text:
Which do you like best: the satisfying, rich taste of principle in free software? Or do you prefer the less morally filling and pragmatic goodness of open source? Do you wish people would stop endlessly rehashing the whole question of "free" versus "open source?" Or do you enjoy the chance to talk about goals and philosophy? As you might suspect, since I'm bringing it up...
...I like to talk about it. Is it too soon, though, following the lengthy debate stirred up by the recent "What should we call it?" FSM poll? Too dividing? Pointless? Do I ask a lot of questions?
Let's turn to our lodestar, Richard Stallman, for some answers. What's that, you say? "That RMS guy is the cause of all the trouble! He's a divider, not a uniter!" I disagree. Emphatically. In reading Richard's essays and listening to his speeches, I see and hear a very consistent and reasonable message: That freedom should come first.
Here's the canonical essay on the subject from the GNU philosophy rack: Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'. To me, it lays things out very clearly. Among other things, RMS writes:
We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.
That doesn't sound like someone who wants to drive a big wedge between the camps. Although first you might ask if we should say that there are separate camps. Isn't that part of the problem with that kind of language? Aren't we all talking about the same thing, and by constantly harping on the subject, isn't he creating a division where none should exist? I don't think so. Some people may use the terms interchangeably and they may understand the essential freedom that is at stake, but not all.
And I think there is a definite philosophical difference that is demonstrated by current events. There is danger that we might lose ground if people don't value freedom. And! It doesn't seem like harping to me when it is in support of principles. What are we trying to achieve? For those interested in freedom first, it makes sense to highlight the philosophy as much as possible.
I think it's absolutely necessary to be clear on the philosophy, as shown in the GPLv3 discussion. First, let's take a look at a question from a Forbes.com interview with RMS published earlier this year:
Forbes.com: Members of the open source camp tend to describe themselves using words like "pragmatic" and "realistic," while describing the free software camp as being driven by "ideology." Do you think that's a fair description?. Stallman: We in the free software movement are generally as pragmatic and realistic as anyone, in pursuit of our goals. Our methods have been rather effective, as [evidenced by] what we have achieved. Where we differ from the proponents of open source is in what those goals are. The open source viewpoint cites only practical-convenience goals, such as making software powerful and reliable. Our primary goals are freedom and community. We appreciate convenience too, of course, but we do not put that above freedom.. To win freedom for the long term, it is crucial for people to value freedom. If we could hand everyone free software for all jobs today, they would have freedom tomorrow (at least in the use of their computers). But would they still have freedom in five years? If they do not learn to value freedom, they will probably let it slip away. Thus, while the open source camp's strategy of getting corporations interested in releasing free software has contributed important free programs to our community, that approach alone cannot assure our freedom in the long term. Only talking about freedom can do that..
It's similar to what is covered in the GNU essay, but it highlights even more clearly the issue for me, and reinforces the desire to keep talking about this. If people don't value freedom, they won't stand up for it. And look what we have going on today with the GPLv3 debate: some people are upset about the anti-DRM clause and what effect it might have. (Disclaimer: I'm not following the debate closely. Instead I trust the Free Software Foundation to promote our interests in freedom.)
With the anti-DRM clause, we're seeing some heated discussions about how corporations will be affected and how they might respond. There are some who talk about the millions and billions of dollars that companies have riding on "open source" software and that there is too much at stake to be letting the "radical" FSF make all these "anti-commercial" decisions.
Some of these people are philosophically against all free software, but seeing that they're losing ground in the battle, have chosen to stake themselves to the old license and try to cause dissension by crying foul at the new provisions.
Other people may believe in free software, more or less, but they've taken the more practical view of the open source philosophy. They may appreciate the contributions of the GNU project, but are afraid its leader, RMS, will be too unpalatable to their new corporate masters. They may even agree that DRM is a bad thing, but they are more worried about losing business credibility and the support of corporations. Their desire for open source to prosper is stronger than their belief in freedom, and they may be more likely to want to try an appeasement strategy.
No way. Let's not do this. Let's not get off the freedom train so soon. The Free Software Foundation has been nurturing this vision along for so many years, and a little commercial success doesn't change the ultimate goal. I'm unable to articulate very well what I see as the problem here: that this vision of free software and a free society has grown steadily for so many years, but because we've gone through a spurt of rapid growth thanks to corporations realizing one aspect of the value of free software (its low cost and power), suddenly people want to say the FSF's approach is no longer relevant. That they're clinging to some outmoded and unrealistic ideal. Bah. Let's keep talking about it, and try to help people understand what the true goal is. One more time, where Mr. Stallman says it better than me:
Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term "free software'' in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they bring--please join us in using the term "free software''.
And that's why I use and promote the term, Free Software.
Afterword I: On Corporations
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying corporations are evil. Most of us earn our paychecks doing honest work for them. They are us. Doing business through corporations is largely how we've chosen to organize our economic activity. But by necessity, they often look at the present and the future very narrowly; unable to see the benefit of disruption. Free software is very disruptive and therefore threatening to established businesses. That's why I think the Free Software Foundation is right to discount business considerations in furthering the cause of freedom. And of course, despite the shrill cry of critics, the FSF can't force anyone to do anything, except to comply with the terms of the licenses they've already agreed to.
Afterword II: The Troublesome Mr. Hancock
Some final words about Terry and the troubles he has caused me with this post. First, I swear that I already was planning on using the "tastes great / less filling" title before I saw this comment. Now he'll probably sue me for some kind of idea infringement. Second, his thoughtful comments in the "naming names" poll caused me to miss last week's entry as I had to back up and think some more about it. (In the end, I just went with my gut anyway. But I valued his opinions.) Third, he just wrote this nice article about world peace and now here I am bringing up this potentially divisive subject again. Thanks for nothing, Terry! :-)
Back at the ranch
Several new articles can be had over at the Moving to Freedom web site (http://www.movingtofreedom.org). There is a review of Linus's book, Just for Fun, that goes in to some of the same territory as the article you just read, and a post about intellectual property where I (briefly) connect the emerging networked age with man (and woman!) coming out of the caves.
Reusable with this attribution (including hyperlinks), and please note if modifications are made: Copyright © Scott Carpenter, 2006. Originally published in Free Software Magazine. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA-2.5).
Glad to be a thorn in your side...
So glad I could help you out. ;-)
Of course, the irony is that the people arguing to allow DRM (i.e. who object to the "corresponding source key" requirement in the GPLv3 and the "anti-TPM clause" in the CCPL3) are doing so for idealogical reasons. They argue that these provisions excessively restrict "user freedoms".
The pragmatic argument can be made too, but it's always an adjunct.
Fundamentally these are questions of "allowable copyleft". The FSF wants a stronger copyleft, because some groups have found a loophole that allows them to effectively defeat copyleft.
However, this conflicts with the one genuine difference between the "free software definition" and the "open source definition", which is that the open source definition permits a slightly stronger copyleft: a requirement that forces changes to be published. This, of course, was an earlier suggestion to defeat an earlier loophole used to defeat copyleft (the one used by Google: they don't have to publish their changes, because they don't "distribute" the software, they just let you use it on their site—forced publication would require those changes to be published anyway).
Trying to rectify that as a "principalled" argument requires some pretty serious logical gymnastics. The truth is that you just have different people adopting different nuanced positions in the big fuzzy gray space, ultimately in service to the same goal. There's no bright lines to cross here, just some hand-placed chalk marks upon a wide-open field that happen to disagree a little bit about exactly where the foul line is.
Fancy words, little substance
"Fundamentally these are questions of 'allowable copyleft'." - Fundamentally, it's about the freedom to run modified versions, which the intention of the GPL. If I can get the source code, but don't have the freedom to modify it and use it on my hardware, what good is it?
When I use Google, I am definitely not using their software-- I am using the output of their software. That's a very important distinction.
Being able to modify free software for my own personal use without being forced to redistribute my changes is a nice, business-friendly feature, not a bug. Besides, any provision to force redistribution in that case would be unenforceable, and thus pointless.
Dont' forget, the term "copyleft" is just a play on words. Every so-called copyleft license is based on, and worthless without, copyright law.
We seem to agree
"Fundamentally, it's about the freedom to run modified versions, which the intention of the GPL. If I can get the source code, but don't have the freedom to modify it and use it on my hardware, what good is it?"
Yep. That's the case for both FSD and OSD licenses.
"When I use Google, I am definitely not using their software-- I am using the output of their software. That's a very important distinction."
Sort of. It's a matter of point of view (by this definition, you aren't using your browser software either, you're just interacting with it. Why the distinction? Is it because you own the CPU? Are you using software you run on someone else's computer? If I install software on a remote sever and use it through SSH, am I "not using" it?)
But of course, it can be claimed to be a stronger ideological value to share that work back to the community that created it (as easily as not). This is just the principle of "copyleft" at work: sharing improvements back to the community that created the work (you can think of this as a kind of "payment" for the work).
My point though isn't that Google should be forced to share, but that some people think they should. And categorizing those people as "more pragmatic / less idealistic" than the people who think they shouldn't is a massive misrepresentation. Obviously both sides are making arguments based on both principled and pragmatic reasons.
"Being able to modify free software for my own personal use without being forced to redistribute my changes is a nice, business-friendly feature, not a bug. Besides, any provision to force redistribution in that case would be unenforceable, and thus pointless."
This argues for the difference being trivial, not an all-important ideological distinction. Which again, is my point. There is no all-important ideological distinction. It's a picky little detail. More importantly, the difference does not hinge on this mythical "pragmatic / ideological" dividing line: pragmatic and ideological arguments can be (and have been) made for both sides of the issue.
Bear in mind that most open source licenses do not have this requirement, and it is regarded as "bad practice" by both "free software" and "open source software" advocates. It's just a matter of a line being drawn to circumscribe allowed behavior. And the difference between "forced publication if used" and "forced distribution to anyone to whom the binary is distributed" is subtle. In the vast majority of cases, they amount to the same requirement (e.g. if I put the binary on my website, I need to put the source there too).
"Dont' forget, the term "copyleft" is just a play on words. Every so-called copyleft license is based on, and worthless without, copyright law."
By and large correct.
However, just FYI, this statement depends on jurisdiction and license. In some jurisdictions and for some licenses, the license is a contract ("license" not being a distinct legal concept in those jurisdictions, or the license being actually a EULA).
A contract or "license agreement" can remove "fair use"/"fair dealing" rights. I don't like the idea any more than you do, but it's the law. That's why the Creative Commons licenses explicitly grant "fair use/fair dealing" permission (because despite what the legally obsolete preamble to the GPL says, these rights can be taken away by the "license". IIRC, GPLv3 will be fixing this problem as one of its many uncontroversial changes).
Gray areas
Thanks for your comments, Terry. I really did appreciate your views in the other discussion, and I agree that some approaches can be less helpful. In this entry here I decided to take more of a straight advocacy approach because I really do believe in the idea of spreading the message and the debate provides that opportunity, even at the risk of alienating some people.
The question of how to treat code like Google's is an interesting one. Crosbie Fitch over at Digital Productions has some interesting things to say about this. I share his interests in privacy, but there are also all these gray area challenges. I don't want to force people to publish their private modifications, but as technology evolves and the methods of distributing software change, I'd hate for there to be ways around copyleft.
(EDIT: Durnit -- I hate it when I don't attach the reply to the comment.)
yes for FREE SOFTWARE
I been using GNU/Linux since 1994 when I found out about it in my university in alicante, Spain.
when I start it using it, it was not cause it worked better but for the ideas behind it.. now I see a lot of people don't care about the ideas but just that "it works", everyone to his own.. but well that said, remember that even if you dont agree with the FSF, some of us do and mostly we are the ones who started this and been using it for some time, if you dont agree with the ideals fine.. but don't step over them, just respect them.
my english is rusty but I hope to make a point here.
I vote for Free Software over anything.
Hi! Your English makes the
Hi! Your English makes the point just fine. Thanks for commenting -- it's good to hear from people who share this view. For my own part, I believe strongly in the ideology behind free software, but now I need to get to work actually *using* it.
Great article
I have to say Thank you for your blog, our members former GNU/Linux Boston user group now named binaryfreedom( http://www.binaryfreedom.info ) much apreciate this magazine and the articles and content you bring us, most of the times we print them and give them to our members in meetings and such.
Please keep the Free Software spirit alive.
Chris Fernandez
PS: BTW how can I become a member or help we will be glad to do so.
Thank you, Chris. I have a long way to go technically with using GNU/Linux and contributing to development of free projects as I'd like to do, but I do what I can with my writing to promote it. It's good to see web sites like yours -- do you have an RSS feed or plans to add one?
As far as helping out, I'm sure FSM would appreciate whatever you are able to offer, whether that is donations, articles, or comments on entries. I think comments are great and help to continue building the community here. (And promoting articles on social sites like digg that you think merit wider reading is great for sending more people our way :-)
Free Software Tastes Annoying
I've actually always thought of Free Software as a subset of Open Source, since you can open the source code without hailing the four great freedoms of whatever. But it we must lump them together, one point of contention may be the fact that the Free Software nerds are a bit aggressive on how the word freedom is used. Stallman only pushes "freedom" if it fits into his 4 part vision. For people like me, Open Source contains other freedoms that "Free Software" does not. Like the freedom to actually do whatever you want with the code (like sell it and not give away your modifications). Or the freedom to include binary NVIDIA drivers that dont suck. Or the freedom to at least attempt to prevent your customers from screwing around with your hardware. Or the freedom use trademarked artwork. Or the freedom to use terms like "linux operating system" or "intellectual property" without getting an irrelevant and unwanted lecture by a language hippie on why we must talk different.
Some people like ideologies. Some people need a techy religion/school of thought. But some people just want cool stuff for free, preferably cool stuff that uses open protocols and patent-free formats and maybe even lets them pretend they are somehow fighting the man--a.k.a. Microsoft. Free, for these people, has nothing to do with the legendary fixing of printer drivers.
It's not only about your freedom
By not giving away your modifications to the source code, you are denying your customers their freedom to modify the software.
Similarly, customers screwing around with your hardware may just be exercising their freedom to adapt it to their own needs.
With DRM one can also take away that freedom. With DRM, after the slightest modification, software may simply not work anymore.
The other point you seem to miss is that free software is not about money.
Annoying indeed
Or the freedom to at least attempt to prevent your customers from screwing around with your hardware.
Excuse me, but if I am your customer and purchase your hardware, then the bit of hardware I purchased belongs to me. It's now mine. I'll do what I damn well please with it - and if the seller suggests that I cannot screw around with my property - that is what is really f***ing annoying!
Your perception of "open source" is skewed
The Free Software Foundation is the one responsible for this definition of "Open Source".
Your perception that Open Source doesn't include the four freedoms is in direct conflict with the "Open Source Definition" to precisely the same degree that the idea that "Free Software" can not have source available is (i.e. what the FSF calls "non-free" software).
Likewise, the illusion that Open Source includes non-copyleft license, but Free Software does not.
These are the result of misinformation deliberately spread by the Free Software Foundation. None of them has ever been advocated or claimed by the people using the term "Open Source Software".
Always pay attention to the sources of information.
On the whole, I respect the Free Software Foundation, but this deliberate attack campaign is a truly unworthy activity.
Agreed, his perception of
Agreed, his perception of open source is skewed. But he clearly is not the sort of person who's been paying any attention to anything the Free Software Foundation says, and his conception of them seems at least equally skewed. I think it's pretty repugnant for you to be smearing the FSF as responsible for his poor information.
If nothing else, he's basically claiming that the FSF would regard the BSD license as not Free software, which is clearly a smear on the FSF (and which I don't see you doing anything to dispel). They certainly say they prefer the GPL and copylefted licenses in general, but they've never said the BSD is nonfree.
Now, the original poster seems basically just not to know anything more about Free Software or Open Source than misleading slogans, presumably gathered from the mainstream media, so it's hard to blame him for his position. But you are apparently a knowledgeable person--you should be ashamed.
One need look no further
One need look no further than the direct quotes from Richard Stallman appearing in this article to see examples which refute your position. But of course, there are many more on mailing lists, articles, and FSF blogs.
The FSF deliberately spreads several myths, the main one being that "open source software" is conceptually or ideologically different from "free software". This alone does enormous damage because it causes casual observers to flail about looking for what this distinction is: unsurprisingly they latch onto genuine community divisions such as "copyleft status", "GPL compatibility", "availability of source code", or "license to modify source code", but none of these distinctions actually applies.
More subtlely, they encourage particular misinterpretations. Broadly (and metaphorically wrongly) slamming "open source software" as "free beer" (I can attest to personal experience with this behavior by FSF partisans) which encourages conflation of the "availability of source" or "license to modify source" issues.
They talk about "ideological" or "ethical" bases in contrast to "pragmatic" issues, in a specific context of discussing the copyleft principle and/or the importance of what FSF calls the "four freedoms".
Both practices lend credence to the idea that the Open Source Definition somehow does not encourage copyleft or that it permits licenses which violate the "four freedoms".
These kinds of communications are what cause the erroneous press reporting that you refer to, and are thus the ultimate source of the misinformation that this poster is repeating.
I think one of the things that highlights the real difference between the terms is that people will promote things that are not free as "open source" and hope to gain the cachet of FOSS, even if they're only OSS. For example, there is an open source Jitterbit integration product that looks very interesting, and it is based on the MPL license, but as far as I can tell, it is not free.
I commented about it on an On Lamp article about the product and it drew a response from someone over at Jitterbit, but he didn't follow up on my reply. I'm still left with the impression that it is not free in a key way. But the source is open, so "open source" is certainly an accurate way to promote the product.
I think this is one of the things that will happen if people "freely" use an alternative term that doesn't suggest freedom and all that it implies.
Yeah, but...
By FAR the more common error is to promote non-open, zero-cost software as "free software".
Both are misconstructions of the meaning given by the promoting organizations. "Open source" is abused far less than "free software", so which is the better term?
Of course, neither is a complete definition, so both are subject to some misinterpretation, which is why we get beasts like "free-licensed open-source software" or "FLOSS". This at least has the advantage of being sufficiently complete when spelled out as to leave no doubt and being sufficiently unique when abbreviated that you can search for a definition. OTOH, it does sound like something you should clean your teeth with.
WRT to Jitterbit, BTW, the JPL is a "free" license.
I re-read the FAQ and the response to your post. What the authors are trying to express (albeit clumsily) is that you cannot take the code proprietary if you make changes to the JPL-covered code. They are actually opening up the copyleft to allow for separate, proprietary-licensed plugins, called "Jitterpaks" which may be run-time linked with the Jitterbit code.
This makes the license similar to the LGPL in intent (it may be linked with code that is not JPL-licensed, but the code itself must conform to the license).
The authors' error was in equating "sell" to "make proprietary" (which is an altogether different conflation that neither "open source" nor "free software" makes clear!)
Package Management, Big Repositories
I like tools like synaptic package manager.
Synaptic comes pre-linked to 19,000+ (free) software packages.
You basically just check the packages you want and click apply.
Synaptic also does security updates.
FOSS by any other name ...
I have only been around GNU/Linux for a few years and I really never thought of Free and Open Source Software as being two different things. To me, it seems like Open Source Software is like a car:
Someone creates it (new)
Someone acquires (in the case of cars - buys) & uses it
There are possible modifications: new paint, better stereo system, new tires, engine overhaul (you get the idea) but it is still a car
After modifications, that person sells it (or gives it away, it is up to them anyway because they own that version now)
The new user repeats the modification steps to meet their own desires
The car is then traded, sold, given away or discarded after many repeats of the above cycle.
The creator isn't concerned with the cycle as long as they get credit for the original work. A Ford is still a Ford, a Porsche is still a Porsche, etc. No amount of modification short of utter destruction, can change that.
Free (as in "free beer") allows everyone to enter the above cycle without shelling out a dime to do so (no purchase necessary) AND it supports and encourages the users' right to participate fully in the above cycle ("freedom").
To me, Free and Open Source co-exist peacefully in the advancement of Software design and implementation. Freedom 1 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (in which case, the source code is required for this) ensures that the program is Open Source. I think all too often we have confused "free" with "free beer" instead of using it in the context of "free speech".
If a program is modified and those modifications are sold along with the original source code, then that does not stop the next user (there really are no 'end' users where open source softwre is concerned) from using or further modifying the code to meet their needs. All it did was cause that user to spend money (a little or a lot) but in no way does that violate any of the four freedoms as long as ALL the source code is available WITH the purchase.
By definition and design "Free" software is "Open Source" software.


text:
|Bookmark This Page
|List Timeshare For Free
|43,253 Timeshare Listings
Lawrence Welk's Desert Oasis, Cathedral City, California
Home Timeshares United States California Cathedral City Lawrence Welk's Desert Oasis Timeshares
Click thumbnails to enlarge
Lawrence Welk's Desert Oasis
Resort's Official Website
34567 Cathedral Canyon Drive
Cathedral City, California
United States 92234
Ratings From Our Users >>
If you�re planning a three day weekend escape, take advantage of the options at Lawrence Welk's Desert Oasis, Cathedral City. Timeshare homes like those offered at Lawrence Welk's Desert Oasis give you the space you need at a price you can afford.
At Lawrence Welk's Desert Oasis, you'll find the perfect vacation getaway. Nearby, play golf on the 27-hole championship golf course or enjoy a tennis match on one of 10 tennis courts. Take a refreshing dip in the swimming pool or work on a tan in the Southern California sun. Your choices don't stop there. You'll find the heart of Palm Springs just minutes away, where you can shop with the stars on Palm Canyon Drive or dine at many popular restaurants
This resort also offers a full 18 hole course on-site as well as lighted tennis courts at night.
The Lawernce Welk Desert Oasis offers full kitchen accomdations in each room with seprate dishwasher and private balcony or patio.
The Lawerence Welk also offers a full fitness center and a on-site gift shop for all your shopping needs.
Please note that Lawrence Welk's Desert Oasis and Vacation Timeshare and Rentals, LLC are independent of each other. The timeshares displayed below are classified ads placed by the timeshare owners themselves.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
TheLincoln-Way Blue Wave 16u Black team is looking for an experienced A levelpitcher to take the majority of innings for the team. In addition, we are insearch of a quality catcher. We also have 2-3 additional spots for verstaileutility players to fill out the roster. For more information or to schedule atryout, please contact Lexie Vernon at email@example.com or (815)530-0886.
ACTIVE is the leader in online event registrations from 5k running races and marathons to softball leagues and local events. ACTIVE also makes it easy to learn and prepare for all the things you love to do with expert resources, training plans and fitness calculators.


text:
MINIX, as originated by Andy Tanenbaum, is an operating system that has its roots and heart in academia as a tool that teaches you how kernels really should work. Recently, however, with the advent of version three of this rock solid OS, the focus is on making a production ripe embedded distribution. Being POSIX compatible with a Kernel of 3800 lines of code and a unique approach to handling drivers, MINIX 3 is well worth the effort to review for readiness.
A very brief history
Andy Tanenbaum first released MINIX 1 in 1987 as an appendix to the book, Operating Systems: Design and Implementation. MINIX rapidly became very popular, with a USENET newsgroup being formed with 40,000 readers within 3 months. One of these readers was Linus Torvalds, who went out and bought a PC just to run and study MINIX. He wanted some improvements, so he made them himself. Then he made some more, and eventually he realized that he had gradually converted MINIX into his own operating system, entirely free of the original code.
MINIX 2 was released in 1997 with the next edition of Andy Tanenbaum and Albert S Woodhull's book.
MINIX 3 (current stable version 3.1.2) is now out and by no coincidence the book's third edition. The OS has been released under a BSD license, which should, in theory, suit both commercial and educational markets. For the first time, there is a clearly stated emphasis on an industrial ripe Kernel for embedded applications. Hence, my motivation for writing this article.
There is a clearly stated emphasis on an industrial ripe Kernel for embedded applications
Trivia: the MINIX mascot is a Raccoon (figure 1), which, to me, seems to be a nice positive figure that can compete with Penguins in terms of cuddliness.
Currently the MINIX website is quite active with 1400 visitors a day on weekdays. Better still: expect version 3.1.3 of MINIX released around the time you read this article. The new release will focus on greatly increasing the reliability (e.g., being able to survive and replace device driver crashes without the user even noticing).
A little technology
For the most up to date technical information please visit the document section of the MINIX home.
MINIX 3 is POSIX compatible, which implies that the OS has a set of standard interfaces. Practically speaking, this implies that porting a large swathe of software from other POSIX compatible systems, such as Linux, is straightforward. MINIX has already had 400 packages ported including X windows.
MINIX 3 runs on 386, 486, or Pentiums or compatible CPUs, and can be installed on a system with as little as 50MB of disk space and 8MB of ram. Therefore, the distribution should run nicely on the laptop I first used ten years ago.
Architecturally, MINIX is based on the concept of a microkernel where the device drivers live in user land. This is advantageous, as processes in user land do not have direct access to resources without first going through the Kernel and should not be able to crash the Kernel through misbehavior. This very strong toughening catches many failure paths that are present in the much larger monolithic kernels such as Windows or Linux. Further, this allows the Kernel to remain small and understandable by any experienced kernel programmer, the fewer lines of code that exist in the Kernel the less likely that bugs, security, or maintainability issues occur.
Designed into the OS is a reincarnation server to restart device drivers if they have stalled or crashed. This feature is a rather nice self-healing process that you may want in your satellites and nuclear reactors.
The main performance trade off is extra effort required for context switching from the Kernel to user land for device drivers, which decreases the performance when compared to monolithic Kernels. The question to answer then is whether the performance overhead of 5-10% is made up for by the elegant design's enhanced reliability, readability, and maintainability. I personally suspect it is.
The performance overhead of 5-10% is made up for by the elegant design's enhanced reliability, readability, and maintainability
Interview with Andy Tanenbaum
Andy Tanenbaum has many achievements (see his Wikipedia entry) including writing some excellent textbooks, teaching, and being the design guru behind MINIX.
AB: Can you give a little background context of your role within the development process of MINIX3.
AT: I am the guiding light and occasional disciplinarian. I try to keep our goal in focus—building a highly reliable system. My Ph.D students, Masters students, and professional programmers do the actual work.
AB: MINIX has had a traditional role as a learning tool within University environments; do you have any idea about how widely MINIX is currently deployed?
AT: I don't think the book sales of the hardcover text version in English have ever dipped below 10,000 copies a year for 20 years, and it has been published in places like India in runs of 100,000. And the book has been translated into a dozen languages. The number of students who have studied MINIX in detail is surely north of half a million and still going strong. The www.minix3.org Website currently gets about 1100 to 1400 hits a day and there have been over 100,000 downloads of the CD-ROM image in the past year. Because it comes with the Berkeley license, industrial users who modify it for products don't have to report back to us, so I don't know much about use in embedded systems.
AB: MINIX3 has been designed to be a production ripe OS for embedded and low resource computers. Is MINIX being taken up in industry at present?
AT: MINIX 3 hasn't been out there long enough to have acquired much of an industrial user base, and companies don't have to tell us they are using it, so I don't really know.
AB: What do you see as the near future development goals of MINIX?
AT: Making it self-healing, I think with version 3.1.3 it should be possible to start a long file transfer over the network, then repeatedly kill the disk driver and Ethernet driver to simulate driver crashes and have the transfer complete correctly with no errors, despite the drivers being automatically replaced on the fly during operation multiple times. Other systems don't do quite as well when drivers crash (or are killed to simulate crashes). They go belly up instantly.
AB: What do you see as the long-term goals of MINIX?
AT: Demonstrating that you can build small, acceptably fast, highly reliable systems out of small, modular components.
There you have it, an interview with Andy Tanenbaum and an OS built on the KISS principle. Now to install MINIX 3.
MINIX 3 is downloadable as source and as a Live CD. After booting from the CD, the process of installing a disk is straightforward. However, the installation requires an extra partition. For demonstration purposes, I have, therefore, chosen to use a virtual machine QEMU and a pseudo partition contained within a specially formatted file. If you are as pleased as I am with the outcome, then you can always later repartition your real hard disk and perform the setup properly.
A second advantage of having a partition stored within a file is that you can copy the file to other machines and use the virtualization player to run; thus allowing different setups, browsers, and test configurations. Further, as we move from a single process paradigm to multiple cores—where the cores reside not only traditionally in the CPU, but also in the graphics card and perhaps even the sound card—we can expect that, for Service Providers, multiple virtualizations may be the most efficient approach to consuming the maximum amount of resources with useful work per customer.
The following instructions require 1GB of hard disk and 160MB of free memory. Note: I am spoiling myself here. It is viable to perform a setup with less resources; however, I am installing on a typical, if not slightly old PC, and am not trying to push forward a resource lean embedded environment. I have based the instructions on Ubuntu Linux 6.06; however, QEMU, being virtualization software, also runs stably on other OSes (MAC, Windows and, of course, other Linux and UNIX distributions). On the other OSes, after installing QEMU, the instructions shouldn't change.
The two virtual machines I considered for use were QEMU and Bochs, both excellent free software tools of the trade. First, I tried QEMU out and the process worked first time without any errors or hassles; therefore, I never got around to trying out Bochs.
I tried QEMU out and the process worked first time without any errors or hassles
The QEMU emulator is GPLed under the circumstances that we are using it. However, there is a proprietary license associated with the accelerator pack. Without the accelerator pack the emulator runs between 5-10 times slower than the system that is being emulated. This slow down is not an issue for MINIX3 which is fast and has a small footprint.
The approach I am taking is to download the bootable disc image from the official MINIX 3 website, create an empty virtual partition, boot up the image within the emulator, and populate the virtual disc via a standard setup. Finally, I'll boot off the virtual disc via QEMU and play "Dungeons" a rather nice text based adventure, which I had much fun with as a student (and yes I am that old!).
Note: At the time of writing the download links were working. If, in the meantime, the links fail, please visit www.minix3.org to get the CD image.
In Ubuntu, with system administrator rights, you can install QEMU via the command line with the following command:
sudo apt-get install qemu Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
The result of your action should be similar to:
Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following extra packages will be installed: bochsbios vgabios Recommended packages: debootstrap sharutils proll openhackware The following NEW packages will be installed: bochsbios qemu vgabios 0 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 3861kB of archives. After unpacking 10.4MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
If this approach fails then please visit the homepage of QEMU.
After checking that you have enough disk space for the 1GB pseudo file system and the 250MB CD image, create a directory in your home directory.
cd ~ mkdir minix3
Download the CDROM image, either via your web browser or via wget, from the MINIX 3 website and expand it into the
minix3 directory.
cd minix3 wget http://www.minix3.org/download/IDE-3.1.2a.iso.zip unzip IDE-3.1.2a.iso.zip
Make an empty virtual image with 1GB free. I chose 1GB so that I'd have room to install lots of packages and their sources. However, you maybe able to get away with around 100MB if you restrict yourself to an elite set of packages and no sources.
qemu-img create minix3_1_2_a.img 1024M
The output should be similar to:
Formating 'minix3_1_2_a.img', fmt=raw, size=1048552 kB
In addition, the file
minix3_1_2_a.img should now exist and it should be of the correct file size.
Bootup the CD image inside the emulator:
qemu -cdrom minix3_1_2a_ide_build2.iso -boot d -hda minix3_1_2_a.img -m 160
Type setup and reproduce the answers to the following questions:
Keyboard type? [us-std] - Press Return Ethernet card? [0] - Press Return Basic (M)inimal or (F)ull install? [F] - Press Return Press ENTER for automatic mode, or type 'expert' - Press Return
At this point, you should see the message:
The following disk was found on your system: Disk [0]: /dev/c0d0, 1024 MB Free space (1023 MB) Enter the disk number to use: [0] - Press Return Enter the region number to use or type 'delete': [0] - Press Return Are you sure you want to continues? Please enter 'yes' or 'no': - Type yes How big do you want your /home to be in MB (0-953) ? [190] - Press Return 190 MB Ok? [Y] - Press Return Block size in kilobytes? [4] - Press Return
After formatting the pseudo partition and checking the partition's new integrity, type:
Startup with:
qemu -cdrom minix3_1_2a_ide_build2.iso -boot c -hda minix3_1_2_a.img -m 160
Login as root and create a root password from the command line via
passwd. Type
less from the command line. Oh no! the tool is not installed:
less: No such file or directory
Okay, now we need to install some applications. The CD image contains 40 such packages. Your next action should be to type
packman to run the package manager, and then press '3' to list the packages on the CD. A list should appear similar to that shown in figure 3.
Press 'q' to return to the original menu. Select '4' to choose a package and '21' for the
less package.
For some homework, install
dungeons (package 11) and run it from the command line, within the game type
info. The game was fun when I was a student all those long and wasted years ago. Perhaps, you will find it as fun.
What to do next
MINIX is fast, reliable (well I have never seen it crash or freeze) and, with a small footprint, is ideal for your old Pentiums or even 386s and 486s that might still be hanging around in your loft somewhere.
MINIX is fast, reliable and, with a small footprint, is ideal for your old Pentiums or even 386s and 486s
I would respectfully suggest that you try to get yourself onto the network and start using it. If you find any issues, report them back to the hard working development community via
If you think that your favorite free software package or a device driver is missing, then why not join the development community and volunteer your time to build this lean-mean-operating-system-machine's vocabulary of packages to a higher level? I suspect that you will learn some good practices on the way.
Finally, if you wish to brush up on the theoretical constructs behind OS design with a MINIX 3 practical bias, then you may be interested in reading the updated classic Operating Systems Design and Implementation 3 edition by Andrew S. Tanenbaum and Albert S. Woodhull.
Personally, I found MINIX 3 fun to play with. Installing it on an old PC was quick and painless. Boot up time is dramatically less than for Windows or Linux, partially because the Kernel is so lean and only a few servers are running. Being POSIX compatible and being able to run X Windows makes porting of GNOME or KDE (or Window managers, in general), viable and potentially straightforward. Though intended for the embedded marketplace, I don't see any reason to not position MINIX as a viable OS that will later stand alongside Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD, etc., in audience recognition. I even positively contemplate the possibility of an ergonomic fit with embedded Apache, Tomcat and Java as an efficient internet application host. However, no doubt, that would depend on the performance hit of context switches from kernel space to user land due to the deliberate reliability design feature of placing drivers in user land.
I don't see any reason to not position MINIX as a viable OS that will later stand alongside Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD, etc., in audience recognition
Finally, it is clear that the design of MINIX 3 brings new competitive ideas for enhancing reliability and maintainability to the fore. I hope MINIX 3 will stimulate the next generation of OS designers in the same way it has the previous.
I wish to acknowledge the input of Andy Tanenbaum and the historically-seen rippling effects of his innovative design concepts on others.
Document section of the MINIX website—http://www.minix3.org/doc/
MINIX homepage—http://www.minix3.org/
MINIX Live CD—http://www.minix3.org/download/
Operating Systems Design and Implementation, 3/E—http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0131429388,00.html
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam—http://www.vu.nl/home/index.cfm
Wikipedia entry for Andrew Tanenbaum—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Tanenbaum
Call it GNU/MINIX you f**king morons!!! After all it uses the GNU compiler at least!!
Woaaaaah! License TOO free. Must kill, kill, kill....
You're putting words in the mouths of "GNU/Linux" advocates that they do not say. Read the real argument.
GNU was a project to create a free replacement of the operating system Unix. Unix was not a shell, it was not a hardware manager (kernel), it was not a C library, it was not a set of core commands, it was not a C compiler... Unix was an operating system that consisted of *all* of these things.
GNU succeeded in creating free replacements for most of these pieces of Unix by 1991. One piece that was not yet complete was a hardware manager. (a kernel)
At that time Linus Torvalds started writing his own Unix like hardware manager (a kernel) called Linux. This project is what Linux *is* and has always been. It still bears that name, look of the project name part of the source tarball's file name:
With all the major pieces of a Unix like operating system complete, people were able to combine GNU and Linux to make a Unix like operating system. They said to the world, "look, we have a Unix like operating system here, it is called Linux!".
Free software advocates could just ignore this accident of history. After all, what really matters is the freedom of users right? But ignoring the situation fails to address a problem that giving GNU fair due helps address. Many people believe that idealism and radical views are inconsistent with the achievement of tangible results. GNU, a project born of extreme idealism and a very radical viewpoint is a significant counter example. In a world where free software users are constantly being tempted to give up their freedom, it is worth the hassle to point out that the most significant contribution to the world's most popular free software operating system was successfully built by radical idealists who were told they would never succeed in doing so.
You've also attacked copyleft by saying that free software advocates call non-copyleft free software licenses "TOO free".
This is bullshit.
Copyright law gives people the POWER to control who can and can not copy information. Non-copyleft free software licenses are neutral, they leave this power intact. Copyleft free software licenses revoke this POWER so that all people can have the FREEDOM to make copies.
Compilers give people the POWER to hide what a computer program does and to prevent changes. Non-copyleft free software licenses are neutral, they leave this power intact. Copyleft free software licenses revoke this POWER so that all people can have the FREEDOM to control and improve the instructions that process the information that is an important part of their lives.
You, sir, are *** troll
Which make me an idiot for responding.
Minix doesn't require the GNU operating system to operate. Minix has its own operating system. Just because the GCC can run on the Minix OS doesn't mean that GNU OS is running on it. Since the GNU OS isn't running on the Minix OS, it doesn't require the name GNU/Minix
Linux requires an operating system. Without this operating system, Linux doesn't do much of anything. Linux works very well with the GNU operating system. The combination operating system platform should be known as GNU/Linux.
License too free? It doesn't matter which license is used, all that matters is that a free license is used. GPL is better at ensuring the user's freedom but the BSD license is much more preferable to any non-Free license.
Wrong - apparently it does not need GCC
It uses Amsterdam Compiler Kit.
Minix is a relic
While useful for academic purposes, Minix is a bonafide relic. Interesting Oses are Linux, RTEMS, eCos and the various L4 variants ...
A learning experience
I was impressed by the well thought approach to healing device driver issues. I believe the numerous technical solutions found in MINIX should be studied and understood by a wider audience.
i like it.
i like it.
Minix is relevant to desktops
One thing the desktop world can use is more reliability. Minix aims to be a very reliable, self-healing operating system. For me, this reliability is worth the extra overhead of operating a microkernel based operating system.
More work on Minix still needs to be done. Things like Minix 3's memory management is incomplete. AFAIK, Minix still doesn't have dynamic linking support.
Linus did not convert minix into linux
Linus wrote Linux from scratch, he may have been inspired by MINIX and other Unix OS but he did not convert minix into his own OS. MINIX and Linux are fundamentally different. Linux is a monolithic kernel and MINIX is a microkernel
Why Linux
It's worth pointing out that Linus Torvalds started Linux because he wasn't happy with the original licensing conditions on MINIX. In the early days, Prentice-Hall claimed copyright on it, and would not allow it to be redistributed separately from the Tanenbaum book. That meant that all (legitimate) users of MINIX had to buy a copy of the book!
I believe this is no longer true with MINIX 3, but the damage has been done. Linux was able to prosper because it was Free Software from its early days, MINIX was not.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Of MINIX, UNIX and Linux
Let's set things straight:
UNIX was the basis for the GNU operating system: Richard M. Stallman wrote down the POSIX specifications and set out to write the GNU OS following those specs. Around that time, due to the sources of UNIX being locked down and costing a bundle to get, Alex Tanenbaum set out to write MINIX 1, due to his intimate knowledge of the original UNIX. By that time, the GNU OS was on the way and BSD Unix was too.
Here come Linus Torvalds; he had a 386, was running MINIX on it and then wanted it to support pseudoterminals - something that the MINIX kernel couldn't support. So he set out to write his own, using MINIX as a base but rewriting the kernel from scratch - ending up with a new kernel running with the other MINIX tools.
Having freed the code (and gotten, because of the syadmin at the Helsinki U, a name for it), Linus had now Linux ready to go; due to Tanenbaum's unwillingness to make MINIX into something it wasn't (a production OS), people started using Linux on MINIX an then, due to it feeling too constricted, started porting GNU (and some MIT and BSD) tools to it and adapting Linux (the kernel) to those more advanced tools (MINIX is, initially, a very small system).
As such, very early Linux systems should have been called Minix/Linux, and current systems should be called GNU/Linux.
What's best about this, is that starting with MINIX 2, all those free systems were POSIX compliant - meaning the hassle to port an application from one to another is actually quite low.
Now, why is Linux more advanced than MINIX? Simply put, there was much more work done on it. Why are the two so opposed? Because Linus T and Alex T disagree on a few key points. In MINIX initially, the memory manager itself was run in user space (!) which led to a 25% performance hit. On the other hand, Linux integrates everything in kernel space - which make it potentially unstable.
On desktop or low-load systems, the two are pretty much equivalent. On high-performance systems or very tightly integrated systems though, Linux wins. Why? Because its integration allow it to go faster and save on resources, its modular design allows big chunks of unneeded stuff to be removed, and as such it can run by itself. Minix needs to create a user space, then switch stuff back and forth. While stability is here, on very tight (I mean, only a few Kb of RAM here - Linux can run from ROM) systems it won't work.
Ideally, MINIX is indeed more stable than Linux; however, the latter has the edge on development (this can be corrected), is modular enough for today's applications (meaning it is in practice as good as MINIX), faster than MINIX (even Alex T agrees) and actually quite robust already.
Of course, if Linux offered more user space drivers (there are only a few available now) and restricted kernel space to high performance drivers (memory manager, accelerated graphics and real-time I/O), then we'd have the best of both worlds.
Ironically enough, considering how several modules are now made (NTFS-3G comes to mind), it may actully become true when emphasis won't be on added features and improved performance anymore.
A computer is like air conditioning: it becomes useless when you open windows.
GNU / Minix / Nonsense
First I think Minix 3 is still a research system ...
Mitch - thanks for the history lesson - some of us remember GNU when it was followed by a string of invectives! In a lot of ways Linus' kernel pulled GNU out of the "research" phase into the real world where things are expected to actually work. GNU software has come a long way in the last ten or so years. Seriously, I think we can thank all those people using the Linux kernel. I have tried MINIX 3 - and despite all the hoopla it still won't run X-windows on any of my old machines (no virtual memory). Supposedly they are working on that - but. I don't know what they are using with it to run X, but it ain't the 100 dollar laptop. I will re-evaluate when 3.1.3 comes out, but till then it is not robust enough to call industrial strength. When I can start it and use X on my old pentium systems (which have actually run X pre kernel-2.4.24) - I and a few other people will be most seriously interested. To get to the "beyond research" phase they need to add a memory server to the mix - yes the swap / pageable / virtual / whatever memory should run on one of those resurrectable device drivers. My experience suggests virtual memory screw-ups cause more crashes than device drivers. And no I won't buy the mythology that device drivers cause those virtual memory problems. If they did your PC would never finish the IPL. When Minix-3 can actually fix that, it should be ready for prime time. There are some great ideas involved in MINIX-3, and they will effect how future kernels work. This should become more evident as we move into multi-core processors and highly threaded systems. Think how much could be done with chips having 100 cores each running a minix like micro os using a highly integrated virtual interface. Think how the Linux kernel will need to evolve to manage this. Now, imagine what the mix will look like after 100 development cycles. Ok, Scotty Beam us up!


text:
Sometimes too many choices can make a decision more difficult, and thing is certain when choosing a new cookware set: you have a lot of choices.
Cookware is manufactured using all kinds of materials, but the most common are anodized aluminum, stainless steel, cast iron, enameled metal, metal coated in a non-stick polymer and titanium. There are more, and copper can stand alone or be incorporated with some of these materials because it is a good conductor of heat, but these are the main categories.
So, let's take a look at the properties of each.
Anodized Aluminum
You can probably find inexpensive pots and pans made from simple aluminum, but most aluminum cookware sets will be anodized. This is an electrochemical process that enhances aluminum, increasing its non-stick properties and rendering it non-reactive to acidic foods.
The benefit of this over a non-stick polymer is that it is not easily damaged by metal utensils. It is also very durable considering how much lighter it is than cast iron or stainless steel.
The drawback is that durable, lightweight non-stick quality tends to come at a higher price than cheaply made inexpensive cookware sets. That being said, Amazon have very competitive prices for anodized cookware sets such as the Rachael Ray Hard Anodized Cookware Set. read the review…
Stainless Steel
Stainless steel is durable, non-stick, stain-resistant and stylish. Stainless steel can be manufactured in several different ways with varying balances of metal added to the required chromium that makes it "stainless," and these differences can impact quality and cost.
Something to remember about stainless steel is that it does not conduct heat very well and is often combined with either aluminum or copper. This is done by adding a disc of material to the bottom of the piece to help distribute heat, or the stainless steel is "clad" over an aluminum or copper core so that the conductive material runs up the sides and so better distributes heat.
Knowing how your stainless steel cookware is constructed will help you know how it will perform. In either case, though, high-quality stainless steel cookware performs very well. One of the best Stainless Steel cookware sets is the Cuisinart MCP-12 MultiClad Pro Stainless Steel 12-Piece Cookware Set. read the review
Stainless steel cookware can be heavy and it should be polished from time to time to keep it looking like new, and it should be hand washed.
Cast Iron
Cast iron cookware may be the most durable of the lot. It is heavy, dense and can survive a beating. It also cooks evenly and is easy to care for once it has been properly "seasoned."
Seasoning cast iron cookware is necessary to keep it from rusting and to bring out its natural non-stick properties. It involves coating the metal with oil or shortening periodically throughout the life of the utensil. After seasoning a cast iron utensil should only be cleaned using hot water, and dried with a clean cloth.
Raw cast iron cookware is generally inexpensive and durable, which makes it a good choice for small investments. But, it is also very heavy and bulky and can be tiring to use for everyday cooking.
Enameled Cast Iron
Enameled cookware is metal cookware that has been coated with enamel – a kind of smooth glass created with high heat. The metal coated could be aluminum, cast iron or some other metal.
Enameling can improve heat conductivity for more even cooking, as well as provide a non-reactive surface for cooking acidic foods. It is also very attractive and often comes in bright colors that can liven up a kitchen.
Le Creuset have set the benchmark for practical, functional and beautiful enameled cast iron cookware
The drawbacks are usually cost, as well as being mindful of chipping the enamel. These pieces are not fragile, in fact they are chip resistant but they should be hand washed and they will chip if banged on with metal utensils. read the review
Copper is common as a core metal in high-quality cookware because it has superior heat conductivity. This enables a copper utensil to evenly distribute heat as well as hold precise temperatures very well.
Copper is also very beautiful, and gives a kitchen an unmistakable Old-World feel.
The concern about copper, however, and the reason why it is used more frequently as a core is because it is highly reactive with foods and can alter the taste. In fact, most copper cookware is lined with tin or steel, so the only real benefit as compared to a clad utensil is the style and appearance.
Finally, copper cookware is comparatively expensive, but it is beautiful, unique and delivers high-quality performance.
Titanium combines super lightweight material with durability to make the perfect cookware for all-day use, or for people who can't lift heavy objects. The question is whether the weight of the cookware you use is a significant factor in your cooking.
The reason is because titanium does not evenly distribute heat and so will be lined with another metal. In other words, aside from being lightweight and durable, the titanium metal provides no other benefit.
Titanium cookware sets are amazingly durable considering how light they are.
So, you can see that there are many material options when it comes to cookware. So many, in fact, it is important to consider your needs and budget before jumping into a purchase. Hopefully, these short descriptions will give you an idea of how to best outfit your kitchen.


text:
1. Apply to
Mount Saint Mary College. Select the HEOP box on the
application to be considered for HEOP admission.
2. Send an official high school transcript/GED scores to the
HEOP office at Mount Saint Mary College, 330
Powell Avenue, Newburgh, NY 12550.
3. Register early in your senior year for the SAT or ACT and/or
SAT Subject Test, and have scores sent to the Office of Admissions at Mount
Saint Mary College. Should you choose to sit for the AP Exams,
they must be taken prior to your senior year. All
freshmen applicants must submit standardized test
4. Submit the following by mail to the Office of Undergraduate
Admissions, Mount Saint Mary College, 330 Powell Avenue, Newburgh,
5. To apply for scholarships and federal aid, complete the
online Free Application
for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Make sure the Mount's school
code (002778) appears on the application.
6. Potentially qualified applicants will be asked to submit all
supplemental and financial materials (income verification and
copies of financial aid forms filed, e.g. FAFSA, TAP).
If you are a transfer student previously enrolled in another
Arthur O. Eve HEOP program, or in another Opportunity Program such
as EOP, SEEK, or College Discovery, you are eligible for Arthur O.
Eve HEOP at the Mount. If you were enrolled in an institution that
did not have Opportunity Programs, we would be glad to explore your
current eligibility.
For more information, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.com, or call
Share this page


text:
For Progressive Jews, most of whom support and finance President Obama, his recent Mideast tour was a relief. Not that they care that much about Israel--in fact, many condoned the President's suicidal conditions he imposed on Israel, while supporting his grating relationship with Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu. They even stood by him after his famous open mic rant to then French President Sarkozy that Netanyahu was a bigger pain in his arse than the Frenchie Prez.
Obama's been badgered by his lib Jewish supporters to show some solidarity with the Jewish State. Even the liberal Jews ever-growing evidence that he was pandering to the Jew-hating Muslim Brotherhood, the scoundrels now running Egypt, and his appointment of Chuck Hagel, an anti-Semite, to head up the Defense Department, Israel did something to convince the President that it was in his best interest to change directions.
Jewish Hollywood and business supporters sighed a group breath of relief over the love-fest Obama had with Israeli leaders: Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Perez. The Netanyahu romance was only surpassed by their seemingly mutual hatred in their previous encounters over the last four years.
Besides the sucking up in closed quarters and in public, here's what Israel agreed to:
· Apologize to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan for the killing of 9 mercenaries on ship that broached Israel territory to get to Gaza—plus millions in damages. Heck, even the UN sided with Israel's right to self defense.
· Israeli President Perez presented Barack with the Israeli Medal of Distinction.
· Let Obama blame Israel for all sorts of things they weren't guilty for in front of a crowd of Israeli youts. It was like chickens giving a standing ovation to Colonel Sanders after he told them what was about to happen to them.(Rush)
· Obama released $1/2 billion to the PLO for their compliance to achieve statehood via direct negotiations with Israel. NEWSFLASH! After Obama announced the release, PLO leader Abbas said he would go after statehood without direct negotiations! What a shock.
· Suck up to Obama in such a way as to negate critics like—well--me, to the delight of lefty Jews who can now say, "See? Told you Obama loved Jews—PUTZ!"
· Let Obama stand right under a picture of the father of Islamic terrorism, Yasser Arafat, without criticism.
· Made him an official Jew without the required circumcision.
What Israelis got:
· Obama's proclamation on Israel having the right to self-defense as they alone saw fit.
· The leash around their necks loosened if not entirely released. Now Israel can preemptively attack Iran's nukes when THEY think it's the right time.
· A recommitment to support Israel past 2017 when the current agreement expires.
Page 2 of 2 - · Most important, he pulled back on his demand that Israel return to the indefensible pre 67' borders as a precondition for Palestinians to enter the peace talks.
· Next time Netanyahu comes to the WH he'll be welcomed on the main floor instead of locked in the basement just inside where the WH garbage is collected.
· A comment from Obama telling the world the lie about how delicious plain matzos were.
Another hint the Jews were resurrected was by the end of the visit, the Palestinians were so upset they began firing rockets into Southern Israel while Obama was still in the country!
Credit goes to Israeli psychologists who orchestrated Obama's enabling as a seriously affected narcissist.
Of course, all Obama did was co-opt the Bush position on Israel, but for him that was a radical half turn to the right.
What Israelis must understand is the need to feed the monster his ego fest. If they don't he'll throw them under the bus quicker than he did his white Granny and homeless brother.
If we've learned anything about our President, it's that it's about him and his quest for power.
Progressive Jews: The Matzo-balls are in your bowl!
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Just two days after a man loses his life in a brush fire, another fire threatens lives on Moontown Road in Columbia County.
News 12's Kate Tillotson is on your side with how victims there are coping.
Roger Locklear can't believe the condition of his yard.
"I'm surprised that the house didn't catch on fire," Locklear says. "It's amazing to come home and see your house like this, you know, everything burned up."
And by everything, he means everything, from his car, to his shed, to his swing set.
Even the vinyl on his mobile home peeled away like a banana.
"Guy was just out there burning off the brush," says Locklear. "It got away from him and this is what happens."
It's happened twice this week. The first incident occurred in McDuffie County, where a man was killed while burning without a permit.
The man responsible for this damage on Moontown Road was lucky. Foresters were in the area by coincidence, doing a control burn of their own.
"It could have been a lot worse."
Locklear is thankful it didn't spread to his brand new porch.
"Stuff inside the house ain't messed up so it really just looks bad out here, but I don't think it's going to be as bad as we thought it was," he says.
Still, Locklear, his wife and their two sons will stay at a hotel for now, because the smoky smell left behind isn't as sweet as their roses.
"It was a nightmare," Locklear says. "I couldn't believe it. I'm in shock to come home and find all this here, you know?"
News 12 did speak with another neighbor whose yard was also damaged. She chose not to talk to us on camera.
However, both she and Locklear tell New 12 that the man responsible, who leases several acres there, has promised to take care of everything.
No one was injured in this blaze…it was contained and has completely burned out.
This all happened in Appling.
That's the part of Columbia County covered by one of the new stations as part of the county's consolidated fire service.
Engine Company 10 covers that part of Appling.
The Martinez-Columbia department has taken over protection for most of the county, except for Grovetown and Harlem.


text:
Greenland Frequently Asked Questions
What is the skill level of this climb?
Our 6-day mountaineering course or the equivalent is required as are basic skiing skills.
What is the physical conditioning for this climb?
Climbers are expected to be in excellent physical condition.
Any tips on how a climber can maximize their chances of success?
Review the training page of our web site.
What is the best season to climb / which dates will have the most chance for success?
June is when the weather is most stable.
Will I be sharing a tent or lodging with other climbers?
On the climb you will be sharing expedition tents. You will share rooms on this expedition in town but you can pay a higher fee for single rooms. Contact our office for information on single room supplements
How much will my pack weigh?
What gear will I need?
Please review the gear list.
How does your gear rental system work?
All rental gear will be mailed to the climber prior to the climb. Climbers are expected to clean all rental gear and Those requesting rental gear must submit an expedition rental form with payment by fax or mail. Return it to us by mail following the expedition
Any further advice on gear and using your gear list?
While all items are required there may be times when some of the items on the gear list may not be used (such as warm weather or changing conditions). The gear lists are created by the guides to assist in having climbers be prepared to summit in any conditions.
While it is impossible for us to list all brands for certain gear, we do offer a wide variety of equipment in our Gear Shop, that has been hand-picked by our staff of mountaineering experts. Please feel free to call our offices with any gear questions or substitutes. Plastic boots are required for this climb.
How is drinking water treated?
Water is boiled or purified using a chemical treatment like iodine or a chlorine solution.
Can I bring some food from home?
You may bring power bars, Gu, or similar high energy foods. All meals will be provided on this climb.
Are there any innoculation requirements?
Not at this time. We do recommend you visit the CDC web site for the most up to date information.
What is the best air route to my destination?
Detailed flight information will be sent to you upon registration.
When should I book my flight? Do I need to use your Travel Agent?
Fares are generally less expensive when booked early. You may use our Travel Agent (Charles Mulvehill 1-800-727-2157) or book flights your self. Please note that flights booked on-line are often difficult to change. Please send us a copy of your flight schedule as early as possible as this allows us to book pick ups and hotels.
Where do I meet my guides?
Your guide or an Alpine Ascents representative will meet you at the airport. Look for a large Alpine Ascents sign.
What if I arrive early or depart late? Can you arrange extra night lodging? Is there a single room option for this expedition?
We are happy to make arrangements such as personalized tours, extra hotels rooms, airport pick ups and arrange for private rooms. Please indicate that you would like a private room on your application and we will contact you with information on single room supplement costs (for hotels only).
Are there any entry or Visa requirements?
Not at this time.
Is there any communication while we are on the mountain?
Regular updates are posted on our web site once teams are on the mountain.
Can I contact the others on the climb? How about the guide?
You can always call our offices and one of guides will contact you, generally about 1 month before your trip departure. 30 days prior to departure, we mail a list of other team members to you.
How much should I budget for this expedition? How much cash should I plan to bring?
$500 should easily cover any extra expenses and tips. Most climbers prefer to bring about $1000 and have credit cards.
How much should I tip my guide and staff?
Guides are permitted to accept and greatly appreciate tips. Contact our office for specific guidelines for your trip.
How do I register for this expedition? What paperwork do I need to send in?
You may call our offices with a credit card or mail/fax an application with a check or credit card number.
When is the money due for this expedition? What kind of payment do you except?
We accept MasterCard, Visa, American Express, personal checks and Alpine Ascents gift certificates. To reserve a space the deposit is $3,000. Balances are due 90 days prior to departure. Unpaid balances can result in forfeiture of trip.
What is your cancellation policy? What is your refund policy?
Greenland Cancellation/Refund Policy
Note: Alpine Ascents International highly recommends trip cancellation insurance for all expeditions. Due to the nature and heavy costs of government and operator permits, Alpine Ascents International must adhere to a stringent refund policy.
Each $3,000.00 deposit is non-refundable.
All balances are due 120 days prior to departure date unless otherwise specified.
Due to the nature of this climb and extensive pre-arrangements, deposits and balances are non-refundable.
Participants whose balances are not received by the 120th-day deadline as stated above, risk forfeiture of their place on the expedition.
Note: Alpine Ascents reserves the right to waive any fees. As we offer personalized service, we will attempt to accommodate changes and cancellations when necessary, waiving certain fees when feasible.
Return to Top of Page


text:
Spring Flicker
Photograph by Peter Mather, National Geographic Your Shot
In this photograph by Your Shot member Peter Mather, a northern flicker returns to her nest to feed her hungry chicks in Yukon, Canada.
Your Shot is National Geographic's photo community, where you can share photos, take part in assignments, lend your voice to stories, and connect with fellow photographers from around the globe.
Mather's picture was chosen by National Geographic photo editors to be featured in Your Shot's April 15, 2014, Daily Dozen.
This gallery shows a selection of the best Daily Dozen pictures so far in 2014. See more pictures from the Daily Dozen and vote for your favorites.
Photograph by Sarvady Matyas, National Geographic Your Shot
Your Shot photographer Sarvady Matyas took this photo of her grandmother mourning her husband in a field in Cherechiu, Romania.
Oklahoma Storm
Photograph by Alonzo Adams, National Geographic Your Shot
A supercell thunderstorm engulfs a farmhouse near Piedmont, Oklahoma, in this photograph by Your Shot member Alonzo Adams.
Flames in the Flint Hills
Photograph by Doug Stremel, National Geographic Your Shot
Your Shot photographer Doug Stremel captured ranchers burning tallgrass prairie in Flint Hills, Kansas.
Sunset at Xingping
Photograph by James Bian, National Geographic Your Shot
The sun sets over the mountains in Xingping, China, as captured by Your Shot photographer James Bian.
Pushkar Girl
Photograph by Maurits Bos, National Geographic Your Shot
A girl in Pushkar, India, gazes into the lens of Your Shot photographer Maurits Bos.
"I cannot stop looking at this photo. The girl's eyes are stunning and so expressive. Maurits caught the expression and her gaze at just the right moment," wrote Your Shot editor Jeanne Modderman.
Hang En Sunbeam
Photograph by Ryan Deboodt, National Geographic Your Shot
Your Shot photographer Ryan Deboodt captures the sun as its rays illuminate a spelunker at the entrance of Hang En cave in Vietnam.
Anniversary Fireworks
Photograph by Dor Kedmi, National Geographic Your Shot
Soldiers watch fireworks on Israel's 66th Independence Day in this picture by Your Shot member Dor Kedmi.
"Often, fireworks are an easy capture because they are so over the top and eye-catching," wrote Your Shot editor Jeanne Modderman. "Dor made this a special and different image by using a low angle and shooting up towards the fireworks while framing them just so in between the soldiers."
Mongolian Nomad
Photograph by Tariq Sawyer, National Geographic Your Shot
A Mongolian nomad herds sheep in the Altai Mountains in this picture by Your Shot member Tariq Sawyer.
Restaurant Portrait
Photograph by Md Shahnur Arefin, National Geographic Your Shot
A woman wearing a hat in a Chinese restaurant is pictured in this photo by Your Shot member Md Shahnur Arefin.
"The texture, subdued palette, and depth of field are all key elements that make this quiet image breathtaking," wrote Your Shot editor Jeanne Modderman in an editor's note.
Smoke and Tires
Photograph by Alex Solonenko, National Geographic Your Shot
Riot police stand near burning tires in Kiev, Ukraine, in a picture by Your Shot photographer Alex Solonenko.
Batman in Rio
Photograph by Elisabete Maisao, National Geographic Your Shot
A man dressed as Batman comforts residents of the favela of Metrô-Mangueira in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, during its destruction, according to Your Shot photographer Elisabete Maisao.
Blacktip Shark After Dark
Photograph by Imran Ahmad, National Geographic Your Shot
Your Shot member Imran Ahmad used strobe lights to illuminate a blacktip shark in this night shot in Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles.
National Geographic editor Jeanne Modderman noted: "What an elegant photograph. Imran used a specialized lighting setup and his hard work paid off; it isn't harsh or brash like some underwater photography can be."
Old Man and the Sea
Photograph by Bogdan Comanescu, National Geographic Your Shot
An 86-year-old Romanian fisherman sits in his home in a photograph by Your Shot member Bogdan Comanescu.
Assignments on Your Shot seek photo submissions from our photo community members. Editors choose a few of the very best images for final stories published on Your Shot. Photographs submitted are also eligible for our Daily Dozen and may be published in National Geographic magazine.
See more pictures from the Daily Dozen, and vote on your favorites.
Popular in Photography
Special Offers
National Geographic
Subscribe to National Geographic magazine and save. Print and digital editions available for as little as $12.
Nat Geo Photo Workshops
Shop National Geographic
Victorinox Swiss Champ Multitool


text:
This election day the Breckenridge Restaurant Association encourages registered voters to cast their ballots in favor of 1A and 2B. The Breckenridge and Summit County communities benefit from attracting and supporting vibrant, ambitious families who have many choices in where to put down roots. Our association is committed to the stout and stable funding of all educational opportunities particularly since these initiatives do so without increasing taxes. Please vote in favor of 1A and 2B to help build our wonderful communities.
Ken Nelson
Breckenridge Restaurant Association


text:
served every week from 9-2:30 pm
(last seating is 1:30 pm)
Reservations are recommended
Come enjoy an array of delectable foods in a fun atmosphere
with the festive sounds of George Blodgett on piano!
We offer an extensive menu to satisfy any appetite, and your eyes will love it too!
We have beautifully edible arrangements of fresh fruits, berries and grapes, imported and domestic cheeses, and hand carved fruit displays. Breakfast items include fruit-filled pancakes, pastries, croissants, assorted muffins, Danish, breakfast breads, maple sausage, apple smoked bacon, and Eggs Benedict. Our chefs will prepare you an omelet of your choice or Belgian waffle made to order!
Sample our smoked salmon platter, fresh tossed garden salad, potato and pasta salads. Some of our Lunch and Dinner entrees include haddock au-gratin, stuffed chicken, Italian specialties and pastas, mashed red bliss potatoes, sautéed vegetables and herbed bread stuffing. Feast on hand carved turkey and roast beef at our carving station.
Save room for something sweet... an entire table of fresh fruits and desserts,
featuring our 36 inch tall chocolate fountain flowing with smooth Belgian chocolate!!!
Voted "Best Sunday Brunch in New Hampshire"
six years in a row by
New Hampshire Magazine!
Adults ~ $17.99 Children ages 6 to 12 ~ $11.99 children ages 5 ~ free


text:
About the Book
Ivor Noel Hume, the former chief archaeologist of Colonial Williamsburg, offers a delightful, anecdotal, and informative celebration of the joys of collecting. All the Best Rubbish is the enchanting and edifying product of Hume's lifetime spent pursuing historical junk across the globe, a hunt that has led him to the most remarkable finds in the most unexpected places. A true treasure for antiquarians, historians, collectors, and fans of television's Antique Roadshow, Hume's All the Best Rubbish includes a new introduction by the author on collecting on the Internet in the Age of Ebay.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
One person's trash is another's treasure!
In his newly revised classic, All the Best Rubbish, Ivor Noël Hume traces the fascinating history of collecting from its recorded beginnings and describes the remarkable detective work that goes into establishing the probable facts about uncovered and often underappreciated treasures. Now expanded with hints, tips, and helpful information about antique-hunting online, All the Best Rubbish is the ideal book for the antiquarian or amateur, the historian or professional collector—for anyone who knows that there's no such thing as "just junk."
Noël Hume, former head of the Department of Archaeology for Colonial Williamsburg, has pursued bottles, pottery, clocks, and coins through junk shops, street markets, attics, and cellars on two continents. He's unearthed the most fascinating—and valuable—rubbish from the most unlikely places: the shores of the Thames in London; the lagoons of the Caribbean; the bottom of Martha Washington's well. Hume knows everything that's worth knowing about collecting—why we do it, what we can find, where we can find it, and what we can learn from it.
Educator and Librarian Resources
Product Details
- Imprint: Harper Paperbacks
- On Sale: 11/03/2009
- Trimsize: 6 in (w) x 9 in (h) x 0.88 in (d)
- Pages: 352
- List Price: 14.99 USD
- BISAC1: ANTIQUES & COLLECTIBLES / General


text:
One person was shot and is now in the hospital, and a suspect is in custody after a home invasion Tuesday morning, May 2, in North Augusta.
It all happened shortly after 1:00 a.m. at a mobile home park on Thomas Park Lane in North Augusta.
But it ended a block away at a home on Birch Street.
Dennis Steedley explains answering the door to an unexpected guest after hearing his dog barking. "He just came in and fell right here," Steedley says.
Aiken County officers say 23-year-old Alberto Romero came to a mobile home on Thomas Park Road looking for someone.
Investigators say Romero returned a second time, this time forcing his way into the home.
"He then ordered the man, Mr. [Alajandra] Morales, outside the house, where he began shooting and striking Mr. Morales several times," says Aiken County Sheriff's Lt. Michael Frank.
Morales was shot several times. He ran through the woods and managed to scale a five-foot fence, making it to the back door of Dennis Steedley's house.
"He had a white tank top T-shirt on, and blood was saturated from his upper abdomen all the way down into his pants," Steedley says.
But Steedley says there was little he could do; he doesn't speak Spanish.
"I just said, 'Who did this to you?'" Steedley says. "He just pointed out the door."
At the same time, investigators say Romero had a gun and was looking for Morales.
They say Romero fought with deputies during the arrest.
"I do know that he struggled with them and they had to subdue him and they sprayed him," says Steedley.
Two deputies suffered minor cuts and scrapes during the struggle.
Alberto Romero is in the Aiken County Detention Center.
Aiken County Emergency Medical Service transported Morales to MCG. There he is listed as a no-information patient.


text:
mchoser wrote:Cydisc wrote:Iowa Games (Non-sanctioned)
Juniors - July 20 - morning round
Novice - July 20 - afternoon round
Intermediate/Advanced/Pro - July 21 - 2 rounds
More info:
People get your head out of your ass and come play, volunteer, mentor, spot , whatever, this is a great chance to SPOTLIGHT your sport.
Back in the day we dreamed for the day to have our game spotlighted in this venue. but where is the buzzz now? JUST DO IT!!!!


text:
DMG Canvas
Customize every aspect of your disk image.
DMG Canvas builds disk images from template documents designed using a slick graphical WYSIWYG editor mimicking Finder. Each time you release a new version of your disk image, simply click Build again and DMG Canvas will pull together all of the latest versions of your files. DMG Canvas also allows you to specify the license agreements displayed when the disk image is mounted.
New in version 2 is advanced background layout with custom text objects and images. Using this new view, multiple images and customizable text boxes can be layered on top of the disk image window's background image. This streamlines the creation of background image art, removing the need for other tools.
With the 'dmgcanvas' command line tool, the disk image process can even be entirely automated. Once a DMG Canvas document has been created, the dmgcanvas tool can be used within larger scripts such as application build processes, to create the disk image without ever having to open the DMG Canvas application.
With DMG Canvas, you customize every aspect of your disk image, including:
- Window background, position, sidebar/toolbar
- Icon size and positions
- License agreements
- The volume's name, icon, format
- Encryption
- Compression
- Internet Enabling
2.0 also includes Leopard compatibility with disk images built on Snow Leopard. Without using DMG Canvas, disk images created on 10.6 will not show display a background image on 10.5. DMG Canvas seamlessly solves this problem.
Required OS: not specified
Tags: dmg , image , disk
3 Opinions
The other Araelium app I need. Does everything I need with regards to software packaging.
Check out SimplyDisk. It's for 10.4+ PPC & Intel, and it works perfectly.
Requires 10.5... yet another entry without this info.


text:
Freedom You've gotta give for what you take Freedom You've gotta give for what you take - George Michael In a previous column, I wrote that there is a desirable level of tax* revenue for every economy and that it necessarily changes over time. It is found at the peak of the utility curve for taxation, which is a difficult curve to define. Opposing the wings of this curve are the downsides to over- or under-taxation. But before considering the wings, consider that any money spent or invested by government is also, by definition, a tax. The money transferred must at some time be repaid by the citizens of that government. So, whether it is financed through borrowing (which must be repaid with real dollars in the future) or printing money (which devalues the wealth of the entire nation somewhat equally), any form of spending is a dip into the pockets of taxpayers. On the short side of the utility curve, one of two things is happening: 1) either the government is spending too much (per the utility curve), or 2) the government is not taking enough of a toll from its revenue sources. In either case, government debt grows, increasing overall leverage of a country. We know from basic finance that higher leverage equates to higher risk, but how so in this case? If the amount of leverage increases to the point that the tax burden on a country's citizens become so great that productivity comes to a halt, the currency will free-fall against other currencies (and commodities!) as investors lose faith in the value provided by the country's workers. The government, of course, has to continue printing money and inflation spins out of control. The gold bugs (and others — you know who you are!) that are betting on the demise of the dollar are predicting just this result. Many times in modern financial history have these "Debbie Downers" flexed their betting muscles, typically in the heights of recession, only to see those bets wither away as American ingenuity and entrepreneurship come bounding back. On the long side of taxation, we also have one of two things happening: 1) either the government is not spending enough, or 2) it is taking too much revenue from its citizens. This scenario rarely occurs, especially in democratically-elected governments as the leaders entice their voters with locally targeted projects funded nationwide. However, we will leave a discussion of this scenario for another column. What seems to be missing in this debate is the flipside of the utility curve. In other words, what is lost when we do not reside at the peak of the curve? The answer is freedom and productivity. When left to their own devices, consumers will find the most efficient and productive use of their funds by definition. If a 24-year-old electrician elects to take her $10,000 in savings, head to Las Vegas and try to become a poker professional, she obviously has chosen the path that maximizes her utility for investing not only her cash, but also her time and efforts. If instead, this same 24-year-old has not been able to save any money over her career due to higher taxes, that same $10,000 has been put to work elsewhere in the economy. The place it has been put to work simply is being controlled by the government rather than the individual who earned it. Now, to argue which scenario is best is to debate where we reside on the utility curve. In the first scenario, this individual was able to pursue her dream at a very young age and, whether or not she is successful, her happiness is surely higher given she was able to choose where to invest her money. In the second scenario, the government took that $10,000 and invested it somewhere else in the economy. For the nation as a whole, which is best? Surely it's good to have happy citizens and Americans absolutely value their freedom to shift and change careers even toward those with the greatest risks. But it is also true there is some necessary level of government spending that must occur. So, how do we determine which is best? I suggest one methodology is to analyze all government investing/spending and determine from your own personal point of view whether that spending is justified as if you are spending your own money, because in fact, you are. This will alter the focus of the debate from receipts to outlays, providing every American a usable perspective from which to form his or her point of view. Arguing that multimillionaires should be taxed at, say, 45 percent instead of 35 is a self-serving exercise at best. When determining whether to take money from someone else, we tend to lean towards taking it. But arguing whether the government should spend $5,000 on a hammer or take 20 years to replace a bridge (ahem … San Francisco!) is something we can determine more clearly. Surely, there are flaws to this methodology (who can fathom whether $100 million is a fair price for a fighter jet?), but if spending equals taxation, it seems to me the first step to educate oneself is to analyze the spending choices our government makes. Key Developments The Fed's Federal Open Market Committee decided to leave the Fed Funds rate target unchanged at 0 - 0.25 percent as expected, and stated its intentions to keep rates "exceptionally low" for an extended period. Simply put, the Fed is not yet seeing signs of a significant recovery that would create inflationary pressures in the economy. Third quarter non-farm productivity soared 9.5 percent as companies squeezed more production from fewer workers. There are two sides to this coin. The first is that increasing productivity is exactly what companies should be doing during and towards the end of a recession. The other side is that by increasing productivity, these companies can grow faster without adding workers, keeping unemployment high for a longer period of time. The Department of Labor reported the U.S. shed 190,000 jobs in October and the unemployment reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent. The biggest losses came from the construction, manufacturing and retailing sectors, while healthcare companies added approximately 29,000 jobs. Additionally, the number of temporary workers increased for the third consecutive month by 34,000, a sign that employers are expanding their businesses. Temp hiring is considered a leading economic indicator. *For convenience, I am using the word tax to refer to all government revenue sources.
The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of SVB Financial Group, or SVB Asset Management, or any of its affiliates. This material, including without limitation the statistical information herein, is provided for informational purposes only. The material is based in part upon information from third-party sources that we believe to be reliable, but which has not been independently verified by us and, as such, we do not represent that the information is accurate or complete. The information should not be viewed as tax, investment, legal or other advice nor is it to be relied on in making an investment or other decisions. You should obtain relevant and specific professional advice before making any investment decision. Nothing relating to the material should be construed as a solicitation or offer, or recommendation, to acquire or dispose of any investment or to engage in any other transaction.SVB Asset Management, a registered investment advisor, is a non-bank affiliate of Silicon Valley Bank and member of SVB Financial Group. Products offered by SVB Asset Management are not FDIC insured, are not deposits or other obligations of Silicon Valley Bank, and may lose value.
Help Desk
5:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Pacific Time (Monday - Friday)
1.800.774.7390 1.408.654.4636 firstname.lastname@example.com
Contact Us
Commercial By Industry
Commercial by Revenue
Private Bank Clients
About Us


text:
- Text Size:
- ASmall Text
- AMedium Text
- ALarge Text
A New Hampshire lawmaker wants to thrust back into limelight one of the state's most prominent suffragists and the first woman to file as a candidate for governor - 10 years before women secured the right to vote.
Dover's Marilla Marks Ricker was shot down in her bid to run for governor in 1910 by an attorney general who said women are "disqualified" from state government.
But Marks may make it to the Statehouse yet, if Hampton Democratic Rep. Renny Cushing has his way.
Cushing is proposing that the joint historical committee spend some of its $10,000 in funding to commission and hang a portrait of Ricker in a Statehouse dominated by portraits of men.
His proposal to do the same thing 15 years ago passed, but was not funded.


text:
Reviews: CAB FOODS FACTORY SHOP BRACKENFELL
Check out comments about Cab Foods Factory Shop Brackenfell on social platforms:
Have not found what you were looking for?
Try our search:
Still nothing? Give us a feedback!Tell us what you have been looking for:
Data disclaimer
The information provided on companylist.co.za is collected from a variety of public sources. We aim to provide the most comprehensive data however this is dependant on the level of information filled in the public domain. Information are provided as a guideline and have been prepared for information purposes only. They are not intended to be nor do they constitute legal advice. Data could have changed since the last update! We strongly advise our visitors to express caution if in doubt, and to search for professional advice before commencing legal action, based on any information contained here. We can not take any responsibility for the consequences of inaccuracies. Some of the advertisers and web analytics that are used on this website may place "tracking cookies" on your computer. The ratings are calculated from votes given by website visitors. Because of our privacy policy, we can not provide who and when voted on specific company and what rating was given. People can vote by pressing on the stars on company listing page.
2016 © CompanyList.co.za - Free South Africa businesses catalog
14.8ms :: 0ms :: 1.5 MB :: 4q