), oregano, flour and one crushed beef bouillon cube (optional). Stir in tomato juice, mixing well to combine. Add remaining ingredients. Cover and bake about 4 hours. If using a slow cooker, which also works well for this dish, set your timer for 6 to 8 hours on a medium setting.


text:
Revere Story: A Historic Hotel in Boston
One For the History Books
Inspired by Boston's revolutionary spirit, Revere Hotel Boston Common breathes new life into the space formally inhabited by The Radisson Boston. With Northwood Hospitality at the helm, the property has undergone a theatrical transformation of its own, emerging a completely new and re-imagined luxury hotel.
The vision for Revere Hotel was meticulously orchestrated by world-renowned BBGM Interiors and the hotel's design team. BBGM designers strove to realize the full potential that existed within each space and transform it to embody the character and soul that encompass the Revere brand.
Revere Hotel has developed unique partnerships with a handful of celebrated local brands and organizations. From skoah bath products to uniforms designed by MassArt, the rich flavors of Boston can be found in nearly every facet of our hotel. Learn more about our local partnerships.
As our historic hotel in Boston continues to develop, we anticipate that it will only add to the area's history. If you'd like to come along for the ride as we forge a new path in Boston hospitality, sign up for our newsletter.


text:
»Detroit »Other
|<< Return to Events
|Detroit Caribbean Cultural Festival
For over 20 years, the Caribbean Cultural & Carnival Organization (CCCO) has hosted a Caribbean Cultural Festival & Parade in Metro Detroit. This years festival will be held on August 9- 11, 2013 in the New Center Park, located in Midtown Detroit. This arena will be filled with the sights, sounds & flavors of the Caribbean and an exceptional line up of local and international singers, DJ's and live bands, dance performances, food, art, and presentations. The Caribbean countries being highlighted this year are the Bahamas and St. Kitts-Nevis.
There will be authentic Caribbean foods and drinks for guests to savor the flavor of the region. We will also have vendors from all walks of life selling their colorful and unique wares.
Estimated attendance is 10,000.
Contact: Sophia Chue
Phone: (313) 255-2226
Email: email@example.com
Date: 8/9/2013
New Center Park
2990 W. Grand Blvd.
Time: 6:00pm - 10:00pm
Sponsored by:
Caribbean Cultural & Carnival Organization (CCCO)


text:
Not everything can be as simple and straightforward as Pong. Forget the design and the graphics... we're just talking about the title. Pong. So pure. So unadorned. So onomatopoeic. So easy to pronounce, a child or caveman could do it.
Since then, gaming... and the naming of gaming... has only grown more confusing and complicated. Bad translations, bad marketing and sometimes plain old bad education have created a hobby where only the hardcore can make it through a list of new releases without verbally embarrassing themselves.
But perhaps that's just part of the fun. If that's the case, here are the game titles we've had the most fun slaughtering over the years.
Correct pronunciation: "Fah zan ah doo"
Incorrect pronunciation: "Fax Anna Dew"
The word "Xanadu" has a rich and artistic history. Did you know that it was the name of the ancient Mongolian Empire's capital city? Or that it was the inspiration for English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge's most famous piece of work, Kubla Khan? Did you realize that it was the main character's mansion in one of the greatest films ever made, Citizen Kane?
Of COURSE you didn't. And, even if you did, the children playing videogames back in the late 1980s sure as hell didn't. Labelling your game just Xanadu would have been enough to make their brains hurt. Combining it with the name of the system it appeared on (the Famicom) to form Faxanadu was just cruel. Cute. But cruel.
Above: Those anticipating the magical excitement of office equipment had to make do with daggers and wingboots. Sigh...
ObsessionWithEdgeworth - February 14, 2010 8:44 p.m.
Thantos410 - February 1, 2010 11:31 p.m.
MagicalSarai - October 12, 2009 3:42 p.m.
foarthelulz - December 8, 2008 12:14 a.m.
HypherionWing - September 3, 2008 8:50 p.m.
afrosamurai3838 - November 26, 2008 1:21 a.m.
Gatastrophe - November 25, 2008 1:52 a.m.
kaleb-mayhew - June 25, 2013 9:04 a.m.
Trapped_In_Hiskool - October 4, 2008 2:23 p.m.
theworldonfire - September 10, 2008 3:22 a.m.
Black_X_1111 - August 31, 2008 8:42 p.m.
DoctorGordonFreeman - August 2, 2009 4:04 p.m.
Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.


text:
Photograph of the brickyard run by Herman and Joseph Imdieke, c.1890. From the Fred W. Peterson archival collection, Stearns History Museum, St. Cloud.
Made possible by the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund through the vote of Minnesotans on November 4, 2008. Administered by the Minnesota Historical Society.
Minnesota Historical Society • 345 W. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102-1906 (Map) • 651-259-3000 © .
Send questions or comments to mnopediamnhs [dot] org. View our Privacy Policy.