text:
A stunning number of teens have lost a little bit of their hearing — nearly one in five — and the problem has increased substantially in recent years, a new national study has found.
Some experts are urging teenagers to turn down the volume on their digital music players, suggesting loud music through earbuds may be to blame — although hard evidence is lacking. They warn that slight hearing loss can cause problems in school and set the stage for hearing aids in later life.
"Our hope is we can encourage people to be careful," said the study's senior author Dr. Gary Curhan of Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
The researchers analyzed data on 12- to 19-year-olds from a nationwide health survey. They compared hearing loss in nearly 3,000 kids tested from 1988-94 to nearly 1,800 kids tested over 2005-06.
The prevalence of hearing loss increased from about 15 percent to 19.5 percent.
Most of the hearing loss was "slight," defined as inability to hear at 16 to 24 decibels — or sounds such as a whisper or rustling leaves. A teenager with slight hearing loss might not be able to hear water dripping or his mother whispering "good night."
Extrapolating to the nation's teens, that would mean about 6.5 million with at least slight hearing loss.
Those with slight hearing loss "will hear all of the vowel sounds clearly, but might miss some of the consonant sounds" such as t, k and s, Curhan said.
"Although speech will be detectable, it might not be fully intelligible," he said.
While the researchers didn't single out iPods or any other device for blame, they found a significant increase in high-frequency hearing loss, which they said may indicate that noise caused the problems. And they cited a 2010 Australian study that linked use of personal listening devices with a 70 percent increased risk of hearing loss in children.
"I think the evidence is out there that prolonged exposure to loud noise is likely to be harmful to hearing, but that doesn't mean kids can't listen to MP3 players," Curhan said.
The study is based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings appear in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
Loud music isn't new, of course. Each new generation of teenagers has found a new technology to blast music — from the bulky headphones of the 1960s to the handheld Sony Walkmans of the 1980s.
Today's young people are listening longer, more than twice as long as previous generations, said Brian Fligor, an audiologist at Children's Hospital Boston. The older technologies had limited battery life and limited music storage, he said.
Apple iPod users can set their own volume limits. Parents can use the feature to set a maximum volume on their child's iPod and lock it with a code.
One of Fligor's patients, 17-year-old Matthew Brady of Foxborough, Mass., recently was diagnosed with mild hearing loss. He has trouble hearing his friends in the school cafeteria. He ends up faking comprehension.
"I laugh when they laugh," he said.
Fligor believes Brady's muffled hearing was caused by listening to an iPod turned up too loud and for too long. After his mother had a heart attack, Brady's pediatrician had advised him to exercise for his own health. So he cranked up the volume on his favorites — John Mellencamp, Daughtry, Bon Jovi and U2 — while walking on a treadmill at least four days a week for 30-minute stretches.
One day last summer, he got off the treadmill and found he couldn't hear anything with his left ear. His hearing gradually returned, but was never the same.
Some young people turn their digital players up to levels that would exceed federal workplace exposure limits, said Fligor. In Fligor's own study of about 200 New York college students, more than half listened to music at 85 decibels or louder. That's about as loud as a hair dryer or a vacuum cleaner.
Habitual listening at those levels can turn microscopic hair cells in the inner ear into scar tissue, Fligor said. Some people may be more predisposed to damage than others; Fligor believes Brady is one of them.
These days, Brady still listens to his digital player, but at lower volumes.
"Do not blare your iPod," he said. "It's only going to hurt your hearing. I learned this the hard way."


text:
One in three relationships began online in 2013, but that's still not as impressive as the number of hookups as a result of online connections last year. According to the Toronto Star, the highest circulated newspaper in Canada, half of all sexual interactions in North America were a result of online dating. Whether you're looking for casual sex, a lasting friend with benefits, or simply someone to fulfill your wildest sexual fantasies, you can find exactly who you're looking for through on the hottest adult dating site online, EroticLove.com.
With the rise of online hookups comes the rise of clean bachelor pads: according to a study conducted by Gentlemen's Quarterly Magazine, 6 of every 10 sexual encounters that are a result of meeting online are hosted at the male partner's house. The study revealed that women are generally less comfortable inviting strangers into their households and feel more secure when meeting away from their own homes. Whether you're a woman looking to go out and get laid, or you're a man waiting for women to come your way, you can start the process in the easiest way possible with EroticLove.com. Browse profiles, connect with members looking for sex and find action tonight at EroticLove!
The average American now spends 4 hours a day in front of a computer as a part of their job, which makes it extremely unsurprising that many Americans are using computers less during their personal time then they have been in the past 5 years. We know that after a day spent on the computer working you don't want to spend your night doing the same thing while searching for lust. That's why we've created one of the easiest online hookup mobile apps available. You can do anything from change your profile to messaging members straight from your cell phone. That way you can connect with singles from wherever you are instead of having to wait until you're back at your desktop. Finding hot singles is now as easy as changing your Facebook status. Connect with EroticLove's mobile app and open the door to a whole new world of online dating.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
December 2011 Newsletter
Dear customer,
This month, we are pleased to announce the general launch of the .XXX extension, as well as the opening of .FR and other AFNIC-managed domains to the rest of the Europe.
.FR domains available to Europe
AFNIC has loosened registration criteria for its favorite extension, .FR. It is now possible for companies located within the European Economic Area and Switzerland to expand their presence in France with a .FR domain name, an extension which until now had been restricted to companies registered in France. It is no longer necessary that you provide your company registration number for registering .FR domains, though we strongly recommend that you indicate your DUNS code (or SIREN, if your company is registered in France), as this will be helpful if AFNIC requests this from you as part of a random check.
Associations do not need to provide their registration information either, though individuals living in the EEA and Switzerland that would like an AFNIC domain name still need to provide their birth date, city of birth, French Département of birth, and country of birth.
In addition to liberalizing .FR domains, AFNIC has done the same with .RE, .PM, .TF, .WF, and .YT! More information on this important development is available at http://www.gandibar.net/post/2011/11/17/FR-domains-available-to-Europe
.XXX general launch
Today, December 6th 2011 at 16:00 GMT, the .XXX extension will be officially open. Note that the registration criteria have not changed for this extension: if you are part of the adult entertainment industry, you may register a .XXX domain without difficulty. If, however, you just want to block a domain, and you missed the Sunrise period where you could block a .XXX for life, you can still block a domain, but at the same price as the others now. Keep in mind, however, that the domain will not be active, and you cannot do anything with it (nobody else can either - which is the idea). In both cases, the domain will need to be renewed yearly. You can see the full .XXX price list at
Gandi is moving!
We are going to be leaving our location at Place de la Nation in downtown Paris, for another, more modern and spacious one in the southern part of the capital on the 16th of December. We will therefore not be in a position to assure a normal level of service on that day; you might experience an added delay in support tickets, and telephone support for resellers will be disabled. Please forgive us in advance for any inconvenience this exceptional event may cause you.
.WS domain promo
The registry in charge of .WS is having a promo for the month of December 2011 for new domain registrations, which are 50% off the regular price. More information is available at: https://www.gandi.net/news/en/2011-12-06/518-.ws_at_50_off/
Promos currently underway
- The creation of a .EU domain will cost you €2 less in all rate scales until the end of the year: http://www.gandi.net/news/en/2011-10-01/455-2_off_.eu_domains/
- The creation of a .ME domain for one year is 50% off in all rate scales until the end of the year: https://www.gandi.net/news/en/2011-10-01/457-50_off_.me/
- The creation of a .INFO domain for one year is also 50% off the regular price in all rates until the end of the year: https://www.gandi.net/news/en/2011-11-17/493-.info_at_50_off/
Additional RAM for less
With a super promo on additional ram for the entire month of December, you will be able to add additional gigabytes of RAM for less! Units of 256MB are therefore $31.20/£21.60/€24 (or $2.60/£1.80/€2 per month excl. VAT). This promo only concerns additional RAM purchased with a yearly commitment. For example, if you subscribe to a Dual Core server with 2GB of RAM for one year, this will cost you less than €32 per month! Test the various configurations on our price calculator at the following page: http://www.gandi.net/hosting/proposal/price/
Finally, and as usual, please feel free to send me your questions or comments.
Nicolas Lhuillery
Product Director
PS: If you would like to receive this newsletter, please change the subscription setting in your Gandi handl's account modification page.


text:
September 10, 2010
The Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack creates a new Synchronizer system that consists of the Synchronizer services, the GroupWise Connector, and the Mobility Connector on a single server. This Synchronizer system enables you to easily synchronize GroupWise data to mobile devices.
For information about specific mobile devices, see the Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Connector Wiki.
System requirements are listed in the Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Installation Guide.
Make sure that the Linux server where you plan to install the Mobility Pack meets the system requirements.
For additional planning assistance, see the Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Best Practices Wiki.
If a Web server is currently running on the Synchronizer server, stop it, and preferably disable it.
Download the Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack ISO file from Novell Downloads to a convenient temporary directory:
On your Linux desktop, click root password.
> , then enter theUnder
, click , then click .Install the Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack as an add-on product.
Complete installation instructions are available in the Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Installation Guide.
NOTE:If you need to uninstall and reinstall the Mobility Pack, follow the instructions in Uninstalling the Mobility Pack
in the Novell Data Synchronizer Installation Guide. See also Section 4.8, Thorough Uninstallation Required
Before you run the Mobility Pack Installation program, you must create a GroupWise trusted application so that the GroupWise Connector can log in to a GroupWise Post Office Agent (POA) in order to access GroupWise mailboxes without needing personal user passwords. When you set up the GroupWise Connector as a trusted application, you only need to fill in three fields in the Create Trusted Application dialog box in ConsoleOne: , , and . Do not fill in any other fields. If you fill in additional fields, the trusted application does not work correctly with the GroupWise Connector.
When you run the Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Installation program in YaST, you might see the following error:
The proposal contains an error that must be resolved before continuing
This error indicates that you clicked
without providing the configuration information for your Synchronizer system. Instead of clicking , click , then provide the configuration as prompted. After you provide the configuration information, click .When you run the Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Installation program on SLES 11 SP1, if you browse to and select a file, the Installation program might hang. This can occur if you try to browse to and select any of the following files during installation:
Mobility Pack ISO file
GroupWise trusted application key file
Certificate file
As a workaround, type the full path and filename for the file instead of browsing to it.
If you already have Python packages installed on the server where you are installing the Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack, the Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Installation program needs to update the existing packages, rather than install new packages. This does not happen by default.
When you run the Installation program, you are prompted if packages need to be updated. Enter 1 for Solution 1 to update each package.
The Mobility Pack must be installed on a server with a 64-bit/x86 processor. If you try to install it on a server with a 32-bit/x86 processor, the Mobility Pack Installation program does not detect the problem. It tries to run, but it cannot run correctly.
If the behavior of the Mobility Pack Installation program does not match the installation instructions provided in the Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Installation Guide, make sure that you are installing the Mobility Pack on a server that meets the documented system requirements.
There are currently no plans to make the Mobility Pack available in a 32-bit version.
When you add users to your Synchronizer system, data is automatically synchronized from GroupWise to the GroupWise Connector before users connect their mobile devices to your Synchronizer system. Do not add users to your Synchronizer system who do not have mobile devices. Extraneous users create unnecessary synchronization traffic in your Synchronizer system.
Use only alphanumeric characters in the Synchronizer database password. Do not include special characters. The Sync Engine does not start if the database password includes special characters.
The standard uninstallation procedures provided in Uninstalling the Mobility Pack
in the Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Installation Guide occasionally fail to completely uninstall the Mobility Pack because of various server-specific issues. When the Mobility Pack software is not completely uninstalled, the next installation does not proceed normally. For example, you might encounter problems configuring LDAP access during installation. To ensure that the Mobility Pack software has been completely uninstalled, perform the following checks:
In YaST, click The Mobility Pack should not be listed. If it is still listed, select it, then click .
.In YaST, click Mobility Pack repository should not be listed. If it is still listed, select it, then click .
. TheIMPORTANT:If you do not remove the existing Mobility Pack repository, you cannot successfully install the next version of the Mobility Pack software.
In YaST, click the Mobility Pack should not be listed. If it is still listed, select it. Review the list for any packages that were not successfully uninstalled and uninstall them.
. In the drop-down list, select . Under the heading,In YaST, click datasync, then click . The list should be empty. If any Data Synchronizer packages are still listed, uninstall them.
. In the field, specifyLog in as root in a terminal window, then check for Data Synchronizer RPMs:
rpm -qa | grep datasync
If any Data Synchronizer RPMs are still installed, uninstall them:
rpm -e rpm_name.rpm
Make sure that none of the following directories still exist on your server:
/opt/novell/datasync /etc/datasync /etc/init.d/datasync* /var/lib/datasync /var/log/datasync /var/run/datasync /var/lib/pgsql
If any of these directories still exist, delete them.
After performing all these checks, reboot the Synchronizer server.
Remove the Synchronizer certificate from any workstations where you have run Synchronizer Web Admin. For example, in Firefox, click DataSync Web Admin, then click .
. Select the certificate namedIf the LDAP server is restarted while Synchronizer is running, Synchronizer loses its connection to the LDAP server. Occasionally, the connection to the LDAP server is lost for other reasons. To reestablish the connection, restart the Synchronizer services.
When the Sync Engine is stopped or restarted, it forces all connectors to stop. After the Sync Engine is restarted, restart the Connector Manager service. After the Connector Manager service is restarted, restart each connector in Synchronizer Web Admin or configure the connectors to start automatically.
When you add or delete a large number of users or groups, the Manage Users page or the Manage Groups page might not correctly display the presence or absence of the users or groups. Refresh the page in your browser to correctly display the users or groups.
After you add a large number of users to the GroupWise Connector, the responsiveness of Synchronizer Web Admin might diminish each time you restart the GroupWise Connector. For example, it might take longer to log in to Synchronizer Web Admin or you might not be able to navigate easily between pages while the GroupWise Connector is starting. This occurs because the GroupWise Connector verifies all of the users each time it starts. After the user verification process is completed, Synchronizer Web Admin behaves normally.
If a user's LDAP username includes a space, the user cannot log in to the Data Synchronizer User Options page.
If you use Synchronizer Web Admin on Internet Explorer 8, you must enable Compatibility View in order to display the Sync Engine Advanced options on the Engine Settings page.
In Internet Explorer 8, click
, then select .Even with Compatibility View enabled, the Maintenance section on the Engine Settings page sometimes disappears when you mouse over it. However, with persistent mousing, it is still possible to click
.Novell Data Synchronizer is the replacement for GroupWise Mobile Server (GMS). These two synchronization solutions can coexist successfully, as long as users are transitioned from GMS to Synchronizer in a timely manner. An issue with GMS can cause a user whose mobile device is configured to use both synchronization solutions to occasionally receive a large quantity of extraneous items. As you add users to Synchronizer, you should delete them from GMS. You can continue to run GMS indefinitely to support users with older mobile devices that are not supported by Synchronizer.
In order to delete users from a connector, the connector must be running. If the connector is not running, some user event data is not properly deleted.
When you stop a connector in Synchronizer Web Admin and then start it again immediately, the status might indefinitely remain as
. This can happen because the connector did not completely stop before you tried to restart it. The connector might have been completing a polling cycle before shutting down, even though Synchronizer Web Admin displayed the status as . When you try to start a connector that is still shutting down, it cannot start normally.To restart the connector when this situation has occurred:
Restart the Connector Manager on the command line:
rcdatasync-connectors restart
This should change the connector status in Synchronizer Web Admin from
to .Start the connector in Synchronizer Web Admin.
Start any other connectors that stopped as a result of restarting the Connector Manager.
Some connectors restart automatically when the Connector Manager restarts.
If this problem occurs repeatedly, wait a few seconds between the time when you stop the connector and when you start it again to allow the connector to shut down completely before restarting.
Synchronizer Web Admin allows you to manually create multiple instances of the same connector. However, this configuration is not currently supported.
If you have more users than a single connector can service, you can install one or more additional instances of the Mobility Pack until all users are being successfully serviced. Users can be organized on multiple instances of the Mobility Pack based on various schemes such as the location of the users, the location of the synchronized applications, or the desired quality of service (executives vs. regular employees, for example). Instances of the Mobility Pack do not need to mirror the structure of your GroupWise system.
Refer to the Readme for each connector on the Novell Data Synchronizer Connectors Documentation Web site.
The Mobility Pack depends on the GroupWise Connector and a GroupWise POA for much of its functionality. GroupWise 8.0.2 is required for use with the Mobility Pack. However, GroupWise 8.0.2 was released with some issues that impact Mobility Pack functionality. Fixes for these issues will be available as hot patches or in the next GroupWise release. For a list of GroupWise 8.0.2 issues, see the GroupWise Connector Readme.
Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack documentation is available at the Novell Data Synchronizer Documentation Web site:
Novell Data Synchronizer Mobility Pack Readme
Novell Data Synchronizer installation and administration guides
Novell Data Synchronizer connector documentation is available at the Novell Data Synchronizer Connector Documentation Web site
Connector Readmes
Connector Quick Starts
Connector installation and configuration guides
In addition to the Data Synchronizer product documentation, the following resources provide additional information about Data Synchronizer:
Novell, Inc. makes no representations or warranties with respect to the contents or use of this documentation, and specifically disclaims any express or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. Further, Novell, Inc. reserves the right to revise this publication and to make changes to its content, at any time, without obligation to notify any person or entity of such revisions or changes.
Further, Novell, Inc. makes no representations or warranties with respect to any software, and specifically disclaims any express or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. Further, Novell, Inc. reserves the right to make changes to any and all parts of Novell software, at any time, without any obligation to notify any person or entity of such changes.
Any products or technical information provided under this Agreement may be subject to U.S. export controls and the trade laws of other countries. You agree to comply with all export control regulations and to obtain any required licenses or classification to export, re-export, or import deliverables. You agree not to export or re-export to entities on the current U.S. export exclusion lists or to any embargoed or terrorist countries as specified in the U.S. export laws. You agree to not use deliverables for prohibited nuclear, missile, or chemical biological weaponry end uses. Please refer to the Novell International Trade Services Web page for more information on exporting Novell software. Novell assumes no responsibility for your failure to obtain any necessary export approvals.
Copyright © 2010 Novell, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted without the express written consent of the publisher.
For Novell trademarks, see the Novell Trademark and Service Mark list.
All third-party trademarks are the property of their respective owners.


text:
Hop Into Spring: 15 Great Spring and Easter Ideas!
I've teamed up with some of my favorite bloggers to share a round up of some great Spring and Easter crafts, DIYs and recipes! Just what you need to find all kinds of amazing inspiration just in time for Easter! Make sure you take a second and stop by to visit these amazing bloggers and check out their great ideas! **Note: When pinning, pretty please pin directly from the original blog. Just click on the links or image and pin away!!**
DIY Easter Coloring Pack at Hubby Made Me
Rainbow Fruit Salad with Caramel Toffee Fruit Dip at The Baker Upstairs
No Sew Easter Baskets at Max & Me
Kentucky Derby Wreath at Cleverly Inspired
Adorable Easter Cupcakes at High Heels & Grills
Spring Pinwheel Wreath at The Cards We Drew
Easter Hors D'ouevres Party at Strawberry Mommycakes
White Chocolate M&M's Pudding Cookies at The Recipe Critic
Easter Bunny Glitter Jar DIY at A Bubbly Life
Chocolate Easter Bunny Cards at Bloom Designs
Paper Dahlia Wreath at Love, Pomegranate House
Berry Gift Basket at Sweet Rose Studio


text:
Tina Fey's Mean Girls Musical Aiming for Broadway Bow in Spring 2018
Mean Girls has its eye on being the Queen B of the Great White Way! According to The New York Post, the stage adaptation of Tina Fey's hilarious 2004 film has its eyes on a Broadway bow in spring 2018. As previously reported, the Casey Nicholaw-helmed production will have its world premiere at the National Theatre in Washington, D.C. this fall. Right now, casting is underway for a developmental lab set for April. Get out that Burn Book and start dreamcasting, Broadway fans!
Creator Tina Fey, her husband, composer Jeff Richmond and lyricist Nell Benjamin are the heavy-hitters on Mean Girls' creative team. As announced, Saturday Night Live creator and producer Lorne Michaels (who also produced the 2004 film) is set to produce the tuner alongside six-time Tony winner Stuart Thompson.
Based on the book Queen Bees and Wannabes, Mean Girls follows a group of popular girls, known as the Plastics, who rule a suburban high school with an iron first and the group of outcasts who takes them down. The film was written by Fey and starred Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chabert, Amanda Seyfried and Lizzy Caplan.
The official premiere dates, as well as the full cast and creative team, will be announced at a later date.


text:
A Bob Woodward excerpt from a few days back contained a shocker - DCI George Tenet briefed Condoleeza Rice about a dire terror threat on July 10, 2001 and not only did Condi give him the brush-off, but the meeting was not reported to the 9/11 Commission.
I was skeptical at the first report, but now the Times arrives firing the big guns (but read past the ominous headline):
Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on Al Qaeda Threat
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.
The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was "incomprehensible" she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.
Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff.
According to two former intelligence officials, Mr. Tenet told those assembled at the White House about the growing body of intelligence the Central Intelligence Agency had collected pointing to an impending Al Qaeda attack. But both current and former officials took issue with Mr. Woodward's account that Mr. Tenet and his aides left the meeting in frustration, feeling as if Ms. Rice had ignored them.
Mr. Tenet told members of the Sept. 11 commission about the July 10 meeting when they interviewed him in early 2004, but committee members said the former C.I.A. director never indicated he had left the White House with the impression that he had been ignored.
"Tenet never told us that he was brushed off," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission. "We certainly would have followed that up."
Mr. McCormack said the records showed that, far from ignoring Mr. Tenet's warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Atttorney General John Ashcroft.
But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.
"Frankly, I'm disappointed that I didn't get that kind of briefing," he said. "I'm surprised he didn't think it was important enough to come by and tell me."
Ben-Veniste is normally a reliable Dem attack dog, so if he is not backing this, forget it.
I think the facts are enough to criticize Condi's effort that summer - no need to make stuff up.
UPDATE: Jonathion Landay et al of the McClatchy News Service round out the laugh track, complete with scary headline unsupported by the text:
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft received warning of al Qaida attack before 9/11
By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning.
Questions have been raised!
Later Ashcroft denies all knowledge:
Ashcroft, who resigned as attorney general on Nov. 9, 2004, told the Associated Press on Monday that it was "disappointing" that he never received the briefing, either.
And here comes what mihgt be some weaseling:
David Ayres, who was Ashcroft's chief of staff at the Justice Department, said that the former attorney general also has no recollection of a July 17, 2001, terrorist threat briefing. Later, Ayres said that Ashcroft could recall only a July 5 briefing on threats to U.S. interests abroad.
He said Ashcroft doesn't remember any briefing that summer that indicated that al-Qaida was planning to attack within the United States.
The CIA briefing didn't provide the exact timing or nature of a possible attack, nor did it predict whether it was likely to take place in the United States or overseas, said three former senior intelligence officials.
Ahh! Well, if he forgot the briefing because it didn't cite a threat to the US, that is understandable.
But the 9/11 Commission does remember!
Nor is it clear why the 9/11 commission never reported the briefing, which the intelligence officials said Tenet outlined to commission members Ben-Veniste and Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters. The State Department confirmed that the briefing materials were "made available to the 9/11 Commission, and Director Tenet was asked about this meeting when interviewed by the 9/11 Commission."
The three former senior intelligence officials, however, said Tenet raised the matter with the panel himself, displayed slides from the PowerPoint presentation and offered to testify on the matter in public.
Ben-Veniste confirmed to McClatchy Newspapers that Tenet outlined for the 9/11 commission the July 10 briefing to Rice in secret testimony in January 2004. He referred questions about why the commission omitted any mention of the briefing in its report to Zelikow, the report's main author. Zelikow didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers.
Zelikow does have a friendly past (and present) with Rice, but why is everyone else, particularly Ben-Veniste, playing along? My guess - this briefing was just as memorable as Tenet would like to remember it.
EVERYTHING NEW IS OLD AGAIN: Apparently Woodward's scoop about a special July meeting was first aired in a discredited TIME story from August 2002:
In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart ("They always have wall charts") with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas. One date already worrying the Secret Service was July 20, when Bush would arrive in Genoa for the G-8 summit; Tenet had intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to attack Bush there. The Italians, who had heard the same report (the way European intelligence sources tell it, everyone but the President's dog "knew" an attack was coming) put frogmen in the harbor, closed airspace around the town and ringed it with antiaircraft guns.
But nothing happened. After Genoa, says a senior intelligence official, there was a collective sigh of relief: "A lot of folks started letting their guard down."
THE WAPO JOINS IN (And smites Woodward's version - emphasis added):
Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, adding that he believed Rice took the warning seriously, according to a transcript of the interview and the recollection of a commissioner who was there.
Tenet's statements to the commission in January 2004 confirm the outlines of an event in a new book by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that has been disputed by some Bush administration officials. But the testimony also is at odds with Woodward's depiction of Tenet and former CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black as being frustrated that "they were not getting through to Rice" after the July 10, 2001, meeting.
Members of the commission -- an independent, bipartisan panel created by Congress to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- have said for days that they were not told about the July 10 meeting and were angry at being left out. As recently as yesterday afternoon, both commission chairman Thomas H. Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said they believed the panel had not been told about the July 10 meeting.
But it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet. The meeting was not identified by the July 10 date in the commission's best-selling report.


text:
- Home
- Government
- Departments E - G
- Engineering
- Capital Improvement Projects
- Technical Standards Manual
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
The City Council adopted the new Garland Development Code (GDC) on Tuesday, May 19, 2015. The Engineering Department has created a Technical Standards Manual (TSM) that was adopted in conjunction with the GDC. The purpose of the manual is to ensure that all public infrastructure in the City is designed and constructed to the highest standards.
The TSM replaces the Public Works Design Guideline from 1996 and the Traffic Management Standards from 1996 in their entirety.
This manual may be revised periodically. The proposed revision will be posted on this website for a period of 30 days prior to implementation unless the revision is required to comply with Federal, State, County and City laws, regulations, ordinances or codes. The Appendix consists of checklists and forms pertaining to the Technical Standards Manual and therefore may be revised to correspond to the TSM or City Ordinances without a review period.
At any time, if you have a comment or request to modify current design criteria or add new design criteria, a formal request can be submitted to the City for consideration in writing to the Director of Engineering. These comments will be reviewed and responded to.
This page will contain the City's most current version of the TSM. The Technical Standards Manual will include a Record of Revisions to identify any revisions to the Technical Standards Manual. Please send questions or comments via email at email@example.com


text:
Views on the authorship, origin, and historicity of the Fourth Gospel have changed drastically over the last century and a half. One hundred fifty years ago, if one had asked a New Testament scholar which of the four gospels gave us the most information about the life and ministry of Jesus, the answer would almost invariably have been, "The Gospel of John." Today if one asks a typical New Testament scholar the same question, the Gospel of John would be the last choice as a source of information about Jesus (if it was viewed as having anything to say about this topic at all). How has such a drastic shift in opinion regarding the Fourth Gospel come about? In large part it has happened because of a shift in scholarly opinion about the interrelationship of the four gospels which placed John's Gospel late in the first century (actually, it would have been pushed well into the second century, as F. C. Baur and the "Tbingen School" had proposed around 1835. The discovery of the fragmentary manuscript known as 52 by C. H. Roberts in 1934 in the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester, however, led to the late first century date). As a late work John's Gospel was thus regarded as secondary and derivative, and where John's version of events differed from that of the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it was assumed that John had altered the traditions to suit his own theological ends.
This state of affairs held sway until only about two decades ago. Things have now begun to change again with regard to views on the Fourth Gospel as a legitimate source for information about Jesus' life and ministry.
The following summary is quoted from Stephen S. Smalley and serves as a useful starting point for a discussion of the Fourth Gospel:
In 1978 Dr. J. A. T. Robinson gave a paper to an Oxford Conference on the Gospels, entitled "The New Look on the Fourth Gospel." In it he suggested that if a new look on John existed, it could be distinguuished from an 'old look.' He therefore set out what he regarded as the five presuppositions belonging to critical orthodoxy in the first half of the twentieth century so far as the interpretation of John's Gospel was concerned, and tried to demonstrate that each was in need of and in the process of re-examination.
The five presuppostions listed by Robinson are as follows:
(I) That the fourth evangelist is dependent on sources, including at least one of the Synoptic Gospels.
(II) That his backgound differs from that of the tradition he reports.
(III) That his work is a serious witness not to the Jesus of history but to the Christ of faith.
(IV) That he reflects the latest stage of theological development in first-century Christianity.
(V) That he is neither the apostle John nor an eyewitness.
The most crucial of these assumptions mentioned by Robinson, as indicated already, is the first. Once it is allowed that John to any extent depends on the Synoptic Gospels, it follows that the only way to account for the differences between the Synoptic and Johannine traditions when they are in conflict is to say that the fourth Evangelist has altered his material to suit his own purposes.
And having said that the other assumptions follow. For particular reasons of writing, the Evangelist (it may be claimed) cuts loose from the tradition to which he is presumably indebted, and theologises the 'history' he is interpreting. He does this in a developed manner for a late, primarily Hellenistic audience, by which time any eyewitness links have disappeared. In other words, as Robinson himself points out, the effect of adopting the 'old look' on the Fourth Gospel is essentially to drive a wedge between the Evangelist and his tradition. It is to oppose Johannine history and theology, and to make the second superior to the first.1
Smalley goes on to point out that it is precisely this presupposition of the literary dependence of the Fourth Gospel on the synoptics, with all the implications that follow from it, that is being most widely and seriously questioned by scholars at present. But for these scholars the issue is no longer one of authorship, but of tradition—whether the tradition behind the Gospel of John is independent of the synoptic tradition or not.
Let us begin by examining the issue of authorship to see what can indeed be said about the author of the Fourth Gospel:
In the popular imagination the author of the Fourth Gospel is normally viewed as the aging Apostle John, but it is important to remember that nowhere in the Gospel does the author actually state his name. This has led to such widespread and thorough discussion in scholarly circles over who the author might be, and when and how the Gospel of John came to be written, that it is almost impossible to group together and summarize the significance of all the different theories that have been advanced concerning the origin of the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, that is the purpose of the following paragraphs.
External (that is, historical) evidence regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel has been discussed well by Donald Guthrie.2 More recently, the material has also been discussed by Gary Burge in his introductory volume on interpreting John's Gospel and by Donald Carson in his commentary.3 There is no writer who mentions the Fourth Gospel or its author before Irenaeus.
Irenaeus (born AD 115-142? – died ca. AD 200). Scholars date the birth of Irenaeus between these two dates, chiefly on the basis of whether they give credit to his claims to have known Polycarp. In his work Against Heresies he states that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John, the Lord's disciple; that the Gospel was published at Ephesus and that John remained at Ephesus until the time of Trajan.4
Eusebius, who reported this, says that Irenaeus' authority for these statements was Polycarp, who learned truth from the apostles.5
According to Eusebius, Irenaeus himself, in a letter to his friend Florinus, reminisces of their childhood conversations with Polycarp.6
Irenaeus' testimony has been discounted by many modern scholars, chiefly because they have concluded on other grounds that John the Apostle could not have written the Gospel. They simply claim his memory failed.
However, this presupposes that Irenaeus' only source of information was Polycarp. But Irenaeus mentions another anonynmous Presbyter (bishop), whom most think was his predecessor as Bishop of Lyons, Pothinus, a man born well before the end of the 1st century. (He died in AD 177 at well over 90 years old.) Also, Irenaeus was in close touch with Rome, and must have known the traditions there.
J. Drummond states: "Critics speak of Irenaeus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two or three visits to Polycarp's lecture-room, and had never known anyone else…he must have had numerous links with the early part of century."7
All writers subsequent to Irenaeus assume the apostolic authorship of the Gospel without question (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen). If they were merely reporting Irenaeus' opinion, they must have considered it worth reporting—without suspicion.
The Muratorian Canon (a document probably written in the last quarter of the 2nd century with firm ties to Rome) describes the Fourth Gospel as proceding from John after a vision given to Andrew that John should write and the others revise. (This is problematic for those who hold a late date, though, in light of the probability that Andrew did not survive that long). But this probably indicates John was associated with the Gospel in Rome at the time.
In conclusion, while more might be said, especially concerning theories relating to the early martyrdom of the apostle John, it should be noted that these contradict Johannine authorship only if a late date is assumed for the Gospel. Such a late date is by no means certain. Also, there really is not much evidence at all for the early martyrdom of John. The evidence is as follows:
1. The martyrdom is deduced from Mark 10:39. Both James and John are promised that they will drink from the same cup as the Lord (i.e., referring to a martyr's death). Therefore, John must have suffered the same fate as James. If not, it is presupposed, then Mark would have altered his text to reflect the fact that only James "drank from the same cup as the Lord."
2. Two late writers, an epitomist of Philip of Side (5th century AD) and George Hamartolus (9th century AD) report statements supposed to have been made by Papias to the effect that John as well as James was killed by the Jews. George Hamartolus follows this with a citation of Mark 10:39 (see the previous point).
3. A Syrian martyrology (list of martyrs) of AD 411 commemorates John and James on the same day and describes them as 'apostles in Jerusalem'.
4. The Carthaginian Calendar (ca. AD 505) has a similar entry for Dec. 27th but links John the Baptist with James. Many scholars regard this as an error for the Apostle John and claim this as early evidence for the apostle's death.
5. A homily of Aphraates (no. 21) states that apart from Stephen, Peter, and Paul, there were only two martyr apostles, John and James.
The cumulative effect of all this evidence is very small. Guthrie thinks the individual points become even weaker on closer examination.
1. The prediction of Mark 10:39 does not necessitate martyrdom, only suffering. There are far too many assumptions here, and even if it is granted that Mark 10:39 is a prediction of martyrdom for John, it does not prove that martyrdom was early. Furthermore, the idea that the evangelists would have adjusted the accounts, instead of recording what really happened, is a presupposition of modern critical scholarship.
2. Neither Philip's epitomist nor George Hamartolus were noted for historical accuracy. Both Irenaeus and Eusebius know of Papias' writings but neither refer to this statement about John's martyrdom. Also, it is questionable whether Papias would have used the late Greek title "the Theologian" for John, as Philip's report says he did. Furthermore George Hamartolus himself did not take the report from Papias seriously, since he also mentions the apostle John's peaceful end.
3. The rest of the evidence may be dismissed, since the martyrologies and the homily by Aphraates are probably confusing John the Apostle with John the Baptist.
In light of the text's silence on the name of the author, a number of theories have been proposed in recent time as alternatives to the traditional view that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle. A short survey of these proposals is given here.
1. John of Jerusalem was the author. Existence of a 'John of Jerusalem' who had access into the High Priest's house was first proposed by H. Delff (1889). This John later became influential among Asiatic churches. This does have the advantage of still relying on eyewitness testimony. But no external evidence of any kind supports this theory.
2. The Fourth Gospel is a pseudepigraphal work. This view holds that all the eyewitness details are merely a device to create the impression of apostolic authorship, although the work was not really written by an apostle (thus "pseudepigraphal"). But why did an author intending to write a pseudepigraphal work not just mention the Apostle John's name, which would have been much more effective and in harmony with general pseudepigraphal practice? Further, how can this theory explain how the gospel gained acceptance generally? Unless this gospel were at once assumed to be genuinely apostolic, it would have had increasing difficulty creating that impression as time went on, especially with the rise of Gnosticism. The Fourth Gospel was a favorite of the Gnostics and if it had not been widely accepted as apostolic, there would have been considerable difficulty gaining later acceptance. There are no known cases of works once recognized as pseudonomous ever losing their pseudonomous ascription at some later time.
3. The Fourth Gospel was written by John Mark. Originally Wellhausen proposed John Mark as author of the Fourth Gospel; more recently by J. N. Sanders and Pierson Parker have done so.8 But in another earlier article Parker had argued for a second edition of the gospel issued fairly late.9 It is difficult to see how this can be reconciled with his view of John Mark as author—not to mention the complications with traditional ascriptions of Mark's Gospel to John Mark (since the style is so different).
4. It was written by John the Elder. A famous statement of Papias has given rise to a widespread conviction among many scholars that there was another John who had associations with Ephesus and had some connection with the production of the gospel. This might be called the 'confusion' theory for interpreting the external evidence. Irenaeus' evidence is easily discounted by assuming that he was really referring to John the Elder.
Papias is quoted by Eusebius as saying: "And again, if anyone came who had been a follower of the Elders, I used to enquire about the sayings of the Elders—what Andrew, or Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's Disciples said (eijpen) and what Aristion and the Elder John, the Disciples of the Lord, say (legousin). For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice."10
The problem concerns the interpretation of Papias' words. Who are the so-called "Elders"? Are they to be identified with the "Disciples" also named, or separated from them? Barrett is convinced the "sayings of the Elders" consisted of reports of what the named disciples (i.e. apostles) had already said, and Papias only heard these second hand. There would be no question of Papias being a hearer of the apostle John and companion of Polycarp. Thus Papias would be referring to three groups: the apostles (Disciples), their followers the Elders, and the other disciples.
If, however, Papias is describing the apostles as Elders, then there are only two groups (apostles and disciples), and Papias used to enquire directly from the followers of the apostles what the apostles had said. His testimony is therefore closer to Irenaeus'.
But if Papias is describing the apostles as Elders, then it is possible that the "Elder John" is also the Apostle John mentioned earlier. In this case, Papias is distinguishing between what John said in the past and what at the time of Papis' enquiry he was still saying.
At the same time, the possibility that there may have been two men with the name John cannot be ruled out. It is supported by Eusebius' interpretation of Papias' words. But since Eusebius wished to attribute the Book of Revelation to a different John than the author of the gospel, his interpretation may not have been impartial.
In any case, the only other evidence for the existance for an 'Elder' John may be the introduction to 2 and 3 John, where the author calls himself this.
But even if there was a second person named John, known as 'the Elder', Papias gives no location and no hint of any writings. He merely happens to possess a name which is identical to the person to which the Fourth Gospel is traditionally ascribed, and this makes the 'confusion' theory possible.
Of course a possible response to this is that if the later Church mixed up apostles and elders in this way, might not Papias have done so himself? And after all, it is still possible that he was originally referring to only one person himself, and Papias' words were confused by Eusebius.
5. Lazarus was the author of the Fourth Gospel. Floyd Filson proposed Lazarus as author of the Gospel.11 Lazarus is the one male figure of the Gospel of whom it is specifically said Jesus loved him (filein, filo" in 11:3, 11, 36; ajgapan in 11:5). (But referring to the Beloved Disciple, ajgapein is more frequently used.) Filson argues that the Gospel was meant to be self-intelligible to readers who, without the second century tradition which ascribed the Gospel to John, son of Zebedee, would have understood the Beloved Disciple as a reference to Jesus' love for Lazarus.
But this argument is valid only if readers were unaware of the author's identity even before they started the Gospel. This is not so likely if the author were a famous Apostle like John.
Developing the relationship between John and Lazarus even further, K.A. Eckhardt went so far as to suggest Lazarus was a pseudonym for John the son of Zebedee after he was brought back from the dead by Jesus.12 It seems incredible that if John died during Jesus' ministry and was resurrected by Jesus, there remains absolutely no trace of this in the Synoptic accounts and/or tradition.
Finally, J. N. Sanders thinks the basis of the Fourth Gospel was an Aramaic work by Lazarus, edited by John Mark, who was the Evangelist.
Now we need to consider the internal evidence of the Gospel regarding authorship.
It is important to remember that internal evidence concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is indirect. B. F. Westcott's "concentric circles of proof," originally part of the introduction to his commentary are still very helpful here.13 (They have never really been refuted, merely ignored.) Westcott outlined the evidence for authorship as follows:
I. The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew.
A. He is familiar with current Jewish opinions.
1. Messianic Expectations —1:21, 4:25, 6:14 ff, 7:40 ff, 12:34 ff.
2. Attitude toward Women —4:27
3. Importance of religious schools — 7:15
4. Disparagement of Jews of the Diaspora (Hellenistic Jews) —7:35
5. Hostility of Jews and Samaritans —4:9
B. He is familiar with Jewish observances, customs, etc.
1. Ceremonial pollution of entering a gentile court —18:28
2. Feast of Tabernacles (hinted at) by symbolism of "living water" and the "light of the world"—7:8 and 8:12
3. The last day of the feast was the "great day"—7:37
4. Customs at marriage feast —2:1-10
5. Customs of burial—11:17-44
C. Vocabulary, sentence structure, symmetry and numerical symbolism, expression and arrangement of thoughts are essentially Hebrew. "The source of the imagery of the narrative…is the OT. The words are Greek words, but the spirit by which they live is Hebrew." (Westcott, Introduction, vii)
D. The Old Testament is the source of the religious life of the author.
1. Judea was the "home" of the Word become flesh; these people were "his own people"—1:11
2. Judaism is constantly taken as the starting-point for Christianity.
a. The writer assumed as axiomatic that Scripture cannot be broken—10:35
b. That which is written in the prophets is assumed to be true —6:45
c. OT types are mentioned as Christ applied them to himself:
i. Serpent —3:14
ii. Manna —6:32
iii. Water from the Rock —7:37 ff., etc.
II. The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of Palestine.
A. His local knowledge is precise.
1. Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28), a place forgotten by the time of Origen, is distinguished from Bethany near Jerusalem (11:18). The location of the latter is given as 15 stadia away.
2. Aenon near Salim (3:23) is not mentioned anywhere else—indicating direct acquaintance of the writer.
3. Topography —especially of Jerusalem—is precise.
a. The pool at Bethesda—5:2
b. The pool of Siloam—9:7
c. The wadi Kidron—18:1
[Points a. - c. are not mentioned in the Synoptics.]
d. The Pavement (Gabbatha) with its raised judgement-seat—19:13
e. Allusions to the Temple:
i. 46 years in building—2:20
ii. Mention of the Treasury—8:20
iii. Solomon's Portico—10:22
B. The author's use of OT quotations shows that he is not dependent on the LXX, and at least suggest he was acquainted with Hebrew:
1. These agree with both the Hebrew text and LXX, where both agree (Hebrew text and LXX in agreement):
a. 12:38, cf. Is. 53:1
b. 19:24, cf. Ps 22:18
c. 10:34, cf. Ps 82:6
d. 15:25, cf. Ps 34:19
2. These agree with the Hebrew text against the LXX:
a. 19:37, cf. Zach. 12:10
b. 6:45, cf. Is. 54:13
c. 13:18, cf. Ps 41:9
3. This differs from both Hebrew and LXX where they both agree:
2:17, cf. Ps 69:9
4. These differ from Hebrew and LXX where they do not agree:
a. 12:14-15, cf. Zech 9:9
b. 12:40, cf. Is. 6:10
5. These are free renditions (paraphrases?) of various OT passages:
a. 19:36, cf. Exod 12:46, Num 9:12
b. 7:38, no exact OT quote is parallel
c. 1:23, cf. Is. 40:3
d. 6:31, cf. Ps 78:24, Exod 16:4, 15
6. But nowhere does a quotation of the OT in the Fourth Gospel agree with the LXX against the Hebrew text.
C. The author's doctrine of the Logos is Palestinian and not Alexandrian—he views the Logos as representing the divine Will manifested in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Philo, on the other hand, viewed the Logos as abstract divine Reason.
D. Qumran documents have many parallels, which indicate that the Gospel is essentially a Palestinian document. See A. M. Hunter, Expository Times 71(1959/60), 166, 202.
III. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an eyewitness of the events he describes:
A. Descriptions of persons—in minute detail.
1. Nicodemus—3:1 ff, 7:50, 19:39
2. Lazarus—9:1 ff, 12:1 ff
3. Simon, father of Judas Iscariot—6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 26
4. Note: The author was aware "Iscariot" was a local or family name; he applies it both to Judas and to his father Simon: 6:71, 13:2, 26, 12:4, 14:22
B. Details of time:
1. Number of days before the raising of Lazarus—11:6, 17, 39
2. Duration of Jesus' stay in Samaria—4:40,43
3. Specific mention of the hour at which events occurred:
a. "the tenth"—1:40
b. "the sixth"—4:6
c. "the seventh"—4:52
d. "about the sixth"—19:14
e. "it was night"—13:30, etc.
C. Details of number:
1. two disciples of John the Baptist—1:35
2. six waterpots—2:6
3. five loaves and two fishes—6:9
4. twenty-five or thirty stadia—6:19
5. four soldiers—19:23
6. two hundred cubits—21:8
7. two hundred fifty-three fish—21:11
D. Details of manner or circumstance:
1. The boy had barley loaves—6:9
2. When Mary poured the ointment, the house was filled with the fragrance—12:3
3. The branches used at the triumphant entry were palm branches—12:13
4. Roman soldiers come with the officers of the priests to arrest Jesus—18:3
5. Jesus' tunic was seamless—19:23
6. The facecloth in which Jesus was buried was wrapped and lying in a place by itself—20:7
7. Peter was grieved because the Lord said to him a third time, "Do you love me?"—21:17
IV. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an Apostle.
A. This is clear from the scope of his descriptions of Jesus' ministry from the call of the first disciple to the appearances after the resurrection.
B. He is acquainted with the thoughts and feelings of the disciples at critical moments: 2:11, 17, 22; 4:27, 6:19, 60 ff.; 12:16, 13:22, 28, 21:12.
C. He recalls words spoken amont themselves: 4:33, 16:17, 20:25, 21:3,5.
D. He is familiar with the places to which they withdrew for time alone: 11:54, 18:1-2, 20:19.
E. He is acquainted with imperfect or erroneous impressions they received initially: 11:13, 12:16, 13:28, 20:9, 21:4.
F. He stood very near the Lord:
1. He knew the Lord's emotions: 11:33, 13:21.
2. He knew the grounds of the Lord's actions: 2:24 ff, 4:1, 5:6, 6:15, 7:1, 16:19.
3. He knew the mind of the Lord in many cases: 6:6, 6:61, 6:64, 13:1,3; 13:11.
V. The author of the Fourth Gospel was the Apostle John.
A. John 21:24 assigns authorship to "the apostle whom Jesus loved."
B. This disciple is mentioned by this title twice in the passion narrative (13:23, 19:26) and twice afterwards (21:7, 21:20).
C. He is known to the high-priest (18:15).
D. He stands in close relationship with Peter (13:24, 20:2, 21:7).
E. From the list in 21:2 of those present, this disciple must have been one of the sons of Zebedee, or one of the two other unnamed disciples present.
F. The synoptics present Peter, James and John as standing in a special relationship to Jesus. Peter is eliminated (see 20:21), James was martyred very early (Acts 12:2); this leaves John.
VI. Corroboration:
A. John is not mentioned by name anywhere in the Gospel.
B. While John is not mentioned by name, the author is very particular about defining names in his gospel—he frequently qualifies by using additional names; Simon is never called merely Simon after his call, but always by his full name Simon Peter or the new name Peter. But in spite of this tendency, the author of the Fourth Gospel never refers to the Baptist as John the Baptist (as the synoptics do) but only as "John."
Further Remarks on Johannine Authorship: Variations on the Theme
If one accepts the traditional view that John the Apostle was the author of the gospel which bears his name, there are still some possible variations in the way the composition actually took place, as follows:
1. John the Apostle was the witness and some other person was the author. A parallel to this solution may be found in the traditional relationship between Peter and Mark in the production of Mark's Gospel. There is no fundamental objection to this theory, but it does involve a rather broad interpretation of gravya" in John 21:24, in the sense of "writing by means of another"(there are probably other NT parallels for this, however). It would not be out of keeping with the external evidence provided the apostle himself held the main responsibility for what was said. Under this theory, the amanuensis would remain anonymous and the apostle would take credit for the Gospel. In this respect it would differ from the Peter-Mark relationship and would suggest John had more of a personal hand in the writing than Peter did in the case of Mark.
2. A further modification (possible but less likely) is that a disciple of John wrote the memoirs of the apostle after his death. According to this theory the substance of the Gospel is John's but not the actual writing. In this case 21:24 would constitute a reference not to John the apostle himself, but to the disciple doing the writing.
While these two theories offer interesting possibilities, there is almost certainly not enough concrete information in the text of the Gospel itself to confirm or deny either one. Furthermore, arguments based solely on stylistics are indeterminative since they are only probability statements.
Given the diversity of opinion concerning authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the consensus on its dating is remarkable. A century and a half ago, F. C. Baur and his adherents, who became known as the "Tbingen School" because they were located at the University of Tbingen in southern Germany, advocated a date late in the second century for John's Gospel (ca. AD 175). They did so mainly on the basis of the similarity between the Fourth Gospel and Gnosticism, which flourished in the mid- to late second century and was thought by many to be the background for "Johannine" thought. Today no New Testament scholar would advocate such a late date, primarily for two reasons. First was the discovery of a small fragment of papyrus containing a couple of verses from John 18 by a British scholar, C. H. Roberts, while studying fragments of uncatalogued fragments in the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester in 1934. This fragment, which has become famous as 52, is now dated (by a consensus of NT scholars and papyrologists) ca. AD 125.14 Since no one believes this fragment is actually part of the autograph (the original document), and since it came from Egypt, it is generally conceded that it would take several decades for the Gospel of John to be circulated, copied, carried to Egypt (and end up buried there). This suggests a date for John's Gospel late in the first century. The second contributing factor to such a date was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. The scrolls exhibit much of the imagery and symbolism that had formerly been attributed to Gnosticism. For example, the so-called "War Scroll" from Qumran is properly titled The War of the Sons of Light With the Sons of Darkness. Concepts which were thought to indicate a late date for John because of their connection with Gnosticism have now turned up in documents written (in some cases) as early as the second century BC.
W. G. Kümmel says:
If John was known in Egypt in the first quarter of the 2nd century, the beginning of the second century is a terminus ad quem. On the other hand, John's knowledge of Luke is extremely probable, so it could not have been written before ca. 80-90. The assumption that John was written probably in the last decade of the first century is today almost universally accepted.15 [my emphasis]
J. A. T. Robinson likewise says:
Indeed one of the facts about the remarkable scholarly consensus which we shall be noting on the dating of the Johannine literature is that it cuts across almost every possible division. Those who believe that all five books—the Revelation, the gospel and the three epistles—are by one man, and that man the apostle John, and those who hold to none of these, or to almost every possible permutation of them, find common ground in dating both the Revelation and the gospel and epistles in the years 90-100.16 [my emphasis]
I. That the apostle John lived to a very old age is widely attested:
A. Irenaeus in Against Heresies claims that John lived into the reign of the Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117).17
B. Eusebius repeats Irenaeus' statement about John living until the time of Trajan.18
C. Jerome placed John's death "in the 68th year after our Lord's passion."19
II. That John was the last evangelist to write is also well attested, mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii.1.1), Clement (according to Eusebius, HE 4.14.7), and Eusebius himself (HE 3.24.7).
III. But that John wrote as a very old man is an inference which only appears later and combined with other statements which cast considerable doubt on its accuracy.
A. The Muratorian Canon (probably ca. AD 180) describing the origin of the gospel (the vision that John should write and the others revise) suggests no date, but it presupposes that John's "fellow-desciples" including Andrew are still alive and with him, and thus argues against a very late period.
B. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue20 records that "the gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body" (some manuscripts add, "after writing the Apocalypse"). The Prologue also claims the authority of Papias for this statement, and says that John dictated the gospel to Papias. The Prologue adds that Marcion (who taught in Asia Minor ca. AD 130) was "rejected" by John (i.e., Marcion's theology was disapproved by the Apostle). However, Eusebius knew Papias' works, and quotes nothing from him about the origin of the Fourth Gospel.21 It seems unlikely that the gospel was dictated to Papias, and impossible that John knew of Marcion.
C. Victorinus of Pettau (died ca. AD 304) also says that John wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse, but sees it as written against (among others) Valentinus, a Gnostic who taught in mid-2nd century.
D. Epiphanius (ca. AD 315-403) says explicitly that John, refusing in his humility to write a gospel, was compelled by the Holy Spirit to do so in his old age, when he was over ninety, after his return from Patmos and after living "many years" in Asia.22 However, this is combined with the confused statements that John's banishment took place "under Claudius" and that he prophesied under that emperor "before his death." Claudius reigned from AD 41-54 (but Epiphanius could be referring to Nero, whose full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus).
E. George Hamartolus (9th century) stated, "After Domitian, Nerva reigned one year, who recalled John from the island, and allowed him to dwell in Ephesus. He was at that time the sole survivor of the twelve Apostles, and after writing his Gospel received the honour of martyrdom" (Domitian reigned from AD 81-96).
F. Note, however, that Irenaeus and Eusebius did not say John wrote when a very old man.
This is basically the extent of the external evidence.
J. A. T. Robinson summarized well:
With marginal variation at each end (and even Bultmann goes down as far as 80 for the first composition), the span 90-100 is agreed by Catholic and Protestant, by conservative and radical, by those who defend apostolic authorship and those who reject it, by those who believe that John used the synoptists and those who do not. It includes virtually all those who have recently written commentaries on the gospel, not to mention other interpreters. It is one of the relatively few points at which over a span of two generations Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible and The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible agree, and the consensus includes now the redaction-critics. Indeed many commentators (e.g. Schnackenburg) scarcely bother to discuss the issue of dating, and the space it occupies in introductions, whether to the New Testament or to the gospel, compared with that of authorship is minimal. Kümmel's two-sentence summary…[mentioned previously] is typical: the question appears to be settled.23
In the opinion of many interpreters, John's use of the synoptics (especially Luke) must indicate a later date (toward the end of the first century).But much scholarly disagreement over the use of the synoptics by John exists, especially over their precise relationship. In any case, John could be written after the synoptics and still be early.
For others, John's highly developed theology and ecclesiology must date from the end of the 1st century. But other books such as Romans and Hebrews have highly developed theology and are not necessarily late. Mention of the "spiritual" significance of sacraments (ordinances) like baptism is characteristic of John's point of view (note the literal/figurative interplay throughout). And John does not even mention the "sacrament" of the Lord's Supper!
John makes no reference at all to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus it is assumed this must be far enough removed not to seem as important. But of all the NT writings with the exception of Hebrews and Revelation, the Fourth Gospel is the most likely to contain an allusion to the fall of Jerusalem. The focus of the gospel is on the rejection of Messiah by "his own" (1:11). The visitation and rejection must mean divine judgment.
Ultimately, the temple (2:21) is replaced by Christ himself. Yet in chapter two there is no mention of Jerusalem's fall. Instead, Jesus' prophesy is seen as a prophecy not of what the Romans would do in destroying Jerusalem, but of the events of AD 33—what the Jews would do to Jesus. With an author as reflective as John, it is very strange that he does not see something of the coming doom in all of this.
A possible indication that Jerusalem was still undestroyed at the time the Fourth Gospel was written is found in 5:2, which speaks of the pool of Bethesda (Bethzatha according to some manuscripts) with its five porticoes as still standing, using a present tense. The present tense is the only one in the immediate context—the writer uses imperfects for the rest of the description. This appears to give it special significance. Elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (4:6, 11:18, 18:1, 19:41) John assimilates such topographical descriptions into the context. The natural inference from this use of the present tense is that John is writing while the building is still standing. H. Hoehner thinks that because of this, the city might actually have been under siege, and Bethany (11:18) and Golgotha (19:1 ff.) had been destroyed, but the pool of Bethesda was still there. D. B. Wallace also argued that the present tense in 5:2 is not to be understood as a historical present, and thus provides a significant clue to the early dating of the Gospel.24 In response to these suggestions, though, it must be noted that (1) while we do have some descriptions in Josephus of the general nature of the destruction in various quarters of the city, we do not know whether a feature like the pool of Bethesda would have survived the destruction or not; and (2) it is possible John, writing after the fall of the city and from a distant location, did not know whether the pool had been destroyed or not, and so naturally wrote as if it were still there, when in fact it may not have been.
Finally, the strong Palestinian influence throughout the gospel also suggests an early date. After John left for Ephesus and lived there for many years, such details would tend to fade and blur in memory.
In conclusion, the Fourth Gospel was probably written shortly before AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem.
One of the most important developments in the field of literary criticism in the last century or so has been the study of the so-called "literary point of view." For our purposes we can define "point of view" as the position where the author stands in relation to the events he is relating to his readers. It is the "stance" he adopts as he relates his story.
To determine the point of view, one can ask the following questions:
(1) Who is telling the story?
(2) From what physical point of view (or angle of narrative) is he telling the story?
(3) From what mental point of view (or mood [but not grammatical mood, however]) is he telling the story?
The first question (who is telling the story) is really the least important, since except in the case of an anonymous work it is relatively easy to determine who did write the story. The second question (about the physical point of view) is basically limited to 2 choices:
1. The author may adopt a first person point of view. Here the person telling the story is actually an observer of the events he relates. It is like a news reporter on the scene of a story describing what is taking place at the very moment as it happens. [Note: This does not necessarily involve the use of 1st person pronouns, just as a news reporter on the scene describing actions in progress may use second or third person pronouns.]
1 D Advantage: The first person point of view gives a great feeling of immediacy and closeness with the reader.
2 D Disadvantage: It greatly limits the range with which the author can deal with the events—he cannot present himself as knowing another person's mind or knowing the future, for example.
2. The author may adopt a third person point of view. He tells the story as if he were separated from the events which are being described. He describes events like the narrator of a documentary.
1 D Disadvantage: this loses the feeling of immediacy and closeness with the reader.
2 D Advantages:
1 E A greater range of perspective from which to tell the story is available to the author.
2 E The writer may include later insights which the characters have received through the perspective of time, upon further reflection.
3 E The writer may interrupt the narrative to give his readers additional details and information they could not otherwise have—notes, explanatory glosses, comments, etc.
4 E Allows the readers to survey the lives of characters from a height, participating in the privilege of a novelist.
3. The so-called "Omniscient Author" convention—with this variation of the third person point of view, the author includes not only information the readers would not have, but information that even a firsthand observer of the events could not know. For instance, the writer may give the thoughts and feelings of more than one person at the same time (assuming these were not verbally expressed).
The third question (mental point of view or "mood") is just as important as the physical point of view. It must be coherent with the physical point of view. The author's mental analysis of a situation must agree with the physical point of view he adopts. What is meant is this: an author cannot adopt a 1st person point of view and yet tell the story as an "omniscient author" who knows the outcome. That would create a lack of coherence between the physical and mental points of view and would ring false to the reader or hearer.
In summary, we have seen that we may ask three questions to determine an author's point of view. They are:
(1) Who is telling the story?
(2) What is his physical point of view? (This may be divided into 1st person or 3rd person, and if 3rd person, may involve the "omniscient author" convention).
(3) What is his mental point of view? (This must be consistent with the physical point of view adopted).
Now we will apply the above analysis to the Gospel of John.
1. Who is telling the story?
We find the answer to this at the end of the gospel itself— 21:24. The disciple whom Jesus loved (cf. 21:20) is the one who has written these things. From our previous discussion of authorship we concluded that this disciple is most likely the Apostle John.
2. What is the author's physical point of view?
This is the basic difference between John and the Synoptics. The synoptics are written from a 1st person point of view (as if the author had personally observed all the events) while John is written from a 3rd person point of view (i.e. removed from the events he describes).
While the author claims to be a participant in the events he very carefully separates himself from the events. However clear it is that he was an eyewitness of the life of our Lord, it is no less clear that he looks back upon it from a distance. While we see the events through his eyes, we are carefully guided to see through those eyes not as they saw the events when they happened but as they now see them. We see more from the position the writer now holds.
We might suspect, even from the opening words of 1:1, the panoramic sweep of John's view of the life of Christ.
There are numerous passages which could serve as an example of John's 3rd person perspective. Four will serve as examples:
a. 2:17—ejmnhvsqhsan oiJ maqhtaiV aujtou' o{ti gegrammevnon ejstivn...
b. 2:22—o{te ou hjgevrqh ejk nekrw'n...
c. 12:16—tau'ta oujk e[gnwsan aujtou' oiJ maqhtaiV toV prw'ton...
d. 20:9—oujüdevpw gaVr h[/deisan thVn grafhVn...
In each of these passages it may easily be seen that John has adopted the "post-resurrection" point of view. He looks back on the events and emphasizes the inability of the apostles to understand the things that were happening in their true perspective at the time they occured. It is only possible for us to understand these things when we consider the resurrection and its significance in God's plan.
But John has also chosen to use the "omniscient author" convention.
1 C Details he specifically explains to his readers—
1 D The place where John was baptizing (1:28)
2 D Jewish purification customs (2:6)
3 D The state of Jewish-Samaritan relations (4:9)
4 D The existence of "secret believers" among the Jewish leaders (because they wanted to retain their positions) (12:42-43)
5 D Details of Jewish burial customs (19:40)
2 C The disciples' lack of understanding is repeatedly pointed out:
1 D Jesus' exchange with Judas in the Upper Room (13:28-29)
2 D Jesus' teaching concerning the resurrection (20:9)
3 D The disciples did not at first recognize the glorified Jesus (21:4)
3 C Explanation of yet future events:
1 D 11:2—Mary mentioned as "the Mary who anointed the Lord" before this takes place (not until 12:9)
2 D The coming of the Holy Spirit mentioned by Jesus (7:39) before Pentecost
4 C Things a firsthand observer would not know:
1 D Judas was a thief (12:6)
2 D The appropriateness of Caiaphas' prophesy (11:51-52). He spoke "more truly than he knew"
3. What is the author's mental point of view?
It is, in general, consistent with the physical point of view he adopts as omniscient author. The mental point of view chosen by the author has allowed him to choose material which the other gospel writers did not use and to present it with the confidence that his readers, also viewing it from the post-resurrection point of view, would understand it in its true light. Those to whom the teaching was originally delivered did not understand it at the time.
For example, concerning the doctrine of the coming of the Holy Spirit: Jesus relates in 7:38 that "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". The following verse gives John's point of view when he says: "He spoke this concerning the Spirit which those who believed in Him would receive, for the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified."
Finally, Jesus breathes on the disciples (20:22) and (in some sense) they receive the Holy Spirit. But believers, looking back with the author, could understand the teaching in 7:38.
Another example would be Nicodemus in chapter 3. He apparently did not get the point of Jesus' teaching until after the conversation some time later. But let the reader understand!
4. Conclusions
This has been a brief attempt to deal with literary point of view in relation to the gospel of John. We have seen that John consistently has adopted a "post-resurrection" point of view, looking back on the events with the benefit of further insight and seeing their theological implications. As an "omniscient author" he uses his access to information that a participant in the events could not have had at the time the events occurred.
5. An additional note on the frequency of historical presents in the Fourth Gospel:
This technique allows the author to use the 3rd person point of view, with the "omniscient author" convention, and still preserve, at the same time, some of the immediacy and vividness of a first person point of view. Perhaps this is the reason for the large number of historical presents in the Fourth Gospel. Extensive use of the historical present is a characteristic mark of Johannine style.
1 S. S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (London: Paternoster, 1978), 11-12 [emphasis mine].
2 D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), 258-63.
3 G. M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 37-54; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 68-81.
4 Adv. Haer. 2.22.5, 3.3.4 (ca. AD 185).
5 Historia Ecclesiasticus [The History of the Church] 3.23.3. ff. and 4.14.3-8.
7 J. Drummond, An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1903), 348.
8 J. N. Sanders and Pierson Parker, "John and John Mark," JBL 79 (1960): 97-110.
9 Pierson Parker, "Two Editions of John," JBL 75 (1956): 303-314.
11 Floyd Filson, "Who Was the BD?" JBL 68 (1949): 83-88.
12 K. A. Eckhardt, Der Tod des Johannes (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1961).
13 B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (1881; rpt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
14 The date is usually given as between AD 100 and 150, so AD 125 is usually accepted as the approximate average date.
15 P. Feine, J. Behm, and W. G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1963); (Introduction to the New Testament, trans. A. J. Mattill, Jr. [1965], 246).
16 J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 254.
17 Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 3.3.4.
18 HE 3.23.3.ff.
19 De vir. ill. 9 (ca. AD 97 using an AD 30 date for the crucifixion, or ca. AD 100 if AD 33 is used).
20 This work is dated ca. AD 400 by Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe.
21 Cf. Eusebius' quote from Papias about the "Elder John" mentioned above (HE 3.39.4).
22 Heresies 51.12.
23 Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 261.
24 D. B. Wallace, "John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel," Biblica 71 (1990):177-205.


text:
Date - 05/04/2024
9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Freedom Firearms
539 Capital Ave SW
Battle Creek, Michigan 49015
Call us at (248) 662-5744
(balance of $119 due on day of class cash or credit)
($1 for each target, range fee is included)
Coffee, Breakfast and Lunch (subs, chips, cookies) are included!
($17.95 discount)
Our class is perfect for those with limited experience. Our specialty is working with new gun owners!
Best guys in the world. Especially if you have little knowledge of guns. Incredibly friendly. And the range is great.
This is the US Concealed Carry Association Concealed Carry and Home Defense Fundamentals class, which is recognized by the State of Michigan for the CPL license. This is an 8 hour course including 3 hours of range time.


text:
Even if you've got a swanky Surface Dial in one hand and a Surface Pen in the other, a desktop computer's borderline useless without a keyboard and mouse.
Microsoft didn't devote any stage time to additional peripherals during its big Windows event on Wednesday, but nevertheless the company quietly launched a pair of new Surface keyboards as well as a Surface mouse to accompany its first-ever desktop PC, the Surface Studio all-in-one.
Like the Surface devices themselves, the design of the Surface peripherals is clean and reserved. The $50 Surface Mouse is "sculpted for your hand and designed for an elegant work space," Microsoft says. It features a metal scroll wheel and connects to your PC using Bluetooth rather than USB, with a rated battery life of up to 12 months.
The $139 Surface Keyboard looks, well, like pretty much any other decent all-in-one's keyboard. Microsoft says the keys were engineered for fast and quiet typing, though. It also connects over Bluetooth.
Microsoft's no stranger to ergonomic keyboards, with its Sculpt Ergonomic Keyboard beloved by legions of all-day typists. The company's new Surface Ergonomic Keyboard mimics the overall design of its predecessor, but comes clad in "stunning two-tone grey mélange Alcantara" to match the Surface Studio's aesthetics. (It's also compatible with the Surface Book laptop and Surface Pro 4.) At $130, the Surface Ergonomic Keyboard actually rings in $10 cheaper than the standard Surface Keyboard—and $30 more than the black Sculpt keyboard. The Surface Ergonomic Keyboard connects via Bluetooth rather than USB, however.
Beyond traditional inputs, Microsoft also launched a Store page for the $100 Surface Dial accessory. Digital artists might want to check the radical new device out.
All four peripherals are available to preorder now, with an estimated ship date of November 10.


text:
- ESC/POS Command for TM Printer
- Character Code Tables for TM Printer
- ESC/POS Command for Customer Displays
- Character Code Tables for Customer Displays
- Epson ePOS SDK for Android
- Epson ePOS SDK for iOS
- Epson ePOS SDK for JavaScript
- Epson ePOS SDK for Universal Windows apps
- ePOS-Device XML
- ePOS-Print XML
EPSON OPOS ADK for .NET (for Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0/3.0/3.5) Software
Version | Ver.1.12.29E |
Uploaded date | 2019/12/09 |
File size | 38,298KB |
Explanation | This is the OPOS industry standard printer driver compatible with Microsoft Windows POS for .NET. It allows you to develop applications that are compatible with the Unified POS specification.
[Changes from Ver.1.12.28E to Ver.1.12.29E] [Bug fix] - Fixed a bug that, in some printers, the paper width setting cannot be changed if they once communicate with PC. - Fixed a bug that cannot print after the DeviceEnabled is executed in some models. - Fixed a bug that the check fails to read due to offline during MICR reading. - Fixed a bug that it cannot print half-width kana characters after re-initialization. - Fixed to return an error when the DM connection method does not match with SetupPOS setting. [Support Model] Please read the following "Support Models List.pdf" file. Support Models List.pdf [Supported Environment] [Operating System] Windows 10 22H2 (32/64 bit) Windows 10 (32/64bit) Windows 8.1 (32/64bit) Windows 8 (32/64bit) Windows 7 SP1 (32/64bit) Windows Vista SP2 (32/64bit) Windows XP SP3 (32bit) Windows Server 2012 R2 Windows Server 2012 Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Windows Server 2008 SP2 (32/64bit) Windows Embedded Standard 7 Windows Embedded POS Ready 7 32/64bit Windows Embedded Standard 2009 (Full component) Windows Embedded POS Ready 2009 Windows Embedded for Point of Service [.NET Framework] Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0/3.0/3.5 [POS for .NET] Microsoft POS for .NET 1.12 |
Notes on downloading
BEFORE DOWNLOADING SOFTWARE, DOCUMENT OR OTHER CONTENTS ON THIS WEBSITE (the "Software"), YOU NEED TO REVIEW AND AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW, AND YOU MUST FOLLOW THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHEN YOU USE THE SOFTWARE.
If you are located in Australia, you cannot download files from epson-biz.com. Please use the following website:
Please agree with the requirements in "Notes on downloading," and only tick the Accept box to proceed with the download if you are not located in Australia.
Please agree with the requirements in "Notes on downloading," and only tick the Accept box to proceed with the download if you are not located in Australia.
EPSON OPOS ADK for .NET Ver.1.12.29E
- File Name:
- OPOSN1.12.29.exe
- File size:


text:
Barbara Corcoran: Business Plans Not Built to Last
Along the bright pink walls of her Park Avenue office are photos of the businesses she has invested in on ABC's "Shark Tank." These smiling entrepreneurs are a symbol of how far Corcoran's own career has come—turning a $1,000 loan into a business she later sold for $66 million.
The entrepreneurs that have squandered her seed money and cost Corcoran are up there too—but their photos are upside down. But in true Corcoran fashion, she owns her successes and takes full credit for her missteps.
"I said yes to a woman who made oversize clothing for women—she was a fabulous salesperson. Charismatic and a great designer with all the right ingredients to have success on her hands," Corcoran said. "But I wish I said no to her husband, who was as bad at business as she was good."
And there went $50,000, in one week's time. But the 14 other businesses she has invested in, out of more than 200 that have pitched her on T.V., have seen major growth and success.
"We do Skype calls, and I help find solutions to their problems," Corcoran said of the mentorship role she has taken on with all of these businesses. "They are the lead, and I follow. I can help, only by virtue of the fact that I have been in business for 40 years."
But before you come knocking on Corcoran's door—or any other angel investors' for that matter—she said she would rather see entrepreneurs dig deep in their own pockets and put some skin in the game first.
"Everyone is focused on finding the right angel investors," Corcoran said. "The right people are themselves, I want to see how much money they can scrape together on their own. The reason is, that is the most valuable money, because you learn how to stretch it. And you will stretch every dollar."
The next stop in the seed money tour should be to family and friends, because you also won't want to squander that cash. Then, Corcoran said to look to crowdfunding, which she calls "the Big Kahuna" of venture funding. People who may not succeed in pitching on national T.V., for example, may be able to go viral on sites like Indiegogo.com and Kickstarter.com and raise enough seed cash to fund their dreams.
"It's like 'Shark Tank' online," Corcoran said. "You pitch to the population you want, and tell people the benefit of it. I saw one guy raise $50,000 to make a beehive—he was so strange, and I thought he wouldn't raise a dime. These people gave him $10 and $5, and they got his first jars of honey. It's so easy, but people skip that step."
Another step this mogul says too many entrepreneurs wrongly get caught up on—the business plan. While it's important to have this as a guideline, it has to be fluid and tested in the real world.
"Many of these entrepreneurs have a rock-solid business plan, that sounds so fancy," she said. "None of the investors will trust this person, because they are angel investors that built businesses on their own, and know a business plan is nonsense. It's the Harvard Business School way of thinking, and it doesn't ever work. You get out there, and life happens."
She says instead of hyper-focusing on a written rule, just starting living, and create your business that way.
"Entrepreneurs are left-brainers," Corcoran said. "They often dream better than they write business plans."
And for any entrepreneur considering taking an investment—even from the 'sharks' she sits next to on her show each week, Corcoran has her own cautionary tale. She was set to sell 55% of her own business for $50,000 in the late 1990s, but the deal fell through.
Four years later, in 2001, the market came back and that same business sold for $66 million. Even New York City's reigning real-estate queen once misjudged her own value.
"Lucky for me, he got cold feet," Corcoran said.


text:
§ 404.1059. Deemed wages for certain individuals interned during World War II.
(a) In general. Persons who were interned during any period of time from December 7, 1941, through December 31, 1946, by the United States Government at a place operated by the Government within the United States for the internment of United States citizens of Japanese ancestry are deemed to have been paid wages (in addition to wages actually paid) as provided in paragraph (c) of this section during any period after attaining age 18 while interned. This provision is effective for determining entitlement to, and the amount of, any monthly benefit for months after December 1972, for determining entitlement to, and the amount of, any lump-sum death payment in the case of a death after December 1972, and for establishing a period of disability.
(b) Information needed to process deemed wages. Unless we have already made a determination on deemed wages for a period of internment of an individual, any person applying for a monthly benefit, a recalculation of benefits by reason of this section, or a lump-sum death payment, must submit certain information before the benefit or payment may be computed on the basis of deemed wages. This information is—
(1) The place where the individual worked before internment;
(2) The highest hourly wage before internment;
(3) The place and date of internment;
(4) Date of birth (if not previously furnished);
(5) Whether or not another Federal benefit is being received based wholly or in part upon the period of internment; and
(6) In the case of a woman, her maiden name.
(c) Amount of deemed wages. The amount of wages which may be deemed is determined as follows:
(1) Employed prior to internment. If the individual was employed before being interned, the deemed wages are the greater of—
(i) The highest actual hourly rate of pay received for any employment before internment, multiplied by 40 for each full week during the period of internment; or
(ii) The Federal minimum hourly rate in effect for the period of internment, multiplied by 40 for each full week during that period.
(2) Self-employed or not employed prior to internment. If the individual was self-employed or was not employed before the period of internment, the deemed wages are the Federal minimum hourly rate in effect for that period, multiplied by 40 for each full week during the period.
(d) When wages are not deemed. Wages are not deemed under this section—
(1) For any period before the quarter in which the individual attained age 18; or
(2) If a larger benefit is payable without the deemed wages; or
(3) If a benefit based in whole or in part upon internment is determined by any agency of the United States to be payable under any other law of the United States or under a system set up by that agency. However, this exception does not apply in cases where the failure to receive deemed wages reduces the primary insurance amount by 50 cents or less.
(e) Certification of internment. The certification concerning the internment is made by the Archivist of the United States or his or her representative. After the internment has been verified, wages are deemed to have been paid to the internee.
[45 FR 20075, Mar. 27, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 29662, Aug. 11, 1987. Redesignated at 55 FR 7310, Mar. 1, 1990]


text:
LONDON (AP) — Authorities in northern England have charged a 24 year-old man with threatening to kill 200 people in a Facebook posting that caused thousands of Tennessee children to stay home from school.
Northumbria police say Reece Elliott, 24, from South Shields, east of Newcastle, has been charged with making malicious comments which led to 2,900 children skipping class in Warren County, Tennessee.
Police were stationed this week at schools in McMinnville, the seat of Warren County, 70 miles (110 kilometers) northwest of Chattanooga.
The online posting threatening gun violence was made anonymously on a memorial page set up for a Tennessee student who died in October. Police did not address the motive behind the posting.
Northumbria police said in a statement Saturday that they were cooperating with authorities in Warren County.