text:
Category: Alabama
Alabama Income You MUST Report
All income is subject to Alabama income tax unless specifically exempted by state law. The term "income" includes, but is not limited to salaries, wages, commissions, income from business or professions, alimony, rents, royalties, interest, dividends, and profits from sales of real estate, stocks, or bonds. Military pay is taxable income except for compensation received for active service in a designated combat zone.
* Wages including salaries, fringe benefits, bonuses, commissions, fees, and tips.
* Dividends (Schedule B).
* Interest on bank deposits, bonds, notes, Federal Income Tax Refunds, mortgages on which you receive payments, accounts with savings and loan associations, mutual savings banks, credit unions, etc. (Schedule B).
* Original Issue Discount (Schedule B).
* Distributions from an Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA) including SEPs and DECs, if you excluded these amounts in a prior year.
* Bartering income (fair market value of goods or services you received in return for your services).
* Business expense reimbursements you received that are more than you spent for the expenses.
* Amounts received in place of wages from accident and health plans (including sick pay and disability pensions) if your employer paid for the policy.
* Alimony or separate maintenance payments received from and deductible by your spouse or former spouse.
* Life insurance proceeds from a policy you cashed if the proceeds are more than the premium you paid.
* Profits from businesses and professions (Federal Schedule C or C-EZ).
* Your share of profits from partnerships and S Corporations (Schedule E).
* Profits from farming (Federal Schedule F).
* Pensions and annuities other than those listed here.
* Lump-sum distributions, endowments.
* Gains from the sale or exchange (including barter) of real estate, securities, coins, gold, silver, gems, or other property (Schedule D).
* Gains from the sale of your personal residence as reported on your Federal return.
* Rents and Royalties (Schedule E).
* Your share of estate or trust income (Schedule E).
* Prizes and awards (contests, lotteries, and gambling winnings).
* Income from sources outside the United States.
* Director's fees.
* Fees received as an executor or administrator of an estate.
* Embezzled or other illegal income.
* Refunds of federal income tax if deducted in a prior year and resulted in a tax benefit.
* Payments received as a member of a military service are taxable except for combat pay and certain allowances.
* Property transferred in conjunction with performance of services.
* Jury duty pay.
For more information go to the 2016 Alabama Form 40 Booklet or click here.


text:
Skip to comments.How Minor Strategies Can Emerge Within the r/K Paradigm (Where Libertarianism Fits In)
Posted on 01/20/2013 7:24:37 AM PST by AnonymousConservative
It is well accepted that r/K Theory will not always yield an ideal strategy for every environment. Subtle nuances of an environment can make certain mixtures of r and K-strategies advantageous in that particular case, and produce slightly different psychological qualities. This is why after r/K is taught in college, those who go further into the discipline are taught to further subdivide strategies into life history traits, specific to a species. One of the most well characterized examples of deviation from r/K is the fact that r/K is density dependent.
If you have a lot of individuals, crammed together in an environment which can support a high density, these individuals will interact, and you will get r or K, depending upon the need to compete for those resources, and exhibit practical fitness relative to peers, or the need to avoid such practical competition and demonstrate a simple ability to attract more mates.
If however, the population exists in very low density, and the land cannot support a high density population, things will change, since individuals will spread out and interact less. Since resources will be limited, individuals will need to be able to fight, and be aggressive/competitive. However, One will need to travel over a large territory to find sufficient food. So even though resources are limited most of the time, and such individuals will be aggressive when necessary, they will never be able to mass into a group, because the group would not have enough resources in their territory to support all of them. This will produce a more individualistic, less group-centric psychology, which seeks to be left alone, but will still be willing to fight with others, when necessary.
In such a model, mating can also become less competitive, since a potential parent may not have an enormous number of potential suitors to select among. This will make mating more promiscuous, and less selective. Carried to an extreme, parenting may even tend to shift in the direction of a single parenting model, simply because a mother and father would require too much food. A single mom may have enough food left over in the territory she covers to also provision her offspring, whereas if the offspring are raised in a territory which is already supporting two parents, she may not. Disgust reflexes might also diminish in this environment, since a spread-out population would suffer disease transmission less than a densely packed population.
If you look at this minor strategy you will notice two things. First, it would only be present in a small number of individuals in the human population, relative to r and K, since r and K would rapidly explode anywhere the environment provided lots of resources, with this cohort probably existing at the margins, colonizing harsh areas with little resource availability. Second, this model would seem to describe the modern Libertarian.
HBD Chick runs a brilliant site examining how in-breeding may have produced the modern Libertarian. The idea she is promoting is that if you inbreed enormously, people tend to become very tribal, supporting relatives, while being wholly untrusting of outsiders, since their inbred group ends up sharing a lot of genes. As a result, an individual favoring the members of their in-group, would be favoring the continuance of many genes they themselves carry just they would be favoring them in closely related, inbred relatives. It tends to produce tribalism. But if you moderate the inbreeding effect, you may get an individual who just doesn't trust outsiders, and wants to go their own way, but in whom there is less tribalism. If you follow her work, you will find yourself agreeing with her premise again and again, and blown away by the clever ways she shows how the data supports her premise.
However although she explains how such a trait would arise, unless it is adaptive, it will not remain, since it will be culled. Here, I suspect the Libertarian psychology may have persisted once moderate inbreeding produced it because it was adaptive to harsh environments, which would not support large numbers of humans. There may have been a feed forward effect as well, whereby a harsh environment, which could only support a limited number of people, created a moderate inbreeding effect, which enhanced the Libertarian psychology.
I view the spread of human populations like a dammed stream, filling a mountain valley with water. As we spread out, r's (Liberals) probably headed into areas of rich resource availability. They avoided fighting and killing each other, mated freely, and raised children quickly in single parented families. As populations increased rapidly in those areas and resources became exhausted, K's (Conservatives) began to predominate, competing with each other, mating carefully, and rearing high-quality offspring carefully in two parent families, and the r's moved on. This was akin to how the water from the stream would first spread into all low-lying areas of the valley, here akin to resource-rich, easily survivable, and uninhabited areas of the world.
As time went on, K's remained put with their groups, and slugged it out competitively, while some individuals began to spread laterally, into harsher areas with sparse resources, which as a result, did not favor r. These individuals ended up akin to the water which moved up the valley walls, after the stream filled all the low-lying areas. They reached areas which were more difficult to survive in, and lived there in smaller densities, where individuals were free from group-centric social constraints, since groups were either small or non-existent – and relatively unnecessary to survive.
Today, Libertarians can't grasp why r's want to control K's with government, or why K's oppose things like indecency in media, or single parenting, promiscuity in others. The Libertarians are just designed to focus on their own survival, and leave others alone, and they can't understand why everyone else doesn't do the same. To their psychology, it is illogical, and the root of a lot of problems which don't need to exist.
Nevertheless, since people periodically ask me how this relates to Libertarianism, I just want to point out the flowing. If you look at r/K in nature, among wild animals, you will see descriptions of minor variants of strategy, and some of them could be construed as being an individualistic psychology, designed to leave others alone. It would be less reliant on urges to control others, or to produce group functionality by punishing deviations from group-centric, pro-sociality-producing social mores and values. It would probably include diminished disgust, more sexual liberation (or at least tolerance of it), and less of a desire to interact with (and control) others.
Although all of this almost certainly has some sort of genetic root, I get the impression from my readings that a lot of ideology is also adaptation to environmental cues. In short, although we humans have genetic political predispositions, we have also evolved genetically to be highly adaptable to environmental conditions. Perhaps suddenly fluctuating resource availabilities, sudden periods of war and peace, and sudden shifts in population characteristics culled our populations over the eons, only leaving behind those who had adapted effectively on the fly. Libertarians do tend to exist in areas with few other people and low population densities, which does not surprise me.
I suspect I get the question so much because Libertarians are extraordinarily mechanistic and logical in their mindsets. This may be due to their freedom from r/K and their strategy's history of having to understand and solve difficult problems alone, in order to survive their harsh environments. As a result, they see the r/K material innately, and understanding it, immediately wonder why they are different. I know that the reason I have seen this is probably my deeply imbued Libertarian/hyper-logical instincts.
The short answer for those who wonder why they are Libertarian is that they are just the Grizzly Bears of the political world, as opposed to the K-type wolves, and the r-type bunny rabbits. Libertarians want to go their own way and do their own thing, and if someone pushes them around, they are willing to kill them for their freedom. There is probably even a lesson there, in the origins of the American ideal embodied at our founding.
These psychologies are designed to adapt an organism to the r and K-selective environments, namely an environment of free resource availability, and an environment of limited resource availability. In short, r's (Liberals) are designed to operate in an environment where they (and their offspring) don't need to compete for resources, due to the free availability. They don't need to produce highly fit offspring, so they avoid fighting, mate promiscuously with whoever, parent singly, sexualize children, and have no loyalty to in-group.
K's (Conservatives) are designed for an environment where those resources are less common, and they are designed to produce fit offspring, capable of competing. They are aggressive/competitive, mate competitively (through careful selection and monopolizing mates through monogamy) rear children intensively, in two parent families, delay mating of offspring until maximally fit and mature, and have high loyalty to in-group to promote group success in competition.
There is more on all of this on the parent page here, which is where this page is from, here.
This graphic also describes the theory quite well.
I know, this all seems to not be important, but I think this understanding offers insights into how to defeat Liberals in the rhetorical domain, as I discussed in yesterday's post, here.
Thank you.
I get your parallelism between evolutionary strategies and human lifestyles.
But I don't think it works out in fact. Any evolutionary or genetic issue based on differential reproductive success would take at minimum many, many generations to show up in a population.
Our present socio/economic/political environment is at most only a few generations old.
I find it extremely odd that you seem to be proposing that the historical expansion into new territories and other risk-taking was primarily by those we would today call liberals. The opposite seems a lot more likely to me.
Finally, "survival of the fittest," which of course really means survival of the genes of the fittest, is totally turned on its head in modern societies. In every "advanced" society those who are most likely to pass on their genes are those who are least socially and economically successful by the terms of that society. There is a direct inverse relationship between economic success and reproduction. See the movie Idiocracy.
Hi Sherman,
My biggest problem in putting this stuff forward is in getting people to look at the whole body of work, which is what addresses all of this.
Let me go point by point.
Any evolutionary or genetic issue based on differential reproductive success would take at minimum many, many generations to show up in a population.
Actually, what I propose is a little more complex. There is a genetic foundation. Overlaid over this is an environmental effect. The neurochemical aspect of this, which molds the strategies, is dopamine sensitivity. This variation in dopamine sensitivity can vary in strength, based on use, allowing an individual to change their strategy (or more accurately see it changed for them by the enironment they face). In other words, make resources freely available, and you will flood your brain with pleasurable dopamine. Your brain, sensing the high dopamine signaling will downregulate dopamine receptor density, to bring signaling back in line, making you need more dopamine to feel normal, and become more hedonistic (and more Liberal). (It's like how you need more and more steroids, once you start using them).
I show where the research describes how dopamine controls every facet of r/K in the paper at the site. A dopamine mutation is responsible for ideological predisposition. There is post at my site describing all of this, from a while back. Look in the sidebar at Fleshing out Dopamine's Role. It links to Dennis Mangan's brilliant speech on that, as well, if I recall.
By contrast, be put in a less resource rich environment, and dopamine is released less commonly, and you brain will up-regulate receptor transcription, and you will become more sesnitive to dopamine, making you more driven, focused, competitive, and task oriented, and this will even be seen on brain scans as you perform tasks.
So note, in humans, r/K is variable even in individuals over short periods, though there is also evidence for an epigentic effect based on maternal rearing, as well as genetic underpinnings as well. Think about today's dopamine saturated enironment, and how we would go more K-Conservative, if all the reosurces and wealth dried up suddenly.
Our present socio/economic/political environment is at most only a few generations old.
Note, I am pointing out r and K are strategies for dealing with resource availability in nature. We have two psychologies in our political world which match identically. My case is that these ideologies are modern out-growths of these primitive strategies. That is it. I do NOT maintain these strategies are well adapted to our modern circumstance, or that this is all genetic. Only that one can see where these psychologies came from in our primitive history, if we look. We are still adapting.
I find it extremely odd that you seem to be proposing that the historical expansion into new territories and other risk-taking was primarily by those we would today call liberals. The opposite seems a lot more likely to me.
Again, this expansion initially was a choice between an overpopulated home territory with exhausted food supplies, where people were killing each other violently, and a similar territory nearby where there were no people, and greater amounts of food, since it was unpopulated. It wasn't a choice between modern agriculture-based civilization, with all it's legal protections, and a violent natural world where there was no Whole Foods. It was a choice between being in an environment where gangs Conservaties were free to kill you for being defective (and would), or heading to an empty area identical to the one you were in, but without the violence.
Finally, survival of the fittest, which of course really means survival of the genes of the fittest, is totally turned on its head in modern societies. In every advanced society those who are most likely to pass on their genes are those who are least socially and economically successful by the terms of that society. There is a direct inverse relationship between economic success and reproduction. See the movie Idiocracy.
Yes, again, free resource availability, and limited reosurce availability. r vs K. I maintain the Idiocracy is a result of the difference of an r-selected environment. In r-selection, once resources are freely available, it is all about producing "quantity over quality" in offspring, since every offspring can get resources, and doesn't need to be fit, beyond being able to breed. We produce enough resources today to allow for generous welfare, EBT, Obama phones, etc. Free resources means the only selective pressure is how many kids you pop out. Idiocracy. r-selection.
Cut the resources (as will happen these things are cyclic), and once welfare is gone, K-selection will return, favoring all the traits of Conservatism. Those who can function in groups, address threat, and compete in whatever competitions are going on for resources will succeed, and the welfarites, will gradually get killed back, no matter how many offspring they spawn.
The dude in Idiocracy, by getting the plants to grow using water, is what kept the whole Idiocracy alive. Had he not done that, competition would have ensued, favoring the more able, and those who won, would have been intelligent, capable individuals focused on producing a few offspring who were highly fit.
Of course, in reality, when everyone is having twenty kids, at some point, there would not have been enough resources, K-selection would have returned, and most of those idiots would have been killed, as they were gradually culled back by having to compete. It is inevitable.
Oh, I just understood one criticism you are making. It went over my head before.
I'm not saying we just evolved Conservatism and Liberalism in the last few hundred years. That would be impossible.
I'm saying millions of years ago, we evolved the genetic foundations of our r/K psychologies (and their adaptable natures), which became deeply entrenched in our psyches and guided our behaviors back then, before language, philosophy, even before we were human - when we were just monkeys in the bush.
As we developed intellects, and political theories, and governments, our r's began to apply their intellects to promulgating the r-selective environment they were designed for (and most comfortable in), and the K-intellects began with suppositions that competition was OK, losers needed to accept responsibility for bad decisions, and high-investment families were good. They were designed for a K-environment, and liked it, and felt everyone should like it as well.
Yeah, I can see how this would have looked like a mightly stupid idea, without that little nugget.
In this country, those who were on the bleeding (literally!) edge of the frontier were certainly not risk-averse. They were at much greater risk, and knew it, than those even a few miles back, much less those in the well-settled (and theoretically less resource-rich) areas.
I think we are on different pages. I am not looking at how Homo sapiens evolved r/K. It was there from way back before they were even monkeys, and is there in every other species. When I mention the migration, there is no written history about it.
When I say the migration, I am looking at how a primitive monkey-like creature, which had evolved r/K millions of years back, would carry the r and K-mindsets as a few members first evolved into Homo Sapiens, lost body hair, began running down prey in the daylight, and exploded in number. From there, once fully migrated, I am looking at how these mindsets would be evolved to find and exploit resource availability, and flee from risk and violence.
"In fact, I know of no case anywhere in recent millenia, with exception of the expansion of the Polynesians across the Pacific, where a group expanded into "unpopulated" territory. "
Yes, that is what this post is about, actually. Spreads occur in two directions, from an ecological perspective. Forward, into similar areas - unpopulated, but with similar or greater resource availability (again, this is back before history entered the picture). Think invasive species. Or laterally, into a new niche - a new environment, not as hosptiable for some reason, and probably requiring some adptation. Obviously we have not moved forward in a long time, but we did at one point, and it would have favored r way back then, and that is probably where the ball started rolling.
I am not saying r has functioned as pure r for a long time, or that is has been related to the migration for a long time, especially once everywhere was populated, and the only migration was lateral, which as you note, will not favor r. r does still have the migratory urge, though it will depend on resource availability, and competition avoidance. Combined, (ie violence and limited resources at home, free resources, foreign lands, and no violence abroad), I think Libs would almost universally migrate out.
My case is, r likely began in Africa as r, when we first began to spread. Probably functioned that way after the bottleneck as well. It may have offered some advantage when we met Neanderthals, since in addition to free resources, it seems to crop up in other mammals epigenetically, due to stressful early rearing experiences. A model where the less capable as children, grew up to be highly fecund, prone to migrate, less sexually selective, open to out-groups, and prone to get kicked out of the group, would produce a steady flood of r's being thrown up against the more K Neanderthal, constantly. Competitive Exclusion would indicate a less capable model, thrown against a more capable specimen, in sufficient numbers constantly, would wear them down over time. Might even have something to do with the interbreeding, since r is associated with diminished sexual selectiveness (read the two posts in my sidebar on homosexuality and Liberalism).
Oer time, it likely adapted to persist in groups through social manuevering, and be expressed variably in response to resource variability.
Once agriculture hit, you have free resource availability, not associated with migration. It would have adapted. As groups grew, it became more of a socially manipulative psychology which would emerge orgnaically when resources grew plentiful. From there, r was a strategy designed to exploit resource availability, and avoid competition.
"In this country, those who were on the bleeding (literally!) edge of the frontier were certainly not risk-averse. "
As this post ended, I made a point that our nation's founding, by colonists spreading into a land with very spread out, low resource availability, would favor the strategy which goes with that, which is more Libertarian, and which is more in line with the American Ideal.
Again, r's will spread and migrate, if doing so will score them free resource availability, which is what they are really after. If not, this post makes the case you will get a more Libertarian, live and let live psychology. Our Republic was built by men who sought out this environment, and that is why it appeared as it did.
A word or advice: When using an abbreviation (r/K) you should at least clarify what it means at least the first time you use it. I have no idea what it means and hence, no compunction to read past it's first use.
Check the picture I posted in my comment, or read the comment under the article for the definition.
I'm not an expert on FR rules, but I beleive I am not supposed to change the article or title when posting it to FR. I don't put the explaination in every article I write, since my blog followers would find that repetitive, and boring.
I did post a detailed summary of it in the first comment after the article.
Thank you for the advice though.
The left/libertarians and their abortion and homosexualizing the military, open borders and the homosexual agenda, their anti-conservatism seems pretty backwards to me.
Bookmark for later
Islamists seem to combine the fertility of bunnies with the aggression of wolves.
Agreed on the Liberal Bunnies. Though it is worth noting, r is always adapting. Those who reproduce today in greatest numbers are less conscientious, and less motivated to greatenss, and probably lower in IQ. Today's Liberal may seem reasonable and intelligent compared to what they will evolve towards - at least until Darwin returns and culls the popualtion.
On Islamists, HBD Chick's blog linked above has interesting stuff on that. Her work is all based around the subject of inbreeding, and the effects on behavior.
The concept is, if we are cousins in a very inbred clan, you and I will have very similar genetic profiles, since inbreeding involes genes getting standardized in the population, so to speak. (There are strains of lab mice in which individuals can be used almost as clones, because they are so genetically similar from the in-breeding.)
Anyway, even if I die in the process, I can benefit (in a Darwinian sense) from seeing you succeed, because my genes will go forward in you. Over time, this will produce a drive in inbreds to support kin, as a way of passing hteir own genes forward as much as possible. It is bad for things like democracy, because it tends to produce corruption and nepotism in government, like in the middle east.
The Church, by encouraging out-breeding may have caused people to become less kin-oriented, and this may have favored a more democracy/freedom prone strain of human.
Her blog is very technical, but fascinating in the way she looks at the data.
"The left/libertarians and their abortion and homosexualizing the military, open borders and the homosexual agenda, their anti-conservatism seems pretty backwards to me."
Nothing a little natural selection couldn't fix. Historically, it is coming.
The problem is that America is becoming more libertarian and left wing, I don't think that it is going to birth itself back to conservatism.
-— The problem is that America is becoming more libertarian and left wing, I dont think that it is going to birth itself back to conservatism. ——
With the exception of abortion, generally speaking, people would not be protected from the consequences of their vices. So the system would self correct, to some degree.
For example, a drug addict would starve, or have to go to work to support his habit, rather than be supported by welfare.
Nonsense, the opposite is true.
In a democratic nation where each vote is equal, then the more broken souls and communities, the farther distancing from social conservatism and towards libertarianism, then the more they will vote themselves better benefits and lifestyle support, we have a 60 year history showing that pattern.
We see that today, the people who support the libertarian agenda of homosexuality, drugs, porn, prostitution, abortion, open borders and such, are overwhelmingly voting for more and larger social programs, while the people against all that libertarian stuff, are the most conservative voters in America.
The wild west was effectively libertarian. Certainly all drugs were legal, and prostitution was a fact of life. It wasn't a socialist utopia.
I'm not a libertarian, but libertarianism is different from socialism.
Secondly, I'm not at all sure that, say, the Republican states represent a truly more competitive environment than the Democrat states. Surely New York is more competitive, more K than Montana.
Third, you fudge things by associating female aggressiveness with r environments and fatherly abandonment, when others would simply give women the credit for pursuing the same competitive strategies that men do.
Fourth, it's pretty clear that larger smarter animals might have a greater potential for fellow feeling (at least with their own kind). If you have a small brain and a short-lifespan you're not going to be able to form complex relationships. But the human world is more complex than that. Nature doesn't constrain us as much as it does a rabbit or hamster (but are our human wolves and sharks really as capable of loyalty or fellow feeling as less aggressive humans?)
Fifth, it's clear from everything I can see that more competitive environments (New Jersey, Connecticut) do put off breeding until the young are more able to compete and do invest more in education (at least for the chosen few). The problem with the theory is that those environments are politically liberal.
The conservative states are the ones where more people marry and have children earlier even when it may get in the way of education. So it looks to me like there isn't the kind of clean fit between your environmental theories and the political lessons you want to draw from them.
Of course, the problem is that there are different populations within a given environment who follow different strategies, say wealthy suburbanites and poorer urban or rural populations. But the differences here aren't always ideological. Scarsdale and the South Bronx follow very different strategies but vote the same way (and maybe you could find parallels in the conservative parts of the country as well). There isn't one "liberal" evolutionary strategy. There are two (at least if we judge by how people actually vote).
Theories like yours might have fit politics better some years ago, when wealthier areas of the country were more conservative. Nowadays, though, some of the richest people are very liberal. Contraceptives also throw off your theory. Promiscuity isn't necessarily associated with many offspring. I also have to wonder, comparing the two halves of the country where people really start having sex earlier or whether there is really that much difference between liberal and conservative areas (leaving aside a few areas that really are distinctive).
I haven't gone through all the ins and outs of your theory and didn't want to be very confrontational, but now I have to wonder. This explains all of politics? The people you approve of resemble the larger, smarter mammals we ascribe positive qualities to and those you disapprove of resemble the smaller, stupider, swarming creatures? Isn't there something reductive and creepy about your theory? Or maybe it's just a reworking of the ant and the grasshopper or the tortoise and the hare.
Don't confuse something not having become an issue yet or even having been invented, or created, with having been made legal.
Besides, what does that have to do with anything, you think that more of what turns people into liberals and into pro-welfare voting democrats, will somehow turn them into economic conservatives?
If my read is right, leftism will increase, grow government to unsustainable levels, collapse the system, and Conservatism will return.
I view it like mice given a sudden bloom of wheat. THey explode in number, grow to the point they all eat all of the wheat, and then the population dies back, and/or is eaten.
I think Libertarianism probably contributes to the problem by not enforcing group-cohesive and pro-K behaviors. (And I say that knowing the urges from the inside.) I want to go my own way, and not shame girls who get knocked up, or punish people who are obnoxious. But society needs that. Without it, r's thrive, and bring the whole thing down. Libertarians just weren't made to live and function optimally in a big group - they were meant to be really spread out.
The real problem, which actually does the taking down, is Leftism, and the uniform provisioning of resources to everyone, regardless of productivty or contribution. Freeloaders enjoy advantage, producers endure the detriment of work - that is the origin of the disaster. r's explode like mice with free wheat.
Remove that, and we will naturally go K, and Conservatism rises. So we won't birth ourselves back to Conservatism, so much as Darwin will kill Leftoids back, allowing Conservatives to continue as they were.
I don't see how that long term view helps America, my interest is in America and what American conservatism is, that will never return, the 1965 Immigration Act saw to that.
I'm just saying that libertarianism is preferable to socialism.
Libertarianism is just childish fantasy stuff, just another part of the left, yet that likes conservative economics.
Kind of like a Heroin pusher who wants his heroin and hooker business legal, but who also wants low taxes and no welfare, but he doesn't realize that his vote is one, while his 1000 customers votes outnumber his, and they all want to raise his taxes for their welfare payments.
First, you should probably explain your terms right off. I still don't know what r and K stand for and why those letters were chosen.
That is a link in the text, to an article explaining it. They are variables from equations describing population dynamics in evolutionary biology.
Secondly, I'm not at all sure that, say, the Republican states represent a truly more competitive environment than the Democrat states. Surely New York is more competitive, more K than Montana.
There is more opportunity to avoid competition, supported by the populace, and more punishment of success, in the form of taxation. So I would expect a higher standard of living in New York, than I would in Montana, if I didn't work. I would also expect more punishment, if I were successful. I saw an article here, a while back on a guy who left NY for Florida, having heard benefits were better down there. He discovered, not so, and moved back. The article was about how dissatisfied he was with the three free apartments he was shown in the City when he came back. He was holding out for a second bedroom, or something ridiculous, and it looked like he would get it. Look to the benefits system in Britain, for where Liberalism leads. A guy with no job or productivity has fifteen kids, and the state pays for everything.
Without the Donald Trumps of the city, making the money for the fairy land, NY would be crap.
Third, you fudge things by associating female aggressiveness with r environments and fatherly abandonment, when others would simply give women the credit for pursuing the same competitive strategies that men do.
Right, that is what r/K Theory says. It is called a reversal of sex specific behaviors. Females pursue aggressive endeavors which are male behaviors in K. I did a blog post on a chick in the UFC who fought her way through a fight with her jaw split down the middle. She had her mouth open at one point, and a photographer caught a pic of it. You could see the teeth on one side suddenly drop, where her jaw was hanging lower on that side. Guys online laugh at it. It is unnatural, from a K-perspective, where women don't fight, and they should never get injured. We tolerate it now because we have gone r.
Fourth, it's pretty clear that larger smarter animals might have a greater potential for fellow feeling (at least with their own kind).
This is solely related to group competition. All of Darwin is selfish. Empathetic animals love their compatriots because that love translates into survival advantage when they compete as a group, and the alternative no love is to fail and be killed. And Wolves love as much as a human, if not more.
Fifth, it's clear from everything I can see that more competitive environments (New Jersey, Connecticut) do put off breeding until the young are more able to compete and do invest more in education (at least for the chosen few). The problem with the theory is that those environments are politically liberal.
Competitive how? They tell citizens don't fight back, or have weapons. They are filled with Liberals who want safety. There is a researcher in intelligence who is a rising star named Michael Woodley. He has written a lot on summarizing the type s of intelligence. The theory today is specialist intelligence probably began as an r-strategy of competition avoidance. That is, if I don't want to go toe to toe with someone in the economy, I specialize, to avoid having to. On mating, see below.
I should note, if the revolutionary war were tomorrow, both Jersey and Connecticut would fall in a minute to Texas, probably aided by the Conservatives in those states (I know which side I would be on). There is competitive in areas with little risk, and then there is competitive.
The conservative states are the ones where more people marry and have children earlier even when it may get in the way of education.
Yes, high rearing drives of K mean there will be an explicit love of children, and desire to invest in them. When that is all that determines offspring production (among the conscientious, at least), K's will have more kids. Combine a low rearing drive with contraception, and abortion (the two lowest investment rearing strategies possible), and r's will choose not to have kids. Things would be different without those two things, and indeed, in the inner cites, where conscientiousness is low enough there is low compliance with Birth control, you have a young, single mother epidemic. At the higher IQ levels, Low rearing investment urges at the extreme just manifest as a lot of old angry feminists with twenty cats each. But those feminists began their ride on the carousel in their mid to early teens, and rotated among partners throughout their lives aggressively. It was just a combination of IQ and technology which kept them without child.
There isn't one "liberal" evolutionary strategy. There are two (at least if we judge by how people actually vote).
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What are the two Liberal strategies?
Theories like yours might have fit politics better some years ago, when wealthier areas of the country were more conservative. Nowadays, though, some of the richest people are very liberal. Contraceptives also throw off your theory. Promiscuity isn't necessarily associated with many offspring. I also have to wonder, comparing the two halves of the country where people really start having sex earlier or whether there is really that much difference between liberal and conservative areas (leaving aside a few areas that really are distinctive).
Again, I am not saying these urges function as r or K today, or that they are adaptive. Civilization, and these urges have just met, so they will clash, until Darwin sorts out a model of each which maximizes effectiveness at reproduction and survival. I am saying here are the r-urges, here are the K-urges. Look, they match what is driving Liberals and Conservatives, and they crop up in response to resource availability, too. Obviously, give an r-organism access to a technology which allows unlimited sex, with no down-time for baby-rearing, and you won't get high offspring number.
I haven't gone through all the ins and outs of your theory and didn't want to be very confrontational, but now I have to wonder. This explains all of politics? The people you approve of resemble the larger, smarter mammals we ascribe positive qualities to and those you disapprove of resemble the smaller, stupider, swarming creatures? Isn't there something reductive and creepy about your theory?
Here's something to blow your mind. Suppose I'm actually right scientifically, and your statement above is right, as well.
Does the fact this work is insulting to Liberalism mean, automatically, Ipso Facto, that it is wrong? Is that evidence I am off, scientifically? Or might I be right, and it is insulting to Liberalism?
Might Liberalism, as an r-strategy, embodying r-urges, in a K-species, be aberrant by our overall K-standards, and as a result be prone to be judged harshly by the majority of our populace?
What if the science supports my work, and even worse, I am right? Should I censor it?
Or maybe it's just a reworking of the ant and the grasshopper or the tortoise and the hare
Fables play on very deeply imbued urges it is why they persist.
"Libertarianism is just childish fantasy stuff, just another part of the left, yet that likes conservative economics."
No. Like I said, I am instinctually Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarianism would work, if we were all spread out, rarely in contact with each other, resources were scarce, and Darwin had free reign.
Don't view this as a human, view it like an alien anthropologist from another planet. Libertarians are just programmed for one environment, and trying to apply it to another environment, where it doesn't work well. The force of the urge is why they can't see it.
The only way I broke free of Libertarianism, and decided to embrace Social Conservatism, was by seeing all of this work. If you can explain to people - here is what your urges are designed to do. Here is the urge's ideal environment. Here is just how they are not well adapted to this environment. It hits buttons. Once you see where you would be happiest, and how this environment is different, and how you need to adapt to it - maybe we can let some logic in the door.
Libertarians (not the druggie losers or leftist/gay infiltrators) are smart enough to come around, if we welcome them right.
I agree with your goal and hope that you can find a way to make libertarians into conservatives, but what I see, is that they (the druggie losers or leftist/gay infiltrators) are turning the GOP more and more leftist.
I know. The funny thing is I don't think most are close to being Leftists. My Libertarian urges were borne of the strongest truculence you could imagine. In retrospect, it is almost irritation at having to deal with other people. What the hell do you mean you're going to tell someone XYZ?!
It is uncontrollable, unless you realize it is an urge, and not logic.
I have no doubt how this ends. The Federal Government will go down, very suddenly, and the headlines will all include the word unexpectedly. Very quickly, just like after Sept 11th, nobody will admit to having been a Liberal. I really think it will be so weird, that if we read the articles about it now, we wouldn't believe it.
So keep the faith brother. God loves America.
We will be seeing that shortly, in the global arena. Modern agriculture is getting better and better at getting more crops out of a given acre of land. Unfortunately, it takes money: money for fertilizer, money for herbicides/insecticides, money for machinery and fuel. You get to the point where the productivity of some of the population is not enough to get paid enough to buy food. And the willingness of the Western middle class to impoverish ourselves in order the feed the world is lessening.
Somewhat of a "WHAT" you know, vs. a "WHO" you know formula for success. Thinking is good, but overthinking tends to lead to goofy things which work fine on paper and not at all in the real world where unexpected things happen.This, I believe is why they think they are "smarter" when the evidence is clear that they are not.They think a professor or philosopher or actor is superior to a useful person who has a farm, a ranch, a repair shop, etc. (That is, until things go belly-up, and then they see the error).
"We will be seeing that shortly, in the global arena."
I think you are right. Not only costs, but we may see loss of confidence in currency, massive economic slowdown, solar activity is about to go into a minimum, weather seems to be getting more aggressively destructive, and all of it is happening just as r-numbers and K-disatisfaction are both peaking. It just seems like multiple ways for things to go bad, and one way for a perfect storm of sorts.
I can't point to a specific piece of evidence, but it does have the feel of a perfect storm of some sort.
"Somewhat of a WHAT you know, vs. a WHO you know formula for success."
Great analogy. Exactly.
Competitive the way people are competitive in the modern world -- economically. But it's not just a matter of economic incentives. Prestige also counts. And it has to do with aggressive what used to be called type-A behavior. Production costs are probably not competitive on the coasts, but if you were looking for the most fiercely and ferociously competitive people in the country, you wouldn't want to overlook talent agents, entertainment lawyers, or bond and options traders, and where do they cluster? Whatever the economic incentives and disincentives people who leave New York or Los Angeles recognize that they're entering a less stressful, less prestigious environment. Taxes may increase, but so far it hasn't made big city people less materialistic or less driven or less competitive (assuming that they have jobs in highly competitive fields).
What are the two Liberal strategies?
Look at the states where divorce rates are highest and those where they're lowest. That may have something to do with aging populations or late marriage or vestigial conservatism, but those rates tend to be lowest in blue states, highest in red ones. Or look at the rates for teen pregnancy or illegitimate births by state. It's the same pattern, which leads me to think that the blue states that are following a K strategy rather than an r-one.
Leaving out outliers like the very rich and very famous and leaving out periods like the 1970s when people of all backgrounds where divorcing and leaving their families, a lot of liberals are upper middle class people who pursue upper middle class breeding and rearing strategies: late marriage, few children, heavy emotional and financial investment in those children. You can say a lot against them, but they aren't breeding like rabbits or abandoning their families more than other people. They may encourage other people to do so, and that may be an evolutionary strategy to ensure that their own children come out ahead as others falter. It's like supporting public or progressive education when your own kids go to private or traditional schools or get extra tutoring, summer programs and other benefits.
What you're saying is basically what liberal blue staters say about conservative red staters only turned on its head. The reproaches that you make based on welfare populations in the blue states are similar to the attacks they make on red state populations (based largely on the welfare recipients there). Since I objected to their oversimplifications, it's only fair play to reject yours as well. The country is much more one than two, with the same tendencies at work in both the red and blue halves.
"Competitive the way people are competitive in the modern world — economically."
You have to internalize a lot of info about r/K to get this. One of the things about intelligence is that there are different types. If you look at it compared to r/K there is a growing perception that Specialist Intelligence (vs General Intelligence) is an r means of exploiting a niche top avoid competition, during periods when resources are not so scarce as to support the necessity of using violence to survive.
"Prestige also counts. "
Again, status is more important in r-environments, when you have a wide variety of fitness levels existing due to a lack of culling. It is why a lot r-species have unusually flashy males. They use the flash to signal status, or superior fitness in some regard, to mates. In K, just being alive, and able to provision a mate is a sign of fitness, so there is less flash.
"ferociously competitive people in the country, you wouldn't want to overlook talent agents, entertainment lawyers, or bond and options traders, and where do they cluster?"
Again, specialist intelligence. If resources actually became scarce enough that those who didn't have food would die, and food was very scarce, all those guys would be dead, with a bunch of US Marines and Navy SEALs splitting up their stuff. There is competitive in an r-environment, and competitive in a K-environment. They produce different psychologies, because the environments are fundamentally different. We have not seen true K in a while. It doesn't mean we didn't and it isn't when we were imbued with Conservatism.
"Look at the states where divorce rates are highest and those where they're lowest."
This was a leftist blogger's contribution, and as was shown in several places, the mixed variables hid that it was Democrats who divorced more in the Conservative states, and never married in the blue states. The best examination of mating, pairing, and rearing investment drive I have seen is below, though Gallup, and GSS data show the same thing, albeit in different ways. Libs have more partners, shorter relationships, and want to rear kids less. Bear in mind, these are the intelligent Liberals, not the welfarites.
"a lot of liberals are upper middle class people who pursue upper middle class breeding and rearing strategies: late marriage, few children, heavy emotional and financial investment in those children. You can say a lot against them, but they aren't breeding like rabbits or abandoning their families more than other people."
Remove birth control and abortion, and I will bet you would have a ton of young single moms in that cohort, based on the data above. That is how it evolved to operate. The fact that contraception and abortion have allowed it to operate differently doesn't change where it came from.
"The country is much more one than two, with the same tendencies at work in both the red and blue halves."
Again, if you want to hold that perception, you can, but the researchers who have taken everything apart in detail, from John Jost, to Neuropolitics, to Altmeyer and Adorno, to the GSS say we have two strategies in our population. I point out, if you look at the established traits of ideologies in the literature, you will see a correlation to r/K. History says leftists will crash the country, and we will probably have some sort of post-crash conflict between left and right. That is hardly one. Already, we see guys on here talking about "CWII," and resources are still really plentiful. Have no illusions, if resources grow scarce enough, it will get nasty in a way we haven't seen recently, but which is probably more normal to our species than we would imagine, looking at the entirety of our history.
I'm just pointing to the research of others, and saying look at this correlation. If you don't see it, it is a shame. It is interesting, it cleanly fills in holes people have been wondering about for decades now, and it does it with a well worn body of research. As you can see by this thread, those it hits, feel the ground shake beneath their established paradigm.
That looks like the kind of thinking that got Mitt Romney in trouble: the assumption that poorer people are always going to be Democrats and richer people Republicans. A lot of divorced people in the red states are poor Republicans, and a lot of the people in the blue states who never got divorced are well-to-do Democrats.
I can also see that differences in out-of-wedlock marriage rates may be related to contraception and abortion. But if breeding or child rearing strategies are something real, then such practices -- however distasteful -- are part of such strategies. If you are pursuing a strategy of limited breeding and high investment in offspring then that is what you are doing, you aren't "really" pursuing some other strategy that you'd be following in the absence of condoms and birth control pills.
For one thing, a lot of people would be less sexually active if there were no condoms or birth control pills. Also, the town I grew up in has become quite liberal since my parents' day. Yet when I go back there I don't see everybody hanging out at the local bar for random pick-ups. There's a lot that you can say against the yuppies who've crowded out other people, but they aren't promiscuous, they aren't divorced more often than other people are, and they aren't abandoning their families (though enough of their fathers did that in the 1970s).
In the city things are different, but as their counterparts reach their thirties they do start to settle down (and move out to the suburbs). While marriage rates may be lower for this generation than for some others, for those over 30 or so, it's not exactly all sex all the time.
It sounds like you're really invested in the idea that two parts of America are pursing radically different evolutionary strategies, and also that somehow violent struggle for life is somehow the norm, even though most of our lives don't reflect that. I don't think anything or anybody's going to convince you that you may be taking things too far.
"It sounds like you're really invested in the idea that two parts of America are pursing radically different evolutionary strategies,"
Again, I base my arguments on the data, and not possible anecdotes about who it seems likely is following what strategy. Read the last chart at the neuropolitics link, Go to the GSS site, check Gallup, and tell me where it is most likely those Liberals got those urges, from an evolutionary standpoint. More sex, more partners, shorter relationships, less desire to rear children. It matches r perfectly.
I never understood why we didn't get an infinite number of ideologies, all pursuing different mixes of agendas. Instead everybody aggregates around two main ones, while a minor strategy of Libertarianism (which might actually be a logical compromise) is wholly ignored.
"and also that somehow violent struggle for life is somehow the norm, even though most of our lives don't reflect that."
Again, you seem to be ignoring a lot of what I am saying. I am not looking at how these urges are perfectly adapted to today's world as r and K-strategies. They aren't perfectly adaptive. The present world is less violent, which is part of why Conservatism is doing worse for the time being (and did better after Sept 11th). But, understand, the primitive switches in our heads which trigger these are still there. Let resources get scarce, or things get violent, and you will see Conservatism rapidly rise. Give free resources, and r will gain strength as long as you keep the resources flowing comfortably.
I am saying violence was a large part of our evolutionary history, it emerges in K-selection, it doesn't emerge in r-selection, and it shows in our two sets of urges, one of which is still adaptive to that violent environment. Notice, under this model, the second you flood a society with free resources (like freely borrowed money) you initiate r-selection, which I maintain trips switches in our systems that increase the adherence to an r-strategy. Look how r we have become since the mid eighties, which themselves followed Carter's resource limitation. This ecological analogy is predictive going back. If it is predictive going forward, we will see our system crash (as any glut of free resources always tends to end in nature).
You seem bent on implying that despite similarities to known Darwinian strategies, ideologies have no biological root. You also seem set on the fact things have changed forever, and we will never go back to a more primitive form of existence. I disagree with both.
I think the Romans believed that thigns couldn't change too, right before the fall, and the pillaging of barbarians which followed. Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East, Bosnia was unbelievably Cosmopolitian. Things change, as they have throughout history. It is why I believe we can adapt our strategies on the fly - something which will probably be quite useful in the next three decades here, if current trends bear out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Special Vehicles
11,459pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
This is a list of Special Vehicles throughout the 3D Universe. Special vehicles are a type of vehicle that has unique qualities in contrast to standard ones. Such of these are unique/permanent colors and proofing against bullets, explosions, fire, or collisions.
|Unique trait
|The vehicles receives no damage everywhere. (BP/FP/EP/DP)
|The vehicle receives no damage from direct hits from bullets.
|The vehicle receives no damage from any flames or fires except when the vehicle is already burning from other forms of damage.
|The vehicle receives no damage from any explosions inflicted upon the vehicle.
|The vehicle receives no damage from collisions or any form of physical damage (i.e. melee weapons).
|The vehicle will not go in flames when it's tipped over. This property is available in GTA Liberty City Stories and GTA Vice City Stories
|Permanent Color
|The vehicle's paintjob cannot be changed in a spray shop when it could otherwise.
|The vehicle's mass is greater than it should normally, meaning the vehicle will lose less momentum when colliding into dynamic objects. The downside to this is that collisions will damage the vehicle more than it would normally and it reflects the same amount of your hit.
|Unique Paintjob
|Name of color
|The vehicle's paintjob is unique and cannot be obtained through spray shops or mod shops. However, the unique paintjob can be painted over and lost if the player enters a spray shop with the vehicle.
|Unique Handling
|The vehicle's handling is altered to let the player be able to cut corners and turn more quickly than normal.
|The vehicle's tires cannot be popped by any means.
|The vehicle will not sink in the water where it will just blast through, falling into Blue Hell.
|Double Damage
|The vehicle will take two times more damage than ordinary vehicle.
|The model of the vehicle appears only a few times during missions in the game.
|Cannot be obtained legitimately. You can only get it through trainers or Cheat Device (LCS, VCS). Some cannot be obtained without complete modifications of the game.
- Destroying a proofed vehicle
Proofed vehicles are not indestructible. There are many of ways to wreck a BP/FP/EP/DP vehicle, including:
- Flipping the car up-side down. (Won't work on tip-proof vehicles).
- Getting hit by a tank (excluding APC's)
- Sinking the car in the water. (Won't work on water-proof vehicles.)
- Starting race with a vehicle
- Using the Blow-up all cars cheat.
- Getting in the vehicle while the player is on fire.
- Using a car bomb to detonate the vehicle.
- Taking the car to the Harwood Autocrusher and Junkyard autocrusher to crush the vehicle.
- Taking it to a girlfriends' house and have coffee with her. The car will lose its special property and simply become normal again.
Locked vehicles
There are locked vehicles which cannot be opened by the player on the outside, such as Police Cars that patrol the city. Also the front doors will not fall off (although they will be deformed) if they are rammed with another auto or hit by a melee weapon. However, there are ways to obtain locked vehicles.
- Getting a wanted level when a Police Car is in the vicinity (including attempting to enter a Police vehicle) which will cause the officer to exit and chase the player on foot, rendering that vehicle unlocked.
- The player can use a manual aim firearm such as a rifle to shoot the driver or front passenger through the windshield, unlocking the car door when their body tumbles out.
- If the player tows/pushes the vehicle into their garage, closes the garage door and re-opens it, it will unlock the veichle.
- Putting some vehicles in garages may cause them to lose their special abilities.
By game
- Special Vehicles in GTA III
- Special Vehicles in GTA Vice City
- Special Vehicles in GTA Advance
- Special Vehicles in GTA San Andreas
- Special Vehicles in GTA Liberty City Stories
- Special Vehicles in GTA Vice City Stories
- Special Vehicles in GTA IV
- Special Vehicles in The Lost and Damned
- Special Vehicles in GTA Chinatown Wars
- Special Vehicles in The Ballad of Gay Tony
- Special Vehicles in GTA V


text:
April 9, 2013
William Mortis and fellow CBI classmates roam the hallways of Payson High School daily to keep the campus clean and to earn points in the Pepsi Dream Machine Recycle Rally program.
Stories this photo appears in:
Laughs, learning, and doing the earth good
Recycling program teaches sustainable and social skills to special education students
Brandon Nicholson could not hold back the chortles. He kept giggling then laughing out loud, pointing and trying to express his excitement, but he has challenges most kids won't ever face
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.


text:
Customers Benefit from the HPE Security Channel Partner Community
HPE Security is committed to your success. Your business is unique and we recognize the important role that partners play in delivering solutions to accommodate your needs. To ensure your success, HPE is developing cooperative and close relationships with key partners.
HPE Security solutions partners with regional consulting firms. In addition to their expertise in security domains, our partners comprise best-in-class IT security solutions from vendors in multiple categories including HPE Security ArcSight, HPE Security Fortify, and HPE Atalla HSM. They bring local language, best practices, compliance regulations, and other expertise invaluable to customers in those regions.
Join HPE Security Partner Community
If you're a consulting firm, reseller, or distributor, please join the HPE Security partner community.
- Participate in one of the highest growth segments in the IT industry - security
- Increase revenue and margins by leveraging undisputed technology and market share leadership
- Profit from our commitment to the partner model
- Capitalize on designed-in partner-friendly programs, processes, and field engagement models
- Accelerate your customer acquisition and revenue growth
To become an HPE Security Reseller or Distribution Partner, go to the HPE Security Program Overview for more information.
Related Products, Solutions and Services
Engage with our HPE Security Community
- Key Features
- Screen Shots
- Details
- Demos
- Videos
- Case Studies
- Try Now
- Resources
- Community
- Top


text:
Building 8, sixth floor, Room 8601
(New building next to McDonald's)
Open Monday to Saturday, our facility offers convenient hours to fit your schedule.
Please note that the Fitness and Wellness Center hours of operation are subject to change due to holidays and school closure.
The Fitness and Wellness Center at Wolfson offers:


text:
Evaluation of Carboplatin/Paclitaxel With and Without Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in Uterine Serous Cancer
This study is currently recruiting participants. (see Contacts and Locations)
Verified December 2016 by Yale University
Yale University
Genentech, Inc.
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Yale University
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First received: May 26, 2011
Last updated: December 7, 2016
Last verified: December 2016
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
Detailed Description:
The primary objective of this study is to estimate whether the addition of trastuzumab to paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy improves progression free survival when compared to paclitaxel and carboplatin alone in Uterine Serous Papillary Carcinoma (USPC) patients overexpressing Her2/neu at 3+ level by immunohistochemistry (IHC)or positive by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).
Endometrial Cancer
Drug: Carboplatin/Paclitaxel
Drug: Trastuzumab
Phase 2
|Study Type:
|Study Design:
|Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:
|Randomized Phase II Evaluation of Carboplatin/Paclitaxel With and Without Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in HER2/Neu+ Patients With Advance/Recurrent Uterine Serous Papillary Carcinoma
Resource links provided by NLM:
Drug Information available for: Paclitaxel Carboplatin TrastuzumabU.S. FDA Resources
Further study details as provided by Yale University:
Primary Outcome Measures:
- Progression free survival differences between Arm A versus Arm B. [ Time Frame: 4 years ]Progression free survival differences between Arm A versus Arm B.
Secondary Outcome Measures:
- To assess the safety profile of trastuzumab in USPC patients by CTCAE v4.0 [ Time Frame: 4 years ]To assess the safety profile of trastuzumab in USPC patients by CTCAE v4.0.
|Estimated Enrollment:
|Study Start Date:
|June 2011
|Estimated Study Completion Date:
|July 2019
|Estimated Primary Completion Date:
|July 2019 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
|Assigned Interventions
Active Comparator: Carboplatin/Paclitaxel
Drug: Carboplatin/Paclitaxel
Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 will administered intravenously every 21 days for 6 cycles. Carboplatin AUC 5 will be administered intravenously every 21 days for 6 cycles. 100% of patients will receive Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.
Other Names:
Experimental: Trastuzumab
Monoclonal antibody
Drug: Trastuzumab
Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 will be administered intravenously every 21 days for 6 cycles. Carboplatin AUC 5 will be administered intravenously every 21 days for 6 cycles. On day 1, an 8 mg/kg loading dose of trastuzumab will be administered over a 90 minute period. Beginning on day 21, patients will receive 6mg/kg of trastuzumab, administered intravenously every 21 days and continued indefinitely every 21 days after 6 cycles of cytotoxic therapy are completed and until progression of the disease or prohibitive toxicities occur. 50% of patients will receive Carboplatin/Paclitaxel with the addition of Trastuzumab.
Other Name: Herceptin
Detailed Description:
The purpose of this study is to perform a randomized Phase II evaluation of Carboplatin/Paclitaxel with or without Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in patients with HER2/neu+ advanced stage/recurrent disease with an emphasis on determining the progression free survival in USPC patients and assessing immunologic markers predictive of trastuzumab response.
|Ages Eligible for Study:
|Child, Adult, Senior
|Sexes Eligible for Study:
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients must have advanced (stage III-IV) or recurrent histologically confirmed USPC with measurable disease.
- Patients must harbor a tumor HER2/neu+ based upon IHC staining score of 3+ or 2+ with confirmed gene amplification by FISH
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients with a history of other invasive malignancies, with the exception of non-melanoma skin cancers, significant history of cardiac disease, uncontrolled hypertension, unstable medical issue, brain leptomeningeal, prior therapy with trastuzumab, uncontrolled seizure disorder, seropositive for HIV, active hepatitis, hemorrhagic diathesis or requiring supplemental oxygen.
Contacts and Locations
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01367002
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01367002
|Contact: Alessandro D Santin, M.D.
|Contact: Martha Luther, R.N.
|United States, Arizona
|University of Arizona Cancer Center
|Tucson, Arizona, United States, 85724
|Contact: Setsuko Chambers, M.D. 520-626-0950 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Elizabeth Collins, BSHCA 520-694-9067 email@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Setsuko Chambers, M.D.
|United States, California
|John Muir Clinical Research Center
|Concord, California, United States, 94520
|Contact: Babak Edraki, M.D. 925-674-2580 email@example.com
|Contact: Peggy Newsom 925-674-2198 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Babak Edraki, M.D.
|University of California at Los Angeles
|Not yet recruiting
|Los Angeles, California, United States, 90095
|Contact: Gottfried Konecny, M.D. 310-586-2652 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Christy Palodichuk
|Principal Investigator: Gottfried Konecny, M.D.
|United States, Colorado
|Penrose St. Francis Hospital
|Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States, 80907
|Contact: Dirk Pikkaart, M.D. 719-776-6222 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Penrose Cancer Center Research Department 719-776-6550 email@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Dirk Pikkaart, M.D.
|United States, Connecticut
|The Hospital of Central Connecticut
|New Britain, Connecticut, United States, 06050
|Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale New Haven
|New Haven, Connecticut, United States, 06510
|Contact: Alessandro D Santin, M.D. 203-737-4450 email@example.com
|Contact: Martha Luther, R.N. 203-737-2781 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Alessandro Santin, M.D.
|United States, Maryland
|Greater Baltimore Medical Center
|Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21204
|Contact: Amanda Nickles-Fader, M.D. 443-803-0235 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Tahisa Hamwright, B.S. 443-849-3123 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Amanda Nickles-Fader, M.D.
|Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
|Bethesda, Maryland, United States, 20889-5600
|Contact: William J. Lowery, M.D. 301-400-1271 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Sarah Bernstein, R.N. 301-400-1302 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Principal Investigator: William J. Lowery, M.D.
|University of Maryland Medical Center
|Silver Spring, Maryland, United States, 20910
|Contact: Dana Roque, M.D. 301-754-7552 email@example.com
|Contact: Carolyn Harris, B.A. 410-328-8198 email@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Dana Roque, M.D.
|United States, New Jersey
|Jersey Shore University Medical Center
|Neptune, New Jersey, United States, 07753
|Contact: Karim El-Sahwi, M.D. 732-776-3790 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Diane Russomanno 732-776-3790 email@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Karim El-Sahwi, M.D.
|United States, New York
|Montefiore Medical Center
|Bronx, New York, United States, 10461
|Contact: Nicole Nevadunsky, M.D. 718-920-4794 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Randy Teeter 718-405-8395 email@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Nicole Nevadunsky, M.D.
|United States, North Carolina
|Duke University School of Medicine
|Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27710
|Contact: Laura J. Havrilesky, M.D. 919-684-3765 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Contact: Jennifer G. Mewshaw, BSN, AGPCNP-BC 919-684-3780 email@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Laura J Havrilesky, M.D.
|United States, Ohio
|Cleveland Clinic
|Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44195
|Contact: Peter Rose, MD 216-444-8551 email@example.com
|Contact: Donna White, RN 216-444-3414 firstname.lastname@example.com
|Principal Investigator: Peter Rose, MD
|The Ohio State University
|Hilliard, Ohio, United States, 43026
|Contact: David O'Malley, M.D. 614-293-7642 email@example.com
|Contact: Leena Hiremath, Ph.D. 614-366-9088 email@example.com
|Principal Investigator: David O'Malley, M.D.
Sponsors and Collaborators
Yale University
Genentech, Inc.
|Principal Investigator:
|Alessandro D Santin, M.D.
|Yale University
More Information
Keywords provided by Yale University:
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on January 23, 2017
Santin AD, Bellone S, Gokden M, Palmieri M, Dunn D, Agha J, Roman JJ, Hutchins L, Pecorelli S, O'Brien T, Cannon MJ, Parham GP. Overexpression of HER-2/neu in uterine serous papillary cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2002 May;8(5):1271-9.
Santin AD, Bellone S, Siegel ER, Palmieri M, Thomas M, Cannon MJ, Kay HH, Roman JJ, Burnett A, Pecorelli S. Racial differences in the overexpression of epidermal growth factor type II receptor (HER2/neu): a major prognostic indicator in uterine serous papillary cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;192(3):813-8.
Santin AD, Bellone S, Van Stedum S, Bushen W, De Las Casas LE, Korourian S, Tian E, Roman JJ, Burnett A, Pecorelli S. Determination of HER2/neu status in uterine serous papillary carcinoma: Comparative analysis of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Jul;98(1):24-30.
Santin AD. Letter to the Editor referring to the manuscript entitled: "Phase II trial of trastuzumab in women with advanced or recurrent HER-positive endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study" recently reported by Fleming et al., (Gynecol Oncol., 116;15-20;2010). Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Jul;118(1):95-6; author reply 96-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.043.
Schwartz PE. The management of serous papillary uterine cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2006 Sep;18(5):494-9. Review.
Cirisano FD Jr, Robboy SJ, Dodge RK, Bentley RC, Krigman HR, Synan IS, Soper JT, Clarke-Pearson DL. The outcome of stage I-II clinically and surgically staged papillary serous and clear cell endometrial cancers when compared with endometrioid carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Apr;77(1):55-65.
Goff BA, Kato D, Schmidt RA, Ek M, Ferry JA, Muntz HG, Cain JM, Tamimi HK, Figge DC, Greer BE. Uterine papillary serous carcinoma: patterns of metastatic spread. Gynecol Oncol. 1994 Sep;54(3):264-8.
Randall ME, Filiaci VL, Muss H, Spirtos NM, Mannel RS, Fowler J, Thigpen JT, Benda JA; Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.. Randomized phase III trial of whole-abdominal irradiation versus doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 1;24(1):36-44.
Burke TW, Gershenson DM, Morris M, Stringer CA, Levenback C, Tortolero-Luna G, Baker VV. Postoperative adjuvant cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (PAC) chemotherapy in women with high-risk endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1994 Oct;55(1):47-50.
Levenback C, Burke TW, Silva E, Morris M, Gershenson DM, Kavanagh JJ, Wharton JT. Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) treated with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (PAC). Gynecol Oncol. 1992 Sep;46(3):317-21.
Ball HG, Blessing JA, Lentz SS, Mutch DG. A phase II trial of paclitaxel in patients with advanced or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1996 Aug;62(2):278-81.
Lincoln S, Blessing JA, Lee RB, Rocereto TF. Activity of paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Mar;88(3):277-81.
Fleming GF, Brunetto VL, Cella D, Look KY, Reid GC, Munkarah AR, Kline R, Burger RA, Goodman A, Burks RT. Phase III trial of doxorubicin plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel plus filgrastim in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 1;22(11):2159-66.
Ramondetta L, Burke TW, Levenback C, Bevers M, Bodurka-Bevers D, Gershenson DM. Treatment of uterine papillary serous carcinoma with paclitaxel. Gynecol Oncol. 2001 Jul;82(1):156-61.
|Responsible Party:
|Yale University
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
|NCT01367002 History of Changes
|Other Study ID Numbers:
|Study First Received:
|May 26, 2011
|Last Updated:
|December 7, 2016
Keywords provided by Yale University:
Uterine serous papillary carcinoma
Type II endometrial cancer
Paclitaxel, Carboplatin, Trastuzumab
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Endometrial Neoplasms
Carcinoma, Papillary
Uterine Neoplasms
Genital Neoplasms, Female
Urogenital Neoplasms
Neoplasms by Site
Uterine Diseases
Genital Diseases, Female
Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial
Neoplasms by Histologic Type
Neoplasms, Squamous Cell
Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel
Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic
Antineoplastic Agents
Tubulin Modulators
Antimitotic Agents
Mitosis Modulators
Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on January 23, 2017


text: Gadgets Nintendo Wii U GamePad Lacrosse Playground / June 6, 2012 If you were born in the 80's then Nintendo was a huge part of your childhood. Stomping on mushrooms and rescuing princesses on the reg. Today Nintendo releases info on a Wii U game console. The Wii U is a tad more Continue Reading Share


text:
Safety & Prevention
Year after year, Seattle proves to be one of the safest major cities in the US. One of the reasons for this is how active and engaged our community is. Seattle residents and business owners are not tolerant of criminal behavior - they tend to be proactive, willing to report crimes and are involved in programs like Block Watch and Night Out in numbers that exceed the national average.
Our safety and prevention section is full of information you can put to use on a day-to-day basis to decrease the chances of crime happening to you.
The Seattle community is law enforcement's best partner in fighting criminal activity.
Seattle Police has a wide variety of crime tips available online on how to avoid vehicle theft, ID theft, personal safety and how to prevent crime in your neighborhood.
Emergency PREPAREDNESS
The Office of Emergency Management has great advice for how to get your neighbors working together to be prepared for a disaster.
SPD has a section specifically for business owners that focuses on the programs we offer and crime prevention tips for businesses.
We have resources and safety tips online for those who have experienced or are supporting others going through:


text:
Just about everyone has a presentation disaster experience at one time or another.
A child, or maybe an adult, prepares a great PowerPoint presentation, takes it to school or to the office, and then, for some reason, it doesn't work, and we are never quite sure just why. Problem possibilities include the size of the file, the number and size of graphics, the way it attaches to e-mail, or perhaps the way a file copies onto a CD or flash drive. Operating system platforms used to be one of the big problems, but they are less so today.
Presenters can lessen potential problems by exploring several web-based tools that refine the whole process — writing, developing, and presenting. Because these new sites put presentations on a website, a document lives in the cloud and can be worked on or used almost anywhere. At Web 2.0 presentation sites a user simply signs in, creates a presentation, works steadily, saves, and accesses it again and again to continue working and begin presenting — on any computer connected to the web. Continue reading


text:
Bailey Fernales Hat
Code: 63304
Product Description
The Bailey Fernales Hat is a light soft palm straw fedora with a center dent crown and fashionable 1 5/8 inch stingy pre-snap brim. This handsome hat is simple but stylish with a wide grosgrain ribbon hat band to finish off the look. Perfect for dressing up, dressing down, and wearing everywhere this summer.


text:
Searching for an internationalized .de.si domain name using German characters? Our search comes with a translation tool and keyboard in German characters to help create your .de.si IDN. German language IDN domain registration time frame is 2 Days.
Check requirements for additional fees / instructionsSlovenia Domain Registration Time Frame: 2 Days
Trustee / Proxy service offered? Fees?


text:
"The learning revolution is underway," writes Tom Vander Ark in Getting Smart: How Digital Learning Is Changing the World.
"There is good reason for optimism," but beware of Hyper Hype, responds Mark Bauerlein in an Education Next review.
. . . digital technology can customize learning and dismantle the old calendars and spaces of schooling. Extraordinary innovations have arrived—online curricula, learning games, customized play-lists—and they are ready for implementation across the land if only educators and public officials break with standard procedure and embrace them.
. . . Every few pages Vander Ark adds a bold prediction sidebar: "In five years…Information from keystroke data will unlock the new field of motivation research…," "In five years…Most learning platforms will feature a smart recommendation engine, similar to iTunes Genius…," and "In five years…Science will confirm the obvious about how most boys learn and active learning models will be developed in response using expeditions, playlists, and projects."
In his enthusiasm, Vander Ark ignores the disappointments (laptops for all had little impact) and the dangers (social media can fuel gossip, bullying and cheating), Bauerlein writes.
All this hype and prophecy is unnecessary. The digital future is here, and its main educational advantage, the individualization of learning, is recognized by everyone. At this point, the pressing questions are practical: how much it costs, how to overcome bureaucracy, for example. Vander Ark does include an appendix of concrete advice, such as urging state leaders to allow students to personalize their learning and base matriculation on demonstrated competency, not on seat time, but these are precisely the points to expound in the main text, not stick in an appendix. . . . What we need is sound evidence, presented without hyperbole, of scalable and cost-effective digital programs that yield higher reading, writing, and math achievement.
Utah's digital learning law lets districts and charter schools offer online courses to students throughout the state "and pocket a reasonable share of the state aid that comes with every student enrolled," writes Paul Peterson. In theory, providers will compete for students by offering high-quality courses. "But that dream may not come true unless various aspects of the law are re-thought," Peterson writes.


text:
Your browser does not support iframes.
Product 41/41
Winter tire designed for medium power and high performance vehicles from high-end. Pirelli tires SottoZero 3 is the third generation of winter tires UHP / ultra-fast segments /.
Tires are developed and designed in collaboration with the most famous car manufacturers in the world, and are designed to deal with their high standards in winter conditions. Tire stress and promote sporting characteristics of these cars


text:
"Both the cockroach and the bird would get along very well without us, although the cockroach would miss us most." - Joseph Wood Krutch
A female Oriental cockroach, Blatta orientalis, native to Asia. They're a commonly seen introduced species throughout much of the world (including Maryland). Males have noticeably longer wings.
Try viewing the large version or the original. The smaller version lacks detail. This photo was also featured here:


text:
2XU Men's Compression Recovery Knee High Sock
Product Information:
Speed your recovery after an intense training session with the 2XU Compression Recovery Knee High sock. A graduated compression fit ensures circulation in a recovery sock that comes with a medically engineered knit construction. Vented toe panel keeps you cool and dry with every wear while antibacterial fights odors and SPF 50+ protects from the sun. Zoned padding maximizes comfort in a 2XU sock that reduces muscle fatigue and speeds recovery.
NOTE: When choosing the appropriate size for compression socks please size as per your calf girth. Shoe sizes are shown as a recommendation if you do not know your calf girth or need more sizing information.
- PWX Fabric Technology
- Medically Engineered Circular Knit Construction
- Anatomically designed foot beds for a custom fit
- Graduated Compression Fit boosts circulation
- Compression Fit Technology fabric comes with moisture management zones and muscle containment
- Engineered Foot Bed and Heel for Achilles support
- Zoned padding to heel and balls of feet
- Linked toe cage boosts comfort and withstands prolonged wear
- Invista Lycra® Sport Fabric
- Maximum Moisture Management from Vented Toe Panel keeps you cool and dry
- Antibacterial fights odors
- SPF 50+ Sun Protection
- Increased circulation
- Reduces muscle fatigue, damage, injury
- Speeds recovery
- Great for post workout or competition, extended resting, sleeping and rehabbing
- DVT Protection when traveling
- Style: MA2440E
- Sock Size: X Small = Shoe Size: Men's 4-6.5, Calf Girth 13''
- Sock Size: Small = Shoe Size: Men's 6-8.5, Calf Girth 14''
- Sock Size: Medium = Shoe Size: Men's 8-10.5, Calf Girth 16''
- Sock Size: Large = Shoe Size: Men's 10-12.5, Calf Girth 17''
- Sock Size: X Large = Shoe Size: Men's 12-14+, Calf Girth 18''
- Sock Size: XX Large = Shoe Size: Men's 12-14+, Calf Girth 19''
NOTE: When choosing the appropriate size for compression socks please size as per your calf girth. Shoe sizes are shown as a recommendation if you do not know your calf girth or need more sizing information.
Country of Origin: TaiwanWeb ID: 19668686
Customer Reviews:
Rated 4.2 out of 5�by 14 reviewers.
Rated 5 out of 5�by JohnBoy There's a TRICK to putting them on This works for me: fold the top down about half way over the foot (so now the folded-down top part is inside-out), line-up and get you foot in the bottom (toe, heel, & the part up your ankle), Then grab the front edge of the folded-down portion, & pull up over lower leg and calf. Granted they can be a bear to get on at first , but after you've worn them a few times, they will stretch a little and get easier (until you wash them & they shrink back to original size.) I've been wearing these socks (I have 4 pair) every day for over a year, & I love 'em. Lower leg swelling no longer a problem with these babies and water-pills. Good Luck. Hope this helps. PS planning on going to get a few more pair today 'cause mine are showing some wear & Dick's has some kind of coupon deal going. December 5, 2016
Rated 5 out of 5�by TH Excellent feel good compression This compression knee high sock is exactly what I was looking for. It provides much comfort. August 23, 2016
Rated 5 out of 5�by guigui The product has the features i needed I am satisfied with it as I wear it daily as well as when I go to sleep. April 8, 2016
Rated 1 out of 5�by michael So tight that I couldn't get them on I just bought these 2 days ago in XL to help with swelling in my legs but they are so tight that I couldn't get them on even with help from my nurse. I even went up a size compared to what the size chart says. Wish they were available in XXL. January 20, 2016
Rated 5 out of 5�by jjk245 Great compression socks I am actually wearing these due to varicose vein problems. They run in my family man I am trying to be proactive. I drive a lot for work and these do the trick. The plain black collar works well with biz casual clothes too. These are much better quality than what the doctor tried to get me to go with and i have no problem wearing them around all of the time. I am a guy that has always wore quarter socks (even with work clothes), so that says something. January 9, 2016
Rated 2 out of 5�by ToDifficult Very difficult to put on Ordered 2 pair of the Men's Recovery Sock in size XL per the chart for a shoe size of 13 medium. It took 2 of us to get the sock on and both of us to get it off. Husband says they are comfortable while he is wearing them, but way too difficult to get on and off. Returned 1 pair to the store for refund. I couldn't believe how much trouble we had getting them on. Too bad XL is the largest size available. June 19, 2015
Rated 5 out of 5�by Brandon Excellently Versatile Product I work on my feet all day, and I love these socks. They keep my legs feeling fresh, even after a long day. They're fantastic for travel or if you'll be sitting a long time. Helps prevent that dead leg feeling and swollen feet/ankles. Speeds recovery after a long run. I don't know what I'd do without these socks. June 12, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5�by JC Feet Enjoyment What a great sock it helps those sore feet threw out the day. May 12, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5�by Greg828 Compression Sock The person who helped me and told me about this product as correct on everything. It fits and feels great! I would definitely recommend this product. March 12, 2014
Rated 4 out of 5�by dottie12 It does the job It does the job of keeping my ankles and legs from swelling up. March 5, 2014


text:
by Anton Shilov
Sue L. Robinson, a judge from the U.S. District Court of Delaware, determined that Rambus executed its document retention policy during a time when it anticipated litigation. The court found that the patent infringement matter with Micron Technology has found that Rambus cannot pursue its claims against Micron due to spoliation.
Rambus believes that it owns patents on key dynamic random access memory (DRAM) technologies used in SDR, DDR, DDR2 and DDR3 as well as their derivatives for graphics, such as GDDR and newer memory types. The company is seeking to obtain royalties from memory manufacturers as well as from controller developers. However, memory manufacturers claim that Rambus obtained its patents illegally and then intentionally deleted its internal documents proving it.
"We respectfully, but strongly, disagree with this opinion, and at the appropriate juncture plan to appeal, said Tom Lavelle, senior vice president and general counsel at Rambus
Despite of the fact that there are questions to Rambus over the deletion of documentation as well as regarding fair reception of patents, there are a number of court rulings in Rambus' favour.
"This opinion is highly inconsistent with the findings of the Court in the Northern District of California which looked at the same conduct and found there was nothing improper with our document retention practices. We are confident in the strength of our position and will continue to vigorously pursue fair compensation for the use of our patented inventions" Mr. Lavelle added.
The case with Micron was originally filed by Micron against Rambus in August 2000. The case was split into three separate phases with the first phase concerning allegations of unclean hands and spoliation. Cases are still pending against Hynix, Nanya, Micron, and Samsung in the Northern District of California. These cases concern patents, some of which were at suit in Delaware, as well as additional patents not part of that matter. Additionally, a trial on Rambus' claims that Samsung, Hynix and Micron illegally fixed DRAM prices and output to eliminate Rambus' proprietary RDRAM product from the market is scheduled for trial in San Francisco Superior Court in March.


text:
Creates binary representaiton of a SecBufferDesc structure, including the SecBuffer contained inside.
# File dl/win32/lib/win32/sspi.rb, line 90 def bufferSize unpack @bufferSize end
# File dl/win32/lib/win32/sspi.rb, line 95 def bufferType unpack @type end
# File dl/win32/lib/win32/sspi.rb, line 105 def to_p # Assumption is that when to_p is called we are going to get a packed structure. Therefore, # set @unpacked back to nil so we know to unpack when accessors are next accessed. @unpacked = nil # Assignment of inner structure to variable is very important here. Without it, # will not be able to unpack changes to the structure. Alternative, nested unpacks, # does not work (i.e. @struct.unpack("LLP12")[2].unpack("LLP12") results in "no associated pointer") @sec_buffer ||= [@bufferSize, @type, @buffer].pack("LLP") @struct ||= [SECBUFFER_VERSION, 1, @sec_buffer].pack("LLP") end
Commenting is here to help enhance the documentation. For example, code samples, or clarification of the documentation.
If you have questions about Ruby or the documentation, please post to one of the Ruby mailing lists. You will get better, faster, help that way.
If you wish to post a correction of the docs, please do so, but also file bug report so that it can be corrected for the next release. Thank you.
If you want to help improve the Ruby documentation, please visit Documenting-ruby.org.


text:
From buying and selling, renting and letting, managing, financial advice and even surveying, contact one of our Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward (KFH) estate agents today to find out how we can help.
Our website kfh.co.uk allows users to draw their own boundary on a map to create a search area that is individual to them.
Our opening hours are:
Monday 9am to 7pm
Tuesday 9am to 7pm
Wednesday 9am to 7pm
Thursday 9am to 7pm
Friday 9am to 6pm
Saturday 9.30am to 4pm
Sunday Closed
107 - 109 Lordship Lane London, SE22 8HU


text:
This KeepandShare account provides 0 'folder sets'. Upgrade to get more capacity:
Learn More
Here is what the Heatherstone Condo looks like from the street. You go down the driveway down to the left of the building to the garage.
You can attach a link to this document to an event or appointment in your calendar(s). Check the boxes below for the data you want to
bring into the appointment's description, and then click "Copy Data & Go to Calendar" to create the event that this document will be attached to.


text: This report contains case study examples and in these examples , both quantitative and qualitative values have been captured. From these examples, a list of more than 20 different ways in which benefits can be and are being assessed were identified. These case studies demonstrate consistent realized or expected benefits across all of the technical domains and value categories. The assessment techniques used in this research are also being successfully used by utilities to demonstrate the benefits and progress of their grid modernization efforts.


text:
Outsmart Mother Nature
June 8, 2010
Although Tampax was the category leader since its launch in 2007, it was leading a declining tampon category (3% decline per year). It was apparent that there was a need to regain our leadership and fight back by differentiating ourselves from the competition and set a new course for growth.
Members Only Content
This content is available to ANA Members only. Please login below or create an account.
You may already be a member. Find out if your company is already an ANA member.


text:
You are Here:
Financial Assistance
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
/ 14 Autauga Co EQIP Executive Summary
Loading Tree...
The USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Autauga County Alabama, announces the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) sign-up for the 2014 Fiscal Year. Any eligible land users who have an approved resource concern may apply for assistance through this program. All resource concerns in Autauga County are approved for consideration of funding with the EQIP program.
Visit your local NRCS Office and make application. Appointments are encouraged. Applications will be taken at the following Autauga County location.
Autaugaville Ag-Center
2226 Hwy 14 West, Suite A
Autaugaville, Alabama 36003
Hours: 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Phone: 334-365-5124, Extension 101
Fax: 334-365-1130
Contact: District Conservationist
LAND MUST reside within Autauga County Alabama. One application per person with one resource concern only.
If you have more than one resource concern, choose the application you wish considered first.
All applications received will be ranked according to the National 2014 EQIP ranking tool. The first batching will be on October 18th2013. Applications will be ranked and funded every 30 days as funds are available. Any applications received after a batching, will be considered in the next batching pool, if funds are available.
All contracts will be limited to three years in length inclusive of a one year maintenance period, unless special permission is given by the Assistant State Conservationist for Field Office Operations. This means that all practices MUST be completed and applied within the first two years of the contract with a one year maintenance period in the third year of the contract. Single practice applications will be given a high priority, applications with two practices is a medium priority, three practices low priority and applications with four or more practices will have a priority of none.
Applications will be funded from high priority first with the highest score to the lowest score, if money is available medium priority will be funded, then low priority and finally if money is still available a priority of none would be funded from highest ranking to lowest ranking score. In the event of a tie between applications, applications will be ranked by sign-up date and secondary ties will be awarded using the County Watershed Assessment priority-ranking list.
All conservation practices in the Alabama NRCS EQIP Practice and Payment Schedule will be available for use in solving the conservation needs on the farm. Payment rates on all practices will be the same as listed in the Alabama NRCS EQIP Practice and Payment Schedule. Limited Resource Farmers, New and Beginning Farmers and Socially Disadvantaged farmers will be paid at an increased payment rate.
Treatment stipulations:
Additional information is available on the National NRCS EQIP website
NRCS Home | USDA.gov | Site Map | Civil Rights | FOIA | Plain Writing | Accessibility Statement
Privacy Policy| Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | Whitehouse.gov