text:
NBA mock draft 2014 news now includes murmurs about the draft stock for Jabari Parker. In many 2014 NBA mock draft articles during the college basketball season, he was at or near the top for getting selected. Then on Friday night (March 21), Parker struggled and his Duke Blue Devils got upset by the No. 14 seeded Mercer Bears. Suddenly the reality is that he won't be able to showcase his skills in some of the later games.
Parker isn't the only player that has been harmed by the 2014 NCAA Tournament, as Kansas center Joel Embiid hasn't even been able to play yet. He is dealing with a back issue that caused him to miss the first tournament game for the Jayhawks and now it looks like he will miss the third round game against Stanford. It is another instance where a talented freshman isn't going to get the chance to really show what he can do in the tournament.
Marcus Smart of Oklahoma State was also sent packing by the Gonzaga Bulldogs in his first tournament game, meaning three of the top five possible picks in most 2014 NBA mock draft previews aren't playing this weekend. This sets up a stage where other big names have a chance to move up the board and get noticed by scouts trying to figure out exactly what players deserve to get selected early.
Below are some players that have seen their personal stocks go up in the early rounds, which could in turn lead to them moving up in the NBA Lottery this summer. All five could suddenly become mentioned in the top 10 picks, with the possibility that someone like Julius Randle of Kentucky could move into the top five again.
Gary Harris
Michigan State shooting guard Gary Harris had 10 points for the Spartans in their second round 2014 NCAA Tournament game against Delaware. After averaging 17.1 ppg and 4.2 rpg during the regular season, he will look to improve upon that in a third round game against Harvard on March 22.
Julius Randle
Kentucky freshman power forward Julius Randle had a very impressive second round game against Kansas State in the 2014 NCAA Tournament. He had 19 points and 15 rebounds to his credit, thrusting his name on to many headlines around the nation. He will look to continue that tournament success against No. 1 seed Wichita State next.
Zach LaVine
Zach LaVine is a freshman shooting guard from UCLA that wasn't considered to be in the top 10 of many NBA mock drafts until recently. After UCLA dispatched of Tulsa in the second round of the 2014 NCAA Tournament, they get to now play SF Austin for a spot in the Sweet Sixteen and possibly a date with Florida. It's the perfect opportunity for his stock to go even higher if he can post a great game.
Kyle Anderson
UCLA wing player Kyle Anderson posted 8 points, 6 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 steals in a second round NCAA tournament game against Tulsa. He showed many facets to his game and proved that he is a talent that scouts will have to pay close attention to over the weekend. UCLA next plays SF Austin, giving Anderson another chance to shine. If they win that game they advance to play (likely) Florida on the national stage.
Doug McDermott
Doug McDermott of Creighton was a stud in his first game of the 2014 NCAA Tournament. McDermott went for 30 points and 12 rebounds against Louisiana-Lafayette in the second round and will get another chance to shine against Baylor in the third round. The senior forward has been turning a lot of heads and that could continue with more success for Creighton in the tournament.
Suggested Links
- NBA draft order 2014: Celtics, Lakers could pick first in 2014 NBA Draft order
- NBA playoff standings 2014: Atlanta Hawks close to eliminating New York Knicks
- LA Lakers rumors: Kobe Bryant admits Lakers are tanking for 2014 NBA Draft?
- Miami Heat trade: Roger Mason sent to Sacramento Kings through intriguing trade


text:
Glenn Beck CPAC 2010:Glenn Beck CPAC Speech
Glenn Beck CPAC 2010:Glenn Beck CPAC Speech – Glenn Beck CPAC Speech VIDEO and transcript can be found here.FOX's TV presenter Glenn Beck closed CPAC with a very interesting speech with the help of his famous blackboard where he asked that Republicans to look at themselves before judging and pointing fingers at Democrats.The conservative radio host said:
"I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit yet that they have a problem.I haven't seen the Come-To-Jesus moment from Republicans yet.One party will tax and spend.One party won't tax and will spend. It is both of them together.Dick Cheney a couple days ago… says it is going to be a good year for conservative ideas.It is going to be a very good year. But it is not enough just to not suck as much as the other side."
That's all we have for now on Glenn Beck CPAC 2010:Glenn Beck CPAC Speech.
Category: US News
Comments (2)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Man, Glenn Beck is nuts. But he gets people talking. I found a short video that has the highlights of his speech and also features media reaction from the major news outlets. It's cool to kind of contrast how FOX News and MSNBC report a story.
This speech Beck made was awesome. I really enjoyed watching it. Fox News is the only news show that will have him. Even though he would bring in huge ratings on other stations too.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
city, southwestern Dominican Republic, on the Caribbean coast just across from Anse-à-Pitre, Haiti. It was founded in 1915 and serves as a commercial centre for the surrounding agricultural region, which yields principally sugarcane, coffee, corn (maize), and tubers. Bauxite is mined nearby, and
Cape Rojo
Cabo Rojo, just to the southeast,
is a major bauxite-shipping port.
The city
is accessible by secondary highway from Jimaní and Barahona. Pop. (2002) urban area, 10,339
; (2010) urban area, 13,077


text:
UP NEXT FOR THE BRUINS: The No. 2 UCLA men's water polo team (11-2 overall, 4-0 Mountain Pacific Sports Federation) looks to improve upon its four-game conference winning streak when the Bruins face No. 9 Pepperdine (6-7 overall, 2-1 MPSF) in Malibu at the Raleigh Runnels Memorial Pool Saturday Oct. 23 at noon. UCLA will then return home to host No. 6 Pacific (10-6 overall, 1-2 MPSF) at the Sunset Canyon Recreation Center Sunday, Oct. 24 also at noon. UCLA is tied for first in the MPSF with top-ranked USC. Pepperdine is tied for third with Stanford, while Pacific is in sixth place.
LAST WEEKEND'S RECAP: The Bruins cruised to two MPSF wins over California and UC Santa Barbara last weekend. Junior Brian Brown scored a career-high five points, including his third two-pointer of the season, to lead the Bruins in the 8-2 victory over Cal at the Rose Bowl Aquatics Center Saturday. Brown was also valuable on defense, making a team high four steals. Senior Matt Armato, and juniors Dave Parker and Andy Bailey also scored goals for UCLA. Senior goalkeeper Parsa Bonderson made a season high 15 saves and allowed two goals. On Sunday, Armato set the tone early for the Bruins, scoring two goals in each of UCLA's first two possessions. Armato added a third goal while junior Adam Wright scored a pair to lead UCLA to the 9-3 victory over UC Santa Barbara at the Sunset Canyon Recreation Center. Other scorers for the Bruins included Bailey, Brown, junior Sean Kern and redshirt freshman Matt Flesher. True freshman Brandon Brooks made the first start of his collegiate career in goal. Brooks allowed all three Gaucho goals and made two saves and three steals.
PEPPERDINE NOTES: Before meeting the Bruins on Saturday, Pepperdine will host UC San Diego Friday, Oct. 22 at 2 p.m. Last weekend, the Waves posted two conference victories, defeating UC Santa Barbara 9-6 and fourth-ranked Cal 10-4. Sophomore Greg Lonzo leads the Waves with 30 points and was named MPSF Player of the Week for his eight point performance in two games last weekend. The Waves are coached by Terry Schroeder. Pepperdine and UCLA met earlier this season in the first round of the Southern California Tournament, with the Bruins emerging victorious 7-3. UCLA holds the all-time series advantage 46-25-1.
PACIFIC NOTES: Pacific, coached by Courtney Porter, will face Long Beach State Saturday, Oct. 23 for a noon MPSF match at Belmont Plaza before traveling to Westwood Sunday. The Tigers split a pair of matches last weekend, falling to top-ranked USC 11-4 Saturday at home before bouncing back to defeat UC Davis 8-2 Sunday at Davis. This will be the first meeting between the Bruins and Tigers this season, with UCLA holding the all-time series advantage 16-3.
ARMATO ENTERS THE BRUIN RECORD BOOKS: Senior Matt Armato has scored four two-pointers this season, which brings his career total to 11, and breaks the previous career mark of 10 set by Jim Toring (1993-96). Armato continues to lead the Bruins with 26 points.
BRUIN NOTABLES: In addition to Armato, four other Bruins are in double figures for scoring: Kern (22), Wright (21), Brown (18) and Parker (13). Brown holds the team lead in steals (20) and assists (8). The Bruins have yet to score less than six points in a game and have out-scored their opponents 125-73. The Bruins' two losses came to teams that have held No. 1 national rankings this year: Stanford and USC.


text:
on hols with family. Playing FM while travelling etc & obviously no internet access on my laptop.
Day 1, ok, played away. Day 2, steam say no log on details stored on computer. So couldnt play again until got online to log in!
What the freak? Why? I didnt log out! Steam is pants.
Anyway u can play FM if reg with steam without net if i have dvd?


text:
Nov 16, 2009 1:00 PM
The Rusitc Bakery's Tart Cherry, Cacao Nib, and Almond Pan Forte Crostini ($7) was so good we almost don't want to tell anyone about because that means less for us. The toast is crisp and light - the tartness of the cherries compliments the sweet chocolatyness of the nibs and the almonds add their own rich flavor. It tightrope walks the line between sweet and savory so well - you could serve it at a party with a mild cheese or heat it for just a few seconds in the microwave and dip it milk for a perfect cold afternoon treat. Or you can forget you read this and we'll continue to gobble up this divine confection in mass quantities all by ourselves.
If you've got a product or service that you'd like to promote on Outblush, click here to find out about our advertising opportunities.
Outblush is a blog for girls who love to shop. Our staff digs up the best clothes, home stuff, beauty items, and more. New items are posted every day — bookmark us and check out:


text:
Occupational Health and Safety in New Zealand: NOHSAC: Technical Report 7
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
3.3 Legislative framework
Section 3.3 describes New Zealand's legislative framework and discusses a range of issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the framework. It does not review New Zealand's current framework in comparison to international best practice in health and safety legislation.
New Zealand's legislative framework contains three key pieces of legislation that provide for different components of the occupational health and safety framework:
- The HSE Act is the principal Act that aims to prevent injuries, illnesses and accidents in the workplace.
- The HSNO Act covers the management of hazardous substances including their management in the workplace.
- The IPRC Act establishes New Zealand's compensation, rehabilitation and injury prevention system.
Regulations, approved codes of practice (ACOP), industry codes of practice, best practice guidelines, industry publications, and manufacturers' information sit under the statutes and provide for a range of operational details. This structure is outlined in Diagram 1 (see page 24).
In addition to the three main statutes, a further five pieces of primary legislation also impact on occupational health and safety. There are also a small number of sets of regulations that remain in force, although older parent Acts have been revoked. These are discussed in section 3.3.4 of this report.
3.3.1 The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
The HSE Act is the principal Act aimed at preventing injuries, illnesses and accidents in the workplace. It provides a three-tiered framework: statute, regulations and ACOP. Further detail is provided through industry codes, guidelines and other best practice material.
The Department of Labour administers the HSE Act in all workplaces, except on ships and on operating aircraft. On ships, the HSE Act is administered by Maritime New Zealand. On operating aircraft, the Act is administered by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Further information on the administration and enforcement of the Act is discussed in section 3.5 of this report.
22.214.171.124 The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
The HSE Act's objective is to promote the prevention of harm to all persons at work and other persons in, or in the vicinity of, a place of work. The scope of the Act is broad and encompasses elements of public safety by stating that people should not be adversely affected by workplace activities.
The Act establishes a performance-based framework to promote excellence in health and safety management. In particular, it requires that all harms and workplace hazards are identified and managed appropriately and that all practicable steps are taken to ensure health and safety in the workplace. The Act requires employee participation in this process and encourages good faith co-operation in workplaces.
The Act imposes a range of duties on employers, persons who control places of work, persons who sell or supply plant for use in workplaces, self-employed people, principals to contracts, employees, people receiving on-the-job training and volunteers. Frequently a person will have duties under more than one section of the Act (eg, a person may have duties as an employer, as someone who controls the workplace, and/or as a principal to a contract). The same duty may apply to more than one person at a time. This means that more than one person may be held liable for the same breach of the Act.
The HSE Act implements a performance-based regime, but a range of normative standard-setting processes are also provided to assist in compliance with its provisions (eg, provisions for ACOP and standards).
The HSE Act also provides for accident investigations, powers of Department of Labour staff or other enforcement staff, and a range of enforcement measures such as notices, fines and imprisonment. In terms of implementing the HSE Act, provision is made for the Prime Minister to designate specific functions or roles to other agencies if specialist knowledge is required, with these agencies being responsible to the Minister (such as designation of enforcement activities to the CAA and Maritime New Zealand).
220.127.116.11 Regulations made under the HSE Act
Section 21 of the HSE Act enables regulations to be made to outline duties of specific persons in specific circumstances, set minimum standards for the management of hazards where alternative control measures are not always effective, and provide for administrative matters covered in the Act or for additional detail on general duties in the Act.
There are four main groups of regulations made under the HSE Act:
- Regulations covering general workplaces:
- The HSE (Prescribed Matters) Regulations 2003
- The HSE Regulations 1995
- The HSE (Rates of Funding Levy) Regulations 1994
- Regulations for the extractives industry:
- The HSE (Mining-Underground) Regulations 1999
- The HSE (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 1999
- The HSE (Pipelines) Regulations 1999
- The HSE (Mining Administration) Regulations 1996
- Regulations concerning hazardous machinery:
- The HSE (Pressure Equipment, Cranes, and Passenger Ropeways) Regulations 1999
- Regulations concerning hazardous processes:
- The HSE (Asbestos) Regulations 1998.
The HSE Regulations 1995 apply to all workplaces. They:
- require that facilities be provided to ensure the health and safety of people in the workplace, including clean water and suitable, clean facilities
- require that hazards such as noise, machinery, spills and heights be managed
- require that certain kinds of workers such as divers, power-actuated tool holders and scaffolding operators hold certificates of competence
- include specific provisions on the employment of people aged under 15 years
- require employers to ensure that agricultural workers' accommodation meets certain criteria regardless of whether it is supplied by the employer or the employee
- outline the duties of designers of plant, protective equipment and clothing.
126.96.36.199 Approved codes of practice: the HSE Act
Section 20 of the Act enables the Minister of Labour to direct the Department of Labour to prepare, and submit for the Minister's approval, a statement of preferred practices, aims, arrangements, principles, characteristics, components, configurations, elements or states relating to work, plant, protective clothing or protective equipment, substances or practices relating to a particular health and safety issue. Such statements are approved by the Minister and become ACOP.
Compliance with an HSE ACOP is not mandatory but it can be used as evidence of good practice. However, complying with an ACOP may not be sufficient to meet a duty holder's requirement to take all practicable steps (depending on the circumstances).
Process used to develop and maintain an HSE ACOP
Section 20 of the HSE Act outlines the process that the Department of Labour must follow when developing or updating an ACOP. The Act requires that:
- the Department of Labour seek approval to draft an ACOP from the Minister of Labour
- the Minister of Labour consult all affected parties
- the decision to approve the ACOP be published in the New Zealand Gazette.
The Department does not appear to have a standardised process for identifying ACOP topics under the HSE Act, nor for reviewing and updating existing ACOP. Discussions with stakeholders perceive this as being due to internal resourcing issues at the Department.
Current HSE ACOP
There are currently 30 HSE ACOP. Table 5 identifies the range of HSE ACOP by industry and identifies whether a code has been reviewed. In summary, five HSE ACOP have been reviewed recently including two ACOP that have been reviewed multiple times, 11 HSE ACOP are currently undergoing review or have been scheduled for review, and 14 HSE ACOP have never been reviewed. It is unclear whether this indicates that the ACOP is considered to currently contain relevant best practice information and has been judged as not requiring review or whether review has not been contemplated.
|ACOP for safety and health in tree work – Part 1 (Arboriculture)
|Under review
|ACOP for safety and health in tree work – Part 2
(Maintenance of trees around power lines)
|Under review
|ACOP for safety and health in tree work – Part 3 (River and stream operations)
|Not stated
|ACOP for forest operations – Part 5 (Timber stacking, packeting
and transportation)
|Under review
|ACOP for safety and health in forest operations
|1999 Reviewed: 2005
|Not stated
|ACOP for helicopter logging
|Not stated
|Industrial processes
|ACOP for safety in photoengraving and lithographic processes
|Not stated
|ACOP for the prevention, detection and control of fire and explosion
in New Zealand dairy industry spray drying plant
|Not stated
|ACOP for the design, safe operation, maintenance and servicing of boilers
| 1996 Reviewed: 2000
|ACOP for roll over protective structures on tractors in agricultural operations
|2001 Reviewed: 2004
|Under review
|ACOP for the design, manufacture, supply, safe operation, maintenance
and inspection of cranes
|Under review
|ACOP for training operators and instructors of powered industrial forklifts
|Under review
|ACOP for passenger ropeways in New Zealand
|1998 Reviewed: 2003
|Not stated
|ACOP for pressure equipment (excluding boilers)
|Not stated
|ACOP for load-lifting rigging
|Not stated
|ACOP for power-operated elevating work platforms
|Construction and building maintenance
|ACOP for demolition
|May be 2006
|ACOP for excavation and shafts for foundations
|Not stated
|ACOP for managing hazards to prevent major industrial accidents
|Not stated
|ACOP for operator protective structures on self-propelled mobile
mechanical plant
|Under review
|ACOP for power-actuated hand-held fastening tools
| Under review
|ACOP for the safe erection and use of scaffolding
| Under review
|ACOP for the safe handling, transportation and erection of pre-cast concrete
|Not stated
|ACOP for the prevention of sulphur fires and explosions
|Not stated
|ACOP for the management of substances hazardous to health in the
place of work
|Under review
|ACOP for the safe use of timber preservatives and anti-sapstain chemicals
|Not stated
|ACOP for safety and health in the manufacture of paint, printing inks
and resins
|Not stated
|ACOP for the safe use of isocyanates
|Not stated
|ACOP for the safe use of visual display units in the place of work
|Under review
|1996 Reviewed: 2002
|Not stated
Source: This information was sourced from an internal Department of Labour paper.
3.3.2 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
Many workplaces manufacture, transport, use and dispose of hazardous substances. The HSNO Act is a critical part of New Zealand's framework to ensure that people in workplaces are not harmed by exposure to any such substances. The legislative framework set out by the HSNO Act is similar to that provided for by the HSE Act, in that there is a principal Act (the HSNO Act), a suite of regulations made under the principal Act, and ACOP and approved guidelines.
The Ministry for the Environment administers the HSNO Act, although the Act charges the Environmental Risk Management Authority with many functions. Responsibility for enforcing the HSNO Act falls to the following agencies:
- The Department of Labour (in respect of workplaces)
- The Ministry of Economic Development (in respect of gas installations)
- The New Zealand Police (in respect of motor vehicles and railways)
- The Civil Aviation Authority (in respect of aircraft and aerodromes)
- Maritime New Zealand (in respect of ships)
- The Ministry of Health (in respect of protecting the public health)
- Territorial authorities (in respect of all other locations).
The operationalisation of the HSNO enforcement function is discussed in section 3.5.
184.108.40.206 The HSNO Act
The HSNO Act aims to prevent, mitigate or otherwise manage the adverse effects that hazardous substances and new organisms pose to the health and safety of people, by managing the substance throughout its life cycle. The Act provides a framework to assess and approve hazardous substances and new organisms. It sets out controls on hazardous substances and new organisms and requires applications to be made for their introduction and management. The Authority (through its operational arm, ERMA New Zealand) may either decline or set controls on the import, manufacture and use of hazardous substances and new organisms. The Act also provides for the appointment of warranted enforcement officers.
The HSNO Act reformed the way that hazardous substances are dealt with in New Zealand. As part of the consolidation process, all existing hazardous substances are in the process of being transferred from the multiple-legislation regime to the "One Act, One Authority" regime set out in the HSNO Act. This process is ongoing at the time of the publication of this report.
220.127.116.11 Regulations
Section 140 of the HSNO Act provides for regulations to be made to support the implementation of the Act. The most relevant regulations are general sets of regulations that outline the skills and knowledge required to hold office under the HSNO Act, and regulations that classify hazardous substances and set out control mechanisms that must be applied when dealing with these. Other sets of regulations relate to the information requirements that must be used (ie, labelling, packaging, signage, advertising, documentation and tracking requirements).
188.8.131.52 Approved codes of practice: the HSNO Act
Section 78 of the HSNO Act enables ERMA New Zealand to issue, amend, approve or revoke an ACOP on the control of a hazardous substance. This section also gives ERMA New Zealand the ability to approve codes of practice developed by other people if it considers these to be acceptable (eg, ACOP developed under the HSE Act can be recognised under the HSNO Act). Section 79 sets out the consultation and notification process that must be undertaken as part of the approval process. Like the HSE ACOP, HSNO ACOP provide a mechanism to assist people to achieve compliance with the controls set out in the legislation.
Development and review process
ERMA New Zealand has a well-documented process for developing and approving HSNO ACOP.[14] This process involves the following steps:
- Identify a need for an ACOP under the HSNO Act.
- Prioritisation of need (against identified criteria) including a determination of whether an ACOP or industry code of practice is currently available and whether it meets the established criteria for acceptability.
- Determine whether ERMA New Zealand or industry is best positioned to develop and fund a draft ACOP
- Drafting of new documents.
- Ensure the draft ACOP meets all relevant performance standards.
- Approve the document (including undertaking all of the requirements set out in section 79 of the Act).
It is important to note that ACOP approved under the HSNO Act may be developed by any party and presented to ERMA New Zealand for approval. This is a significant difference from the HSE ACOP regime, which requires the Minister of Labour to direct development. This may affect the length of time taken to develop ACOP under the HSNO Act compared to those developed under the HSE Act.
Current HSNO ACOP
To date, ERMA has approved four ACOP: the Exempt Laboratories Code of Practice (June 2004), Signage for Premises Storing Hazardous Substances (September 2004); Management of Agrichemicals (September 2004); and Code of Practice for Thermoplastic Stationary Tanks (December 2005).
ERMA New Zealand notes that there are an additional 13 planned ACOP currently under development, but it is possible that a larger number are under development by industry of which ERMA New Zealand is unaware.[xxiii] Four of these codes have been submitted to ERMA New Zealand for its final approval. The remaining codes are completing the drafting and consultation process. ERMA New Zealand has also approved two guidelines on the control of hazardous substances.
3.3.3 The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001
The IPRC Act sets out New Zealand's injury prevention, compensation and rehabilitation framework. The legislative framework consists of a principal Act, with regulations providing the operational detail required for the system to function. The IPRC Act is administered by ACC.
126.96.36.199 The IPRC Act
The IPRC Act aims to provide a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury, including harm that is caused by exposure to various hazards in a workplace. It provides a strong focus on rehabilitation of injured or ill persons and on ensuring fair compensation for claimants who have experienced loss from injury or disease.
The Act provides for:
- a no-fault insurance scheme covering personal injuries occurring in New Zealand after 1 April 2002
- a clear definition of what personal injury includes and excludes
- a mandate for ACC to minimise the overall incidence of injury in the community and the impact of injury on the community
- processes regarding prevention, compensation and rehabilitation including entitlements, the decision-making process, disputes resolution and rights
- specific roles and obligations of employers, the ACC and the claimant in relation to each of the different kinds of entitlements
- the overall funding and ongoing management of the ACC scheme including the operation of a range of incentives schemes
- the ongoing management of injury-related data including the provision of information to the Department of Labour.
The operational details of the work-related prevention, compensation and rehabilitation scheme are discussed in section 3.6 of this report. Injury data information management is discussed in section 5.2.
22.214.171.124 Regulations made under the IPRC Act
The IPRC Act provides for the enactment of a range of regulations on the funding mechanisms for the ACC scheme, entitlement and compensation payment, services, and reviews and appeals. Regulations made include those outlining the funding mechanisms for the ACC scheme, those governing entitlement and compensation payments, those relating to services, and regulations providing for review and appeal mechanisms.
3.3.4 Other pieces of legislation
126.96.36.199 Statutes
In addition to the three key pieces of legislation, other pieces of legislation that can impact on occupational health and safety are:
- the Gas Act 1992, which provides for the supply and use of fuel gases including ensuring the safety and quality of fuel gases and requires the notification and investigation of accidents involving gas (which could occur in the workplace)
- the Electricity Act 1992, which provides for the regulation and supply of electricity and requires the notification and investigation of accidents involving electricity (which could occur in the workplace)
- the Smokefree Environments Act 1990, which prohibits smoking in the workplace and requires employers to take all practicable steps to ensure that no person smokes in a workplace at any time (with a few exceptions)
- the Radiation Protection Act 1965, which regulates the use of ionising radiation
- the Health Act 1956, which requires the notification of certain diseases and conditions which could have a work-related cause.
The Health Act and the Electricity Act are currently under review.
The transport sector is governed by both the main pieces of health and safety legislation and detailed, industry-specific rules. For example, the HSE and HSNO Acts place general duties on people in the aviation industry. Rules made under the Civil Aviation Act 1990 (such as the rules on the carriage of dangerous goods) place specific requirements on the aviation industry regarding the carriage of goods.
220.127.116.11 Regulations
Section 24 of the HSE Act provides for the retention of seven sets of regulations made under other Acts that it repealed. These provide for health and safety practices in specific situations. These sets of regulations are:
- the Factories and Commercial Premises (First Aid) Regulations 1985, which set out the minimum requirements for first aid training and facilities
- the Amusement Devices Regulations 1978, which set out a system for the registration and inspection of amusement devices like ferris wheels and roller coasters
- the Spray Coating Regulations 1962, which set out the circumstances in which products can be sprayed in factories
- the Geothermal Energy Regulations 1961, which set out provisions to be followed when boring for and using geothermal energy
- the Abrasive Blasting Regulations 1958, which set out the health and safety requirements to be followed when undertaking abrasive blasting in factories
- the Noxious Substances Regulations 1954, which set out the requirements to be followed when handling noxious substances (as defined by Schedule 3)
- the Electroplating Regulations 1950, which set out the health and safety requirements to be followed when electroplating
- the Lead Processing Regulations 1950, which set out processes to control lead processing in a factory or a workshop.
The majority of these regulations are administered by the Ministry of Health.
3.3.5 Standards, guidelines and best practice documents
The performance-focused approach provided for in the HSE and the HSNO Acts means that those with duties under these Acts do not have to meet specific standards but are required to take all practicable steps to fulfil their duties (in the case of the HSE Act). In order to assist duty holders to know how to best undertake these steps, a range of standards, guidelines, industry codes of practice and best practice documents are available. These help to determine what an acceptable means of compliance is. The development of these documents tends to be collaborative, with input from a range of stakeholders. Often, if a collaborative process has been followed, a high level of buy-in can be achieved. Funding for developing standards, industry codes of practice and best practice documents comes from a range of sources, including the State, joint government and industry-funded documents, or pure industry-funded documents. There are, however, too many documents in each of these categories to list individual titles.
3.3.6 Stakeholder comments about the legislative framework
Stakeholders provided many comments about the legislative framework, including broad comments about the implementation of the legislative framework and very specific comments on certain amendments that could be made to particular legislation. This section discusses these comments.
220.127.116.11 Stakeholder comments about the HSE Act
All sectors supported the direction set by the HSE Act; however, issues were raised in respect of certain specific provisions of the Act. A brief description of the issues raised is provided in this section.
More significant concerns focused on the implementation of the legislative framework (eg, the issues caused by moving from a prescriptive framework to an enabling framework and compliance costs). This is discussed in section 3.5.9.
Specific issues identified in respect of the provisions of the HSE Act
Stakeholders raised the following issues about specific provisions of the HSE Act:
- The need to revise the definition of "serious harm"[xxiv]
- The ability of employers to indemnify against reparation payments[xxv]
- The lack of provision for multi-employer workplaces[xxvi ]
- Insufficient provision for duties of design teams[xxvii]
- The enabling, performance-based approach provided in the HSE Act.
- (a) Definition of serious harm[xxviii]
Stakeholders were concerned that the current definition lacks clarity on the thresholds for serious harm, is inconsistent with the definition of "harm", and introduces an inconsistency between the HSE Act's definition of harm and the breadth of the harm provided for under the IPRC Act's definition of work-related personal injury [section 28 of the IPRC Act refers] and under the Electricity Act 1992 [section 16 refers].
Review of the definition of serious harm is identified as an action in the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy [section 1a(4) refers] and is included as upcoming on the Department of Labour's work programme.[4]
- (b Indemnity against reparation payments
Stakeholders raised concerns about the ability for employers to indemnify against reparation payments handed down for breaching the Act. Currently, it is unlawful to indemnify against fines handed down under the HSE Act but indemnity can be provided for reparations.
The Department of Labour is aware of the reparation indemnity issue.
- (c) Multi-employer workplaces
Multi-employer sites are workplaces in which two or more employers operate (eg, a construction site). Different employers may have varying health and safety protocols but the HSE Act includes no requirement for these protocols to be co-ordinated. It is possible that conflicting protocols could be applied at a workplace or that people in that workplace are uncertain of which protocol to follow, leading to confusion and possibly decreased health and safety.
- (d) Insufficient provision for duties of design teams
Stakeholders considered that there is limited inclusion of specific duties for members of design teams (eg, architects, engineers, designers, etc.) in ensuring health and safety.
The project team notes that Part Seven of the HSE Regulations 1995 imposes specific duties on designers, manufacturers and suppliers, although these duties appear to be restricted to designers, manufacturers and suppliers of plant and protective clothing and equipment.
- (e) The enabling, performance-based approach provided in the Act
The enabling rather than prescriptive focus of the HSE Act was favoured by the industry and employer stakeholders that commented on this issue. However, stakeholders noted that a considerable level of prescription is required for this model to work in practice, especially in terms of ensuring that employers have a sufficient level of information about health and safety requirements.
Other stakeholders identified that confusion extends to the concept of "all practicable steps" where there is scope for different definitions and minimum standards to apply.
Issues regarding the HSE Regulations 1995
Three stakeholders commented that there is a need to review the HSE Regulations to ensure that the regulations assist in the administration of the Act and clarify certain duties.
Three specific issues were raised:
- Clause 11 (Noise) is not up-to-date and makes no reference to the approved code of practice for the management of noise in the workplace.[xxix]
- Part Six of the HSE Regulations requires employers of agricultural workers to ensure that they take all practicable steps to ensure that their accommodation is sufficient regardless of whether this accommodation is provided by the employer or the employee. Concern centred on whether it is practical to require an employer to review a worker's accommodation if it is not provided by the employer (for example, an employee could choose to rent accommodation from a third party, a transaction that would have little to do with the employer).[xxx]
- The certificate of competence regime is considered to be unworkable because of the heavy administrative burden the regime places on the Department of Labour, the lack of consistency across equally hazardous activities, and the political difficulties of suspending certificates of competence when this would remove the livelihood of the holder.[xxxi]
The project team notes that reviewing the HSE Regulations is identified as an action in the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy Action Plan [1a(4) refers].
Issues regarding the HSE approved codes of practice
All sectors raised concerns that some of the HSE ACOP are out-of-date, are inconsistent with the wider legislative framework, or are not consistent with current best practice and, if used, could result in negative health and safety outcomes.[xxxii] One health professional body noted that ACOP can include complicated language and that they can be inaccessible.
Stakeholders also raised concerns about the process employed by the Department of Labour to develop and review ACOP. They expressed the view that the process is bureaucratic, time-consuming and potentially costly. Five stakeholders further commented that the Department of Labour did not appear to prioritise or provide sufficient budget for the review and amendment of ACOP.
Two industry stakeholders considered that it was useful to have a recommended best practice approach endorsed by the government. Twelve stakeholders supported industry-developed codes of practice.[xxxiii ]
Stakeholders did not identify any topics that may require an ACOP to be developed.
18.104.22.168 Stakeholder comments about the HSNO Act
Most of the comments received on the HSNO framework were received from stakeholders with an interest in the control and management of hazardous substances. The most common comment made was that the HSNO framework is very complex, although this did not appear to signify whether stakeholders supported the current HSNO framework or not.[xxxiv] One government stakeholder noted that the workability of the framework should be smoother following the passing of the HSNO (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Act 2005.
18.104.22.168 Stakeholder comments about the IPRC Act
Three stakeholders[xxxv] considered that the no-fault focus provided by the ACC system could contribute to lax attitudes toward occupational health and safety because the government meets the cost of addressing personal injury.
Stakeholders made no comments about the scope or content of the IPRC Act. However, significant comment was made about the operation of the incentive programmes provided for in the Act and about inter-agency collaboration. These issues are discussed in sections 3.9 and 5.1.
18.104.22.168 Stakeholder comments about other pieces of legislation
Four stakeholders[xxxvi] noted that many of the older regulations need to be reviewed to ensure that they remain relevant and reflect technological advances, and to ensure that there is no overlap between the provisions of these regulations and those provided for under the HSE or HSNO Acts. The project team is aware that work is underway to review the older regulations.
Three government agency stakeholders noted that the differences between the application of the transport-specific rules and the main occupational health and safety legislation could be confusing for the industry; however, the stakeholders appeared to be satisfied with the flexibility offered by the ability to take prosecutions under either piece of legislation.
3.3.7 Conclusions
Overall, New Zealand's legislative framework provides a sound basis for managing occupational health and safety, particularly because of the consolidated approach taken during the recent reforms of legislation in this area.
18.104.22.168 Content of the Acts and the supporting legislation
A number of specific issues arise in regard to the content of each of the three main Acts (the HSE Act, the HSNO Act and the IPRC Act). Some of these appear to be relatively minor (such as the provisions for agricultural accommodation). Other issues, such as the definition of serious harm, are more significant.
Action 1a(4) of the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy outlines a process for continuous improvement of the legislative and administrative framework. This issue is also identified by the Department of Labour as part of its work programme.[4] Included in this work programme is the development, review and alignment of the legislative instruments discussed in the present report.
The development of ACOP and other material under the HSE and HSNO Acts is vital to provide the level of detail required if the performance-based framework is to operate in the correct way, and to ensure that duty holders under these Acts have access to the right information to enable compliance. The issues raised by stakeholders about the development of this material indicate that additional focus may be required here. For example, three HSE ACOP require review which has not been scheduled: the ACOP for demolition; the ACOP for managing hazards to prevent major industrial accidents (which does not reflect current technology); and the ACOP for the prevention, detection, and control of fire and explosion in New Zealand dairy industry spray drying plant (which makes reference to outdated standards and has been superseded by an industry-developed code of practice).
188.8.131.52 Interface between the three main Acts
The HSE and HSNO Acts are generally consistent in terms of principle, and no major inconsistencies in their content were identified. However, there are some differences in the level of prescription provided for across these two Acts. For example, the HSE Act requires that duty holders take all practicable steps to ensure harm does not occur. Relatively little information on how to achieve this across all workplaces is provided (although considerable prescription still applies to some specific activities under the older regulations). The HSNO Act, however, includes lots of prescription in its framework (eg, in relation to labelling, packaging documentation etc.).
There are also interface issues regarding the ACOP made under the HSE Act and those provided for in the HSNO Act: there is no mechanism available under the HSE Act to enable an ACOP approved under the HSNO Act, although such a mechanism is provided through the HSNO Act. This means that there are some areas of duplication across the ACOP (eg, between the HSE ACOP for the management of substances hazardous to health in the place of work and the HSNO ACOP: Management of agrichemicals). Having two documents effectively covering very similar topics creates additional compliance issues for workplaces and an additional administrative burden for government agencies. In such instances, there may be opportunities for stakeholders to seek to co-ordinate development (including the possible pooling of resources) to ensure that ACOP can meet the needs of both Acts rather than having two separate documents.
188.8.131.52 The enabling, performance-based approach
The enabling approach provided for under the HSE and HSNO Acts implemented a different way of thinking about health and safety in New Zealand. Previously, compliance had been driven by meeting a particular standard or technical requirement. The new approach provides for a more flexible regime that enables the prevention of work-related harm; however, it is necessary to ensure that a suitable range of material detailing approved means of complying with the provisions of the Acts is available to duty holders.
The implementation issues associated with a performance-based regime are discussed in section 3.5.10.


text:
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Federal regulators have ruled in favor of Northwest wind-power generators who objected to being ordered to shut down at nights and on weekends this spring when the Columbia River basin was brimming with water and federal hydropower dams were running flat out.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in a decision Wednesday that the Bonneville Power Administration must come up with new rules that don't discriminate against the wind generators.
Many of them are utility company subsidiaries that participated in a wind farm boom in recent years encouraged by state and federal incentives.
Bonneville manages much of the electrical transmission in the Northwest.


text:
The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
Academic Paper
|Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing
|John N. Williams
|Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics University of Cambridge
|Linguistic Field:
|Semantics; Syntax
|Subject Language:
|The degree to which native and non-native readers interpret English sentences incrementally was investigated by examining plausibility effects on reanalysis processes. Experiment 1 required participants to read sentences word by word and to make on-line plausibility judgements. The results showed that natives and non-natives immediately computed the plausibility of the preferred structural analysis, which then affected ease of reanalysis. Experiment 2 required participants to read the same sentences word by word in order to perform a memory task. The natives showed a similar pattern of results to Experiment 1, whereas for the non-natives plausibility effects were delayed. However, the non-natives still appeared to be performing immediate syntactic reanalysis. It is concluded that syntactic processing was person- and task-independent, whereas the incrementality of interpretation was more dependent on task demands for the non-natives than for the natives.
This article appears IN Bilingualism: Language and Cognition Vol. 9, Issue 1, which you can READ on Cambridge's site or on LINGUIST .
Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page


text:
BASEBALL: INSIDE BASEBALL; An Audience for 31 Years of Fulminations
By MURRAY CHASS
Published: February 23, 2003
Updating the age-old question about a tree falling in the forest, if no one ever listened to or quoted George Steinbrenner on his critical comments about his players, would anyone miss them?
In his 31st year in Major League Baseball, Steinbrenner has commanded everyone's attention this winter by resurrecting a tactic he employed regularly before the Yankees ran off four World Series championships in five years. He has singled out one of the Yankees' star players for criticism.
This is not a new act. Derek Jeter is not the first player who cashes Steinbrenner's hefty paychecks to feel the sting of the owner's public barbs. But winning had deprived Steinbrenner of a target for his act as Phineas T. Bluster. Hence, the overreaction to his Jeter jaunt.
It is something like this era's hitters. They have grown up without pitchers throwing inside to them and are therefore unaccustomed to those pitches, so when the exception to the rule fires a high hard one, or even a middle hard one, the batter takes offense and instantly lashes out at the pitcher by screaming at him or charging the mound.
Jeter has had a charmed career, playing shortstop for the Yankees only during their current championship era. He is too young to have experienced the verbal abuse Steinbrenner heaped upon his predecessors, Reggie Jackson, for example, in 1981, and Dave Winfield throughout his nine years in New York.
Not that they and their fellow targets refrained from reacting to Steinbrenner's criticism, but when they did, they were in the early stages of his practice. In 2003, this Steinbrenner shtick is old. It should be ignored.
If Steinbrenner, the Yankees' principal owner, saw that his attacks were disappearing into a verbal void, he might abandon them and develop a new act. The problem is, players won't ignore his comments because they gain widespread dissemination.
This veteran of the Steinbrenner era knows that the news media find him and his comments irresistible. One obscure moment from Steinbrenner's Yankees history is telling.
On Dec. 6, 1983, baseball executives and owners were gathered in Nashville at the winter meetings. Steinbrenner wasn't there yet, but his arrival was eagerly anticipated.
Billy Martin was the reason. Uncharacteristically, Steinbrenner had procrastinated about Martin's managerial future, and the baseball world was waiting to learn what he would do. Speculation was rampant that Yogi Berra would replace Martin. If it happened, it would be Martin's third departure as the Yankees manager in less than six years.
Word of the estimated time of Steinbrenner's arrival spread throughout the press corps, whose members began massing in the lobby well before he was expected to walk through the revolving door of the Opryland Hotel.
Given Steinbrenner's routine, it was virtually certain that he would say nothing about his manager when he arrived. Yet no one left the lobby.
The plane was delayed, but the large group of reporters waited and waited and waited. Nothing was going to budge them. They waited this long; they would wait longer. Finally, shortly before 10 p.m., Steinbrenner walked through the revolving door. He went to the desk to get a key to his room -- he had been checked in -- and as soon as he turned to walk away from the desk, he was mobbed. Without pausing for even an instant, he walked through the crowd and said: ''I'm not going to have anything to say. I'm too tired. I've had a rough day.''
Nothing would have been lost then if no one had waited for Steinbrenner, and nothing would be lost now if no one listened to Steinbrenner's criticism of his players.
Jeter initially said he would not respond to the owner's remarks, then changed his mind. He responded first nationally to The Associated Press, then held a news conference on Monday.
Not everyone has been overcome by the Steinbrenner-Jeter exchange, hanging on their every word.
''It's crazy,'' a longtime Yankees fan said. ''It's nothing. It's a nonstory.''
But plenty of people are still listening.
Hollow Words of Confidence
As long as people are paying attention to George Steinbrenner, on the other hand, they should note what he said about Joe Torre's job as manager: ''He's as safe as any manager in baseball.''
Now that statement should make Torre feel pretty good, right? Well, maybe not as good as his three-year, $16 million contract -- he's in the second year. But since the manager likes his job, he should welcome Steinbrenner's words. On the other hand, recall these famous last words uttered by Steinbrenner.
Speaking about Bob Lemon before the 1982 season: ''There will be no change this year. I wouldn't care how the team is doing.''
Lemon was fired 14 games into the season.
Speaking about Yogi Berra before the 1985 season: ''Yogi will be the manager this year. I said the same thing last year; I'm saying it again this year. A bad start will not affect Yogi's status.''
Berra was fired 16 games into the season.
Umpires vs. Computers
In one of a series of meetings today, umpires will have a briefing on the results of a study made by their lawyers and independent scientists of the QuesTec computerized system by which baseball says it will evaluate umpires and their ball-and-strike calls. The umpires intend to fight that plan.


text:
Andrew Graham
Patent Portfolio Manager
- Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
- Phone: 206-221-2969
Andrew manages all aspects of patent prosecution for electrical and mechanical engineering related technologies. As a member of the Center for Commercialization (C4C) team, Andrew works closely with UW researchers, C4C technology and licensing managers, and outside counsel to obtain thorough, well-crafted patent protection for UW inventions. Prior to joining C4C, Andrew gained perspective and experience in patent prosecution as both a patent examiner at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office as well as a scientific advisor at a boutique intellectual property law firm. At the USPTO, Andrew's patent examination involved numerous audio-related technologies, including loudspeaker and microphone design, as well as various signal processing arrangements. Andrew is a registered patent agent and holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Yale University. Away from the office, Andrew enjoys different outdoor pursuits that the Pacific Northwest has to offer, and is particularly experienced as a long distance backpacker.


text:
Join or Sign In
I enjoy doing just about any kind of craft. Ceramics, crocheting, knitting, cross stitching, sewing and quilting. Most were self taught. I have taken hand quilting classes in the past. After trying to machine quilt on my own, I found that was not as easy as it looks! I have learned so much doing Amy's class. I can't wait to do another!
Showing 1 - 24 of 75 saved projects
Malcom the Monkey ...
Sandra in CA
Asian panel for Pat
Mary F J
Wasatch Mountain ...
Dreamweaver block
BOM February
February Quilt ...
Next UFO'S to be ...
March BOM
BOM through March
April and May BOM
June BOM
BOM July
Pam NZ
July BOM
August BOM
BOM August block 1
New York Beauty ...
Barbara Hughes
September BOM
Sewing Fanatic
Foundation Pieced ...
BOM - October Block ...
Take Craftsy with you!
Craftsy Apps for iOS and Android. Read more »