text:
Home NATIONAL FG lists companies in charge of NIN enrolment nationwide
FG lists companies in charge of NIN enrolment nationwide
The federal government has approved the licensing of 173 centres and 30 state government institutions to conduct enrolment of persons into the National Identity Database (NIDB).
The notice was posted on the website of the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) on Wednesday.
This is coming after the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) asked telecommunications companies to block SIM cards not registered with NIN after two weeks.
The directive was based on the outcome of a meeting of key stakeholders in the communications industry as convened by Isa Ali Pantami, the minister of communications and digital economy.
The development has generated criticisms from different quarters, with many Nigerians expressing their displeasure at the new directive.
"The Honorable Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Dr. Isa Ali Ibrahim (Pantami), has approved the licensing of 173 Agents and 30 State Governments/Public Sector Institutions to conduct enrolment of all persons including legal residents into the National Identity Database (NIDB) on behalf of the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC)," the notice read.
"Pursuant to the above, find the list of all the successful firms who satisfied all the evaluation criteria as stated in the Advert for the Expression of Interest (EOI) of each of the respective categories in full.
"The Commission congratulates all those who have been cleared to conduct enrollment of all persons on behalf of NIMC for data capture services."
Below is the list
Previous articleAbia Speaker hails Ginger Onwusibe at stadium commissioning
Next articleInsecurity: Declare state of emergency – Secondus urges FG
Whoever accepts our 7-point demands will win 2023 election — Miyetti Allah
Nigeria is an IDP camp under Buhari — Peter Obi
Country's Security Situation, Rule of Law, others to determine Nnamdi Kanu's Freedom – Malami States Conditions
A Country like Nigeria, A country of over 200 million people could not qualify for World Cup – Peter Obi Cries out
Kwankwaso's presidency will not be the kind that neglects court judgement – Campaign Spokesperson
Naira Redesign: Kidnappers will start collecting dollar and other strong currencies if CBN continues with their plan


We are the first to introduce incomplete information to centralized many-to-one matching markets such as those to entry-level labor markets or college admissions. This is important because in real life markets (i) any agent is uncertain about the other agents' true preferences and (ii) most entry-level matching is many-to-one (and not one-to-one). We show that for stable (matching) mechanisms there is a strong and surprising link between Nash equilibria under complete information and Bayesian Nash equilibria under incomplete information. That is,given a common belief, a strategy profile is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium under incomplete information in a stable mechanism if and only if, for any true profile in the support of the common belief, the submitted profile is a Nash equilibrium under complete information at the true profile in the direct preference revelation game induced by the stable mechanism. This result may help to explain the success of stable mechanisms in these markets.


text:
Das Dominikanerkloster Cölln war ein Kloster der Dominikaner in der Stadt Kölln, der Schwesterstadt von Berlin. Es zählte zur Provinz Teutonia des Ordens. Ab 1536 wurde die Klosterkirche von Kurfürst Joachim II. zur Hof- und Domkirche der Hohenzollern ausgebaut.

Geschichte und Baugeschichte
Das Kloster wurde erstmals 1297 erwähnt. Zum Kloster zählte ein Wohnturm, ein Klosterfriedhof und eine dreischiffige Hallenkirche aus der Zeit bis 1350 mit den Abmessungen 22 mal 64 Meter. Ab 1443 errichtete Kurfürst Friedrich Eisenzahn nordöstlich vom Kloster als seine Berliner Residenz das Berliner Schloss. Kurz nach seinem Regierungsantritt hob Joachim II. 1535 mit Genehmigung des Papstes das Kloster auf und schickte die fünf oder sechs verbliebenen Ordensleute nach Brandenburg in das leerstehende Sankt Pauli-Kloster. Die von Kurfürst Joachim II. prunkvoll ausgestattete und um zwei Türme ergänzte und mit dem benachbarten Schloss verbundene Kirche war ab 1536 die Hof- und Domkirche der Hohenzollern. Die Stiftskirche wurde den heiligen Maria Magdalena, Erasmus und dem hl. Kreuz geweiht. Nach dem Vorbild der von Lucas Cranach dem Älteren für seinen Onkel Kardinal Albrecht von Brandenburg, Kurfürst und Erzbischof von Mainz, für dessen Hallenser Stiftskirche 1519–1525 gemalten 16 Passionsaltäre mit 140 Bildtafeln gab Kurfürst Joachim II. bei Cranach einen Passions-Zyklus zum Ersatz der alten Altäre in Auftrag. Hiervon haben sich neun Mitteltafeln erhalten. Bis auf zwei tragen sie Cranachs Schlangensignet, sind auf 1537 und 1538 datiert und befinden sich heute im Jagdschloss Grunewald. Auch ließ Kurfürst Joachim II. die Hohenzollern-Grablege vom Kloster Lehnin in die Stiftskirche verlegen, darunter auch das Bronzegrabmal seines Großvaters Johann Ciceros. Im Jahr 1539 trat der Kurfürst zum Luthertum über. Der Turm auf dem Klostergelände wurde 1552 zum Glockenturm für die gewaltige Glocke der Wilsnacker Wunderblutkirche umgebaut. Joachim ließ ein kurfürstliches Erbbegräbnis errichten und die Überreste seines Vaters und seines Großvaters aus dem Kloster Lehnin überführen.

Zu Joachims Lebzeiten gab es in der Hofkirche auch katholischen Gottesdienst. Kurfürst Joachim Friedrich wandelte um 1600 die Kirche von einer Stiftskirche in eine Pfarrkirche – die Berliner Hauptkirche – um.

Der Turm wurde 1716 abgerissen, im Jahr 1747 auch der Dom wegen Baufälligkeit. Seine Funktion übernahm der neu errichtete Berliner Dom am Lustgarten. Die Sarkophage der Kurfürsten wurden 1749 überführt. Bei Kanalisationsarbeiten stieß man 1873 auf Fundamentreste und Bestattungen. Auch beim Bau des Staatsratsgebäudes 1961 stieß man auf Überreste.
Archäologen untersuchten auf dem Gelände des Berliner Schloßplatzes seit 2008 auch die Fundamentreste des Klosters.

Literatur
 Michael Malliaris: Die Baugeschichte des Dominikanerklosterareals in Cölln an der Spree. Imhof, Petersberg 2019, ISBN 978-3-7319-0668-1.
 Karl Friedrich Klöden: Ueber die Entstehung, das Alter, und die früheste Geschichte der Städte Berlin und Kölln, Berlin 1839, S. 27, 224, 340, 347.
 Friedrich Nicolai: Beschreibung der königlichen Residenzstädte Berlin und Potsdam, Berlin 1769, S. 51, 52 (Digitalisat).

Weblinks

Einzelnachweise

Ehemaliges Kloster in Berlin
Abgegangenes Bauwerk in Berlin
Berlin-Mitte
Ehemaliges Dominikanerkloster in Deutschland
Bodendenkmal in Berlin
Bettelordenskirche
Schloßplatz (Berlin)
Christentumsgeschichte (Berlin)
Christliche Organisation (Berlin)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Alexander Structures
Engineering Personnel
Engineering Projects
Why Use An Engineer?
Alex Charvat:
Alex Charvat
The founding member and engineer behind Alexander Structures. Alex is a native of Wisconsin and pursued both his Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry and his Master of Science Degree in Structural Engineering from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. He has worked at the Forest Products Lab in Madison, Wisconsin, spent two years as a Forester in Coos Bay,Oregon, and two years managing the engineering and design team for a large, well-known log-home company in Wisconsin.
He has worked for log home builders in Colorado and has engineered small cabins through 10,000+ square feet residential dream homes. He has made people's dreams' reality.
Alex has experience with both full and half-log designs and all national building codes. Alex is a member of the ASCE and the Log Home Council (www.loghomes.org) where he is the former Chairman of the Log Grading Committee. Alex is the Engineer of Record on the Log Home Council's Log Grading Program. Alex has also built his own log cabin and his own 3000 square foot log house – performing all labor from site layout through finishing. Because of his experience, plans are engineered for what works on the job site, not what looks good on paper.
Depending on the company's work load and required expertise, Alexander Structures contracts with other engineers, CAD drafters, and experts to ensure the utmost in quality, design, and engineering review, in a timely manner.
Alex Charvat is currently a registered Professional Engineer in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Professional Engineering services are currently offered only in states in which we are licensed. Log home consulting, project management, construction services, CAD work, and International Code Council Evaluation Service documentation are offered in accordance with state and local laws, and may be offered in other jurisdictions.
Full Log Projects
Alexander Structures, LLC
Conifer, Colorado 80433
engineer at alexanderstructures.com
© 2023Alexander Structures| Website by Camrud Design

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The CompressAR® System has been used successfully on millions of patients for over 40 years as a practical alternative or replacement to manual compression. With several models to choose from, the The CompressAR System is comprised of a durable CompressAR Stand and a sterile, disposable CompressAR Disc. There are seven unique styles of CompressAR Discs to choose from in varying shapes and sizes. All CompressAR Stands feature a rotating, locking Shaft and a movable Arm Slide for easy application and removal. The Model 1200 devices are designed for use on Hill-Rom TotalCare® Beds. The Model 1400 devices are designed for use on Hill-Rom VersaCare® Beds.
• Semler, H J. Transfemoral catheterization: mechanical versus manual control of bleeding. Radiology 1985; 154:234-235.
• Pracyk J B. Randomized trial of vascular hemostasis techniques to reduce femoral vascular complications after coronary intervention. American Journal of Cardiology 1998; 81:970-976.
The CompressAR® System is a precision instrument indicated for use to provide hemostasis of the femoral vascular access site following femoral artery catheterization procedures.


text:
General Philipp may refer to:

Christian Philipp (1893–1963), German Wehrmacht lieutenant general
Ernst Philipp (1912–2005), German Wehrmacht major general

See also
Charles III Philip, Elector Palatine (1661–1742), Holy Roman Empire general
Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine (1740–1793), French Army general
General Philipps (disambiguation)


Editor/Author Cundall, Arthur E., Ellison, H. L. and Kidner, Derek, et.al.
The Open Your Bible Commentary was written to encourage daily Bible study. Each reading is short, but the content is rich with careful explanation, devotional warmth, and practical relevance. Its four great strengths are that it is accessible, digestible, dependable, and practical.


text:
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
The Short Answer
Why India's State Elections Matter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi
6:52 am EST May 17, 2016
Suryatapa Bhattacharya
Exit polls on Monday predicted that India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party will win in one of five Indian states that went to the polls to elect state assemblies.
Official results are expected Thursday. Here's why Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be watching them closely.
Why do state elections matter?
The polls are being seen as a test for Mr. Modi and his party as he completes two years in office. Mr. Modi is seeking to expand his influence beyond the "Hindu belt" — a region that spans northern and western parts of India and is a heartland for Mr. Modi's party, which has Hindu-nationalist roots.
The BJP enjoys a majority in the Lok Sabha, the lower house, but some of the bills it is backing are stuck because the party lacks majority in the upper house, the Rajya Sabha. State legislators vote for members of the upper house so gaining seats at the state level would help the BJP break the deadlock.
Where were the big wins for Mr. Modi's party?
Exit polls suggest the BJP will win the northeastern state of Assam in an alliance with two regional parties. The opposition Congress Party has controlled the assembly for three terms. Unseating Congress will be seen as a considerable victory for Mr. Modi. The BJP ran a campaign that stirred up concerns about the number of Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, with which the state shares a border.
Analysts are closely watching the outcome in Kerala, where BJP has usually been invisible. The party could break new ground as some exit polls predict it will win around four seats in the southern state.
Where did Mr. Modi's party fail?
In the southern state of Tamil Nadu and eastern state of West Bengal, regional parties are expected to maintain their respective strongholds. The tiny south Indian union territory of Pondicherry is predicted to see a Congress-led alliance victory.
How accurate are the exit polls?
Recent polls have accurately captured the general direction of results but not the degree. Indian exit polls have also been wildly wrong in the past. They incorrectly predicted in 2009 that Congress would lose national elections and in 2004 exit polls wrongly predicting a BJP victory.
When is the next big political battle that matters?
Increasing the BJP's vote base across India will give Mr. Modi a better chance of being able to increase his influence in Parliament. However, elections in Uttar Pradesh in the summer of 2017 could tip the balance for Mr. Modi. The state alone decides on 31 seats in the upper house. All five states in this week's elections decide 51.
More The Short Answer


Kabra Extrusiontechnik Ltd (KET), a part of Kolsite group is a leading manufacturer of Plastic extrusion machinery in India. KET offers a wide range of hi-tech single and twin screw extrusion lines for pipes, profiles, pellets, teleduct and mono & multilayer blown films plants. The company has over four decades of rich experience in plastics industry.
It has got the coveted 'Two Star Export House' status. The Company has won 'Excellence in Export' award five times and also is an ISO 9000 Company. KET has been benchmarking in plastics extrusion industry by modern R & D techniques and various processes to cater the market requirements for low power consumption, high output, maintenance free and user friendly Plastics Extrusion plants and machineries. KET has established a joint venture with global leaders in plastics extrusion machinery like Battenfeld Extrusionstechnik, Germany, American Maplan Corporation, USA and Gloucester Engineering Co., USA.


The Canon EOS 7D Mark II Digital SLR Camera is a utilitarian camera that offers effective image capturing technology so that you can shoot every moment even when the subject is moving at a high speed. The manual speed adjusting settings offer better control while the continuous shooting speeds of up to 10 fps give better results. The camera comes equipped with a rugged shutter which has been meticulously designed for 200000 cycles, enabling it to capture up to 10 frames in a single second.


text:
Suzy Stride praises the work of All Ability Sport & Leisure
Politics / Sat 30th Nov 2013 am30 09:18am
SUZY Stride, Labour's Parliamentary Candidate for Harlow, recently visited All Ability Athletics and Multi-Sport, which is a program in Harlow which provides sporting opportunities for young and old alike. The program is consistent in its delivery to provide its participants the opportunity to develop their sporting interest, from inclusion right the way through to International recognition.
All Ability Sport & Leisure have taken Harlow residents from the start line to representing Great Britain. Richard Chiassaro, who lives in Harlow, came along to All Ability Sport & Leisure four years ago, before that he had never raced – and with the support and dedication of coaches he is now representing Great Britain.
Richard said "The club is so good for young people, opportunities to try different sports is so important, I came here to coach and then started wheel chair racing, I am now number 1 in 100m, 200m, 400 and 800 metre chair racing."
Suzy Stride said "All Ability Sport & Leisure provide amazing opportunities for people in Harlow and beyond, tapping into potential and seeing young people excel. We know there are huge problems of young people from more deprived backgrounds being able to achieve at high levels in sport due to access and lack of opportunity and it's fantastic to see organisations like this building those bridges and transforming both young peoples and disabled peoples lives."
Bob Mckinlay, one of the senior coaches, is very passionate about tapping into potential. He said "David Weir had to start somewhere and be inspired to do what he does. Could we ever not provide that level of inspiration, it would not be for the lack of trying, it would possibly be restricted through financial limitations.
"In this world of ours, I truly believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to be able to achieve and be part of something. I hope we can, in the future allow this program to reach the levels we are seeking."
No Comments for Suzy Stride praises the work of All Ability Sport & Leisure:


The Back Server is the liaison between the greeter and the dining room and making sure the dining room is always perfect. The back-server's priority is to ensure all tables are cleared and reset prior to the start of service and after guests leave. They assist servers and bartenders by refilling water and tea as needed; removing used tableware between courses, maintain overall cleanliness of bar area and helping dishwashers by removing clean dishes from the dish station and stocking them in appropriate areas.


text:
"""
inject some memoize caching into our github api functions.  we're keeping the
caching layer separate from the api layer by doing it this way
"""

from os.path import dirname, abspath, join
from functools import partial
import inspect

from memoize import memoize
from memoize.backends import json_backend

import github_api.voting
import github_api.repos

import settings

THIS_DIR = dirname(abspath(__file__))

api_backend = json_backend(join(THIS_DIR, settings.MEMOIZE_CACHE_DIRNAME))

# here we're creating a specialized memoize decorator that ignores the "api"
# argument in a function when constructing the memoize key.  we do this because
# "api" is a resource that should not be considered as part of the memoize
# key
api_memoize = partial(memoize, blacklist={"api"}, backend=api_backend)

# a helper for monkey-patch-decorating functions in different modules
def decorate(fn, dec):
    mod = inspect.getmodule(fn)
    new_fn = dec(fn)
    setattr(mod, fn.__name__, new_fn)

# now let's memoize some very frequent api calls that don't change often
decorate(github_api.voting.get_vote_weight, api_memoize("1d"))
decorate(github_api.repos.get_num_watchers, api_memoize("10m"))
decorate(github_api.prs.get_is_mergeable, api_memoize("2m"))

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
from __future__ import print_function, division
import numpy as np
import psyutils as pu

def cos_win_1d(size,
               ramp=None):
    """Create a vector of length ``size'' containing a 1D cosine window
    where the centre of the window is set to 1 and the ramps go down to
    zero symmetrically on either side.

    This can be useful for e.g. adjusting the alpha channel of a stimulus
    over frames so that the stimulus is smoothly ramped on and off.
    Since what's returned is a vector, ``size`` must be an integer
    or convertible to integer.

    This function will do some basic checking to see that your parameters
    make sense but it is not thorough. If parameters are provided as integers
    they will be converted to floats.

    Args:
        size (int):
            the size of the returned array.
        ramp (int or float, optional):
            the length of each ramp, in pixels. Defaults to ceil(size / 6).

    Returns:
        window (float): an np.array vector containing the windowing kernel,
        normalised 0--1.

    Example:
        Create a vector of size 200 where the value is 1 for the central
        110 samples with on and off ramps of size 45 at either end::
            import psyutils as pu
            window = cos_win_1d(size = 200, ramp = 45)
            pu.image.plot_win_1d(window)

    """
    # check parameters, set.
    size = float(round(size))

    if ramp is None:
        ramp = size / 6.0
    else:
        ramp = float(ramp)

    ramp = np.ceil(ramp)
    # do a check for params making sense:
    tot = (ramp * 2.0)

    if tot > size:
        raise ValueError("Your ramping parameters add up to " + str(tot) +
                         " but you " +
                         "asked for size " + str(size))

    y = np.ones((int(size)))

    # create the ramps:
    up_ramp = np.sin(np.linspace(0, 1, round(ramp)) * np.pi/2.0)
    down_ramp = np.cos(np.linspace(0, 1, round(ramp)) * np.pi/2.0)

    # place into y:
    y[0:int(ramp)] = up_ramp
    y[-int(ramp):] = down_ramp
    return(y)

def gaussian_2d(im_x, im_y=None,
                sd_x=None, sd_y=None,
                mid_x=None, mid_y=None,
                ori=0, padding=0):
    """Create a Gaussian located in a 2d numpy array.
    Specifying just the required parameter im_x creates a
    symmetrical Gaussian centred in the image with the default sd
    (im_x / 6.0).

    Specifying combinations of the other parameters allows you to
    create varying locations, symmetries and orientations of Gaussian
    blobs.

    Args:
        im_x (int):
            The horizontal size of the image. If this is the only argument
            supplied then the image will be square with sd = im_x/6.
        im_y (int, optional):
            The vertical size of the image, if different to the horizontal.
        sd_x (float, optional):
            The horizontal standard deviation of the Gaussian. If only sd_x
            is supplied, the Gaussian will be symmetric (i.e. sd_y == sd_x).
        sd_y (float, optional):
            The vertical sd of the Gaussian.
        mid_x (float, optional):
            The horizontal mid-point of the Gaussian in (sub-) pixel units.
        mid_y (float, optional):
            The vertical mid-point of the Gaussian in (sub-) pixel units.
        ori (float, optional):
            Degrees of rotation to apply to the Gaussian (counterclockwise).
        padding (int, optional):
            the size of zero padding at the edges. Defaults to zero.
            This assumes that the Gaussian is centred (will just make the
            values a circle of zeros outside mid_x - padding).

    Returns:
        window (float): a 2d array containing the windowing kernel,
        normalised 0--1.

    Example:
        Make a symmetrical gaussian in a square image of length 64::
            import psyutils as pu
            gauss_win = pu.image.gaussian_2d(im_x=64)
            pu.image.show_im(gauss_win)

        Make a rotated, asymmetrical and off-centre Gaussian::
            import psyutils as pu
            gauss_win = pu.image.gaussian_2d(im_x=128, sd_x=10, sd_y=30,
                ori=30, mid_x=40)
            pu.image.show_im(gauss_win)

    """
    # setup symmetric variables, if others not supplied:
    if sd_x is None:
        sd_x = im_x / 6.0

    if sd_y is None:
        sd_y = sd_x  # symmetrical

    if im_y is None:
        im_y = im_x

    if mid_x is None and mid_y is None:
        mid_x = im_x / 2.0
        mid_y = im_y / 2.0
    elif mid_x is not None and mid_y is None:
        mid_y = im_y / 2.0
    elif mid_x is None and mid_y is not None:
        mid_x = im_x / 2.0

    im_theta = ori * np.pi / 180.  # convert to radians.

    x = np.arange((1 - mid_x), (im_x - mid_x + 1))
    y = np.arange((1 - mid_y), (im_y - mid_y + 1))

    # meshgrid by default in cartesian coords:
    xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x, y)
    x_rot = np.sin(im_theta) * xx + np.cos(im_theta) * yy
    y_rot = np.sin(im_theta) * yy - np.cos(im_theta) * xx
    win = np.exp(-(x_rot**2.0 / (2.0*sd_y**2.0))) * \
        np.exp(-(y_rot**2.0 / (2.0*sd_x**2.0)))

    if padding is not 0:
        xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x, y)
        rad_dist = (xx**2 + yy**2) ** 0.5
        win[rad_dist >= (mid_x-padding)] = 0

    return(win)

def cos_win_2d(size,
               ramp=None,
               ramp_type='norm',
               **kwargs):
    """Create a circular Cosine window in a 2d numpy array.

    Args:
        size (int):
            size of the resulting matrix in w, h (i.e., number of columns and
            rows respectively). If a single value is passed, the matrix will
            be square with this length.
        ramp (float or int, optional):
            The size of the ramp. Defaults to 0.1 (normalised).
        ramp_type (string, optional):
            Determines how `ramp` is interpreted. If 'norm' (default),
            `ramp` is the normalised size of *each* ramp, where the radius
            runs 0--1. So if `ramp`=0.1, it runs from 0.9 to 1 on each radius.
            If `ramp_type` is 'pixels', then each ramp is made to be
            ceil(ramp) pixels long.
        **kwargs (optional):
            keyword arguments passed to axes_polar. Passing this will change
            the intended behaviour of cos_win_2d.

    Returns:
        window (float): a 2d array containing the windowing kernel,
        normalised 0--1.

    Example:
        Make a cosine window in a square image of length 64::
            import psyutils as pu
            win = pu.image.cos_win_2d(size=64)
            pu.image.show_im(win)

        Make a cosine window with a larger ramp::
            import psyutils as pu
            win = pu.image.cos_win_2d(size=256, ramp=40, ramp_type="pixels")
            pu.image.show_im(win)

        Make a cosine window wider than it is tall::
            import psyutils as pu
            win = pu.image.cos_win_2d(size=256, ramp=40, ramp_type="pixels",
                                      axes_limits=(-1, 1, -2, 2))
            pu.image.show_im(win)

    """

    # Input checking on params:
    if ramp is None and ramp_type is 'norm':
        ramp = 0.1
    elif ramp is None and ramp_type is 'pixels':
        raise Warning("You asked for pixels but did not specify a ramp " +
                      "value. I'm defaulting to norm and ramp 0.1")
        ramp_type = 'norm'
        ramp = 0.1
    elif ramp_type is 'norm':
        ramp = float(ramp)
        if ramp > 1. or ramp < 0.:
            raise ValueError("Ramp as norm must be between 0 and 1.")
    elif ramp_type is 'pixels':
        ramp = float(np.ceil(ramp))

        if size < ramp*2.0:
            raise ValueError("Your ramping parameters add up to " +
                             str(ramp*2.0) +
                             " but you " +
                             "asked for size " + str(size))

    # convert a pixel-specified ramp into a normalised one:
    if ramp_type is 'pixels':
        # raise Warning("currently specifying in pixels assumes you're " +
        #               "getting a square image (i.e. size = a number)")
        ramp = ramp / size
        # since radial axis runs from 0--1 on all edges, to have this
        # number of pixels in the ramp need to multiply by 2:
        ramp = ramp * 2.0

    # call a radial axis:
    r, a = pu.image.axes_polar(size=size, **kwargs)
    # radial axis defaults to run from 0 -- 1.
    win = r.copy()
    ramp_start = (1. - ramp)
    ramp_end = 1.
    win[r < ramp_start] = 1.  # inside = 1.
    ramp_location = np.logical_and(r >= ramp_start,
                                   r <= ramp_end)
    win[ramp_location] = np.cos((win[ramp_location] - ramp_start)
                                / (ramp_end - ramp_start) * np.pi/2.)
    win[r > ramp_end] = 0.

    return(win)

def wedge_win(im_x,
              f_peak=None, bw=None):
    """ A radial wedge window (angular Gaussian).

    Args:
        im_x (int): the size of the window in pixels (only square now).
        f_peak (float): the peak orientation passband.
            Zero is rightwards (horizontal), moves counterclockwise in
            degrees.
        bw (float): the bandwidth of the angular Gaussian in degrees.

    """
    # set up default parameters:
    if f_peak is None:
        f_peak = 0.
    else:
        f_peak = float(f_peak)

    if bw is None:
        bw = 15.  # bandwidth in degrees.
    else:
        bw = float(bw)

    radius = round(im_x / 2.0)

    x = np.arange((1 - radius), (im_x - radius + 1))
    # meshgrid by default in cartesian coords:
    xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x, x)

    # convert params to radians:
    f_peak = f_peak * np.pi / 180
    bw = bw * np.pi / 180

    ang_dist = np.arctan2(-yy, xx)
    sin_theta = np.sin(ang_dist)
    cos_theta = np.cos(ang_dist)

    ds = sin_theta * np.cos(f_peak) - cos_theta * np.sin(f_peak)
    dc = cos_theta * np.cos(f_peak) + sin_theta * np.sin(f_peak)
    dtheta = abs(np.arctan2(ds, dc))  # Absolute angular distance
    win = np.exp((-dtheta**2) / (2*bw**2))  # ang filter component
    return(win)


World Braille Day is celebrated every year on the 4th of January. It marks the birthday of Louis Braille, who invented the raised-dot system which has helped blind and partially sighted people read and write in an easier way since the 19th century.
Louis was born in France on this day 1809, and lost his sight at the age of 10. He was accepted to a school for blind youth shortly after, and he quickly realized that there wasn't a good way for someone blind or partially sighted to read books or write.
At that time, the method used for reading was raised alphabetic letters in the books. The reader had to trace every single letter – a very time-consuming task.
Louis learnt about a dot-based military code system, used for night-operations, and became inspired. However, the military system was too complicated, and Louis spent the next couple of years making his own simplified version of it.
Louis was only 15 years old when he introduced his system of 6 raised dots in different combinations to represent the alphabet. His invention made it possible for blind and partially sighted people to read and write in an easier way. Today, braille is used all over the world!
Next Article Trialbee introduces Trialbee Health!


This gingerbread isn't for your belly but it looks good enough to eat. Wee houses made from felt are so cute covering a battery operated candle. Shafts of warm glowing light eminate from the doorways and windows. Make half a dozen to create a miniature glowing village and place around the tree or table decoration.
This gingerbread isn't for your belly but it looks good enough to eat. Wee houses made from felt are so cute covering a battery operated candle. Shafts of warm glowing light eminate from the doorways and windows. Make half a dozen to create a miniature glowing village and place around the tree or table decoration. I was inspired by Poopscape Projects's Felt house (see below) that I wanted to desperately make one but a gingerbread cookie version instead.
Check out more awesome crafty how-tos over on Go Make Me!


In our uber-connected world, pressing a button on the steering wheel to make a phone call is second nature for many. Using our cars like a phone and storing information in data systems is so convenient!
Unfortunately, though, as security experts are warning, syncing your phone to your car can put you at risk for a data breach. Here's what you need to know about the dangers. There is sensitive information stored in your phone—and your car.
When you connect your phone to your car, you're using your vehicle to store loads of personal information that's very easy to access. A hacker can quickly scrape your data even if your phone is nowhere in sight. All they need to do is connect their own phone to your car's Bluetooth system and they're in!
If syncing your own vehicle to your phone poses a security risk, that risk increases tenfold when using a rental car. You may have once picked up a rental car and found the device information of the last 10 renters still stored. That means, if you were to sync your own phone, just as you have observed, the next renter will have your information at their fingertips.
When you leave your personal information in a rental car, the next renter can use the information to access your financial accounts, rob your home or even steal your identity. Sure, you can delete your device's information from the car you rent, but even that can still be hacked.
To be completely safe, it's best not to sync your phone when renting a car. Also, if you frequently use rideshare programs, like Uber and Lyft, your driver might allow you to sync your phone to the car's infotainment system as a courtesy. This, too, can put your information at risk. So, if a driver makes this offer, you'll want to politely decline.
Never sync your phone with a rental vehicle or a rideshare car.
Delete personal information that's stored in your vehicle.
Adjust your phone's settings to the strongest security levels.
Restrict the amount of information your vehicle can access on its own, and don't allow it to store or access information without re-syncing to your phone.


text:
Docalidia frondosa är en insektsart som beskrevs av Nielson 1979. Docalidia frondosa ingår i släktet Docalidia och familjen dvärgstritar. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Dvärgstritar
frondosa


Where could I obtain one or two blue spruce seedlings?
I would start by checking if any local nurseries have them available. If they do not have them available and cannot special order them for you, there are a number of mail order nurseries from which you might be able to purchase a couple seedlings.
What are the best dwarf fruit tree varieties for the Denver Area?


text:
Home>Society> John Legend Gets Into Twitter Feud With Donald Trump Jr., Calls His Father Racist
John Legend Gets Into Twitter Feud With Donald Trump Jr., Calls His Father Racist
Angus Walker
@gowangus
Theo Wargo/Getty Images
Donald Trump Jr. doesn't understand why people are protesting his father's candidacy; John Legend explains.
As Donald Trump's unlikely race to the White House becomes increasingly viable with each day, celebrities are beginning to voice their opposition to the controversial GOP candidate. A couple of days ago, Chris Brownblasted off about Trump's alleged racism, and today, another R&B singer, John Legend, got into a short Twitter feud with Trump's son, during which he told Donald Jr. that his father is a racist.
Trump has recently come under fire for the violent and perhaps racist manner in which protestors have been treated at his rallies. Donald Jr. sent out a tweet today scoffing at the growing group of protestors that have become regulars at his father's campaign stops, suggesting that they don't even know what they're protesting about.
Legend was quick to respond to Trump Jr.'s tweet, expressing his belief that it's obvious why the aforementioned group would attend a Trump rally: "I think they were protesting your racist father. This isn't complicated."
Trump Jr. wasn't satisfied with Legend's response, and he went on to explain that racism "can't be the answer for everything you don't like."
A random user and likely Trump supporter caught wind of the back and forth, and he tweeted his opinion that Legend must not be educated for believing Trump is a racist. Legend quickly responded to him, too, and exposed the ignorance of the man's comments while pointing out that he attended the same university as both Trump Sr. and Trump Jr. Legend graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1999 with a degree in English and a concentration in African-American literature and culture.
Society News John Legend donald trump politics election GOP twitter racism donald trump jr.
Metro Boomin Explains The Origin Of His "If Young Metro Don't Trust You" Tag
Barack Obama Expresses His Love For J. Cole
SOCIETY John Legend Gets Into Twitter Feud With Donald Trump Jr., Calls His Father Racist


text:
409 F. 2d 888 - United States v. T Bennett
409 F2d 888 United States v. T Bennett
409 F.2d 888
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
Charles T. BENNETT, Wilbert Haywood, Elmer Jessup, Henry
Stanton and FarrisThomas, Appellants.
Nos. 214-216, Dockets 32327, 32328 and 32336.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 5, 1968.
Decided Feb. 26, 1969.
Frederic A. Johnson, New York City, for appellant Wilbert Haywood.
Irving Younger, New York City (Michael O. Finkelstein, New York City, of counsel on the challenge to the Grand Jury), for appellants Charles T. Bennett and Henry D. Stanton.
Robert Kasanof, New York City, for appellant Elmer Jessup.
Patrick M. Wall, Washington, D.C. (Edward Bennett Williams, William E. McDaniels, Washington, D.C.), for appellant Farris Thomas.
Charles P. Sifton, Ass't. U.S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of New York, Abraham D. Sofaer, William B. Gray and Paul K. Rooney, Ass't U.S. Attys., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, and FRANKEL, District Judge.*
FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:
The five appellants, Bennett, Stanton, Haywood, Jessup and Thomas were the subjects, along with nine co-defendants and four co-conspirators, of a single count indictment in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging them with having engaged in a conspiracy to import narcotics and to distribute these in the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. 173-174. The case against eight defendants was severed, and the jury acquitted a ninth, Harris. Appellants were convicted and given heavy sentences, ranging from 12 to 20 years.
The prosecution's evidence showed a sizeable conspiracy of the familiar 'chain' type. The entrepreneurs were three Australians-- appellant Bennett, Hopes and Egan-- who bought heroin in Hong Kong at low prices starting around May 1966, and had couriers convey it on their persons by air to the United States, generally to New York, where the principals would distribute it at a large mark-up. During the seven-month life of the conspiracy a number of couriers were employed, including appellant Stanton as well as Reid, Lewis and Summerill, who were the Government's principal witnesses at the trial. Appellants Haywood, Jessup and Thomas were distributors in New York.
It is unnecessary to make a complete statement of the colorful evidence. None of the appellants challenges its sufficiency-- indeed, the record fairly shrieks of guilt-- and some of it is summarized in footnotes 1-4. At this point we shall recount only the last stages of the drama since they give rise to a number of the arguments made on appeal.
Reid on his penultimate trip from Hong Kong in early November, 1966, carried 25 one ounce packets of heroin which Stanton delivered to him there. In addition Reid approached a rickshaw boy named Muk, who had already served as a source of supply, and purchased with his own funds an additional six ounces for $600. On arriving in New York Reid delivered the 25 ounces to Egan and received $4,500; Egan also bought the six ounces for $2,400, apparently with knowledge of their separate origin. When Reid returned to Hong Kong late in the month, Hopes propositioned him for a final trip. The arrangements for this were to be somewhat altered. Instead of being a paid employee, Reid was to buy the heroin from the syndicate in Hong Kong at $200 per ounce with his own funds, pay his own expenses and resell to it in New York at $1,000 an ounce. This trip was postponed and, in early January, 1967, Egan, then in Hong Kong, got in touch with Reid and made a still different proposal, namely, that Reid buy heroin there from his own source of supply and sell it to Egan in New York for $600 an ounce. It is clear this proposal was independent of the one made by Hopes and Bennett, since it offered Reid a much smaller margin of profit. Bennett came to Hong Kong a few days later. He told Reid that he was endeavoring to find a better quality of heroin and that the trip on which Reid would earn the $800 differential per ounce would have to be postponed again. Reid indicated he had his own source of pure heroin, again via Muk the rickshaw boy, and inquired whether the syndicate would be prepared to buy from him in New York. Bennett thought it would be better if Reid would wait a week until Hopes' arrival. Reid decided not to wait, went immediately to Muk, bought some 26 ounces of heroin the next day, and boarded a plane for Honolulu. There two United States customs agents arrested and searched him and found on his person the heroin and a card with the names and phone numbers of Egan and Jessup.
Reid decided to cooperate. He and two federal agents flew to New York, where they registered at a hotel. They installed in Reid's room a tape recorder and a microphone leading to an adjacent room. Reid telephoned a woman whose name and number Egan had given him. Shortly thereafter Egan called, said he had picked up 'some unwanted friends' and had been obliged to leave town but would send 'Caroline,' the code name for Haywood,1 who would identify himself by a password. Haywood did not appear but, after more telephoning and the lapse of several days, defendant Harris did and was promptly arrested.
On the same day, January 12, 1967, Egan was arrested in a room registered under the name of Austin Burke at a Miami Beach hotel. Found on him was an envelope with the partially obscured notations 'Caroline' and 'Glen,' which was Reid's first name. Haywood was arrested the same evening in his Greenwich Village apartment; the agents discovered an apparatus used in determining the purity of drugs and $5,000 in cash. Jessup was also arrested that day in his Manhattan apartment;2 the agents found an address book and a business card containing the telephone listings of Egan, Thomas, Hopes and 'Carolina'; a list of names and numbers headed by 'Carolina-- 5400,' and a slip containing the address of Egan's apartment and the name 'Thomas.'
Thomas' arrest3 came seven weeks later, in his Manhattan apartment. The agents found two address books both of which contained the telephone numbers of 'Dog,' a business card of 'Austin Burke,' Egan's assumed name, and a letter from Egan, of which more hereafter.4
I. The Grand Jury
The sole point briefed by appellants Bennett and Stanton concerns their challenge to the method of grand jury selection in the Southern District of New York. With the approval of the trial judge it was stipulated that similar motions made before Judge Tyler in United States v. Leonetti, 291 F.Supp. 461 (S.D.N.Y.1968), would be considered to have been made here, and that his decision thereon would be deemed the decision in this case as well. In a careful opinion Judge Tyler overruled the challenge. The basic contention of the movants was that the jury selection system5 operated unfairly to minimize participation by black and Puerto Rican citizens and, generally, by the urban poor. Conceding that 'Gross disparities in the representation of any identifiable group in the community of course serve to call scrutiny to the system,' the judge concluded that 'the disparities relied upon by movants are almost completely the product of the hardship excuse procedures.' He found also that the attack based on the long discarded practice of choosing grand jurors by relying in part on impermissible sources such as recommendations of the Grand Jury Association, the Social Register, and real estate listings, as against voter registration lists, had much less force today than when it was rejected years ago in United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 218 (2 Cir. 1950), aff'd, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951), and, more recently, in United States v. Van Allen, 208 F.Supp. 331 (S.D.N.Y.1962), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Kelly, 349 F.2d 720, 777-779 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1467, 16 L.Ed.2d 544 (1966). See also United States v. Flynn, 216 F.2d 354, 385-386 (2 Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 909, 75 S.Ct. 295, 99 L.Ed. 713 (1955). Granting, as Judge Tyler did, that the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 53, 28 U.S.C. 1861-1867, will produce more thoroughly representative juries in the Southern District of new York, we find no evidence of invidious discrimination sufficient to require invalidation of this indictment.
II. Evidence allegedly stemming from an independent venture by Reid
Turning to the conduct of the trial, we shall deal first with two contentions which have as a common ground a claim that Reid's final trip was not a part of the conspiracy charged in the indictment but rather an independent venture of his own. One of these, to be discussed below, relates to a statement made considerably before the trip by Lewis to Reid concerning Jessup. The other is that it was error to admit into evidence against all the defendants the heroin seized from Reid in Honolulu and to allow the jury to hear the story of his post-arrest contacts with Egan and Harris.
Since the heroin was real evidence, its admissibility is governed by the rule, stated in Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 618, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593 (1963), that though hearsay declarations of a co-conspirator are admissible against the others only if made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, acts relevant to prove the conspiracy are admissible even if they occurred after the conspiracy had ended. Here the jury could reasonably have inferred from proof of Reid's possession of concealed heroin on his person at the time of his passage through Customs that he either had had previous experience as a courier or had been instructed by other conspirators.
Furthermore, the heroin would have been properly admitted even if it were necessary to show that it was taken from Reid while he was acting in furtherance of the conspiracy. It is common ground that in conspiracy the agreement itself is the crime, and that 'it is therefore essential to determine what kind of agreement or understanding existed as to each, defendant.' United States v. Borelli, 336 F.2d 376, 384, and 385 (2 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, Cinquegrano v. United States, 379 U.S. 960, 85 S.Ct. 647, 13 L.Ed.2d. 555 (1965), quoting United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401, 403 (2 Cir. 1938). On this theory the heroin would have been admissible against a given defendant only insofar as it might reasonably have been generated by the operation of the conspiracy as he understood it. The agreement here was a broad one for the procurement of cheap heroin in Hong Kong, its transportation to the United States, its sale at a profit in this country, and a division of the spoils among the participants. Certainly at the time of Reid's last trip his actions were within the agreement as understood by the New York distributors, Jessup, Thomas, and Haywood-- the very appellants who press the point. They expected heroin from Hong Kong, and Reid was bringing it. The Government was not limited to proving an agreement in which everyone's role and share was carefully fixed in advance, so that the slightest alteration in the arrangements would mean that the agreed venture had terminated. Cf. United States v. Cohen, 145 F.2d 82, 87-89 (2 Cir. 1944), cert denied, 323 U.S. 799, 65 S.Ct. 553, 89 L.Ed. 637 (1945). We have held that a far more striking example of conspirators deciding to cheat each other does not destroy the conspiracy. United States v. Gersh, 328 F.2d 460, 462 (2 Cir.), cert, denied, Mugnola v. United States, 377 U.S. 992, 84 S.Ct. 1919, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1964). The very most that could be said is that the trip was not in furtherance of the conspiracy as understood by Bennett, since it was undertaken against his express wishes, but no objection was made with sufficient specificity to preserve for him this narrow point on appeal.
What Egan said and what Harris did after Reid's arrest were admissible under the conspiracy exception to the hearsay rule, since they were plainly intended to further the conspiracy as most of the conspirators understood it. It makes no difference that Reid was no longer their co-conspirator, so long as they thought he was. The argument that the tapes made of these conversations, and the testimony of one of the agents who listened to them, should have been excluded as gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected for this circuit in United States v. Kaufer,406 F.2d 550 (1969). While again there might have been room for a specific request for a limiting instruction by Bennett, none was made.
The statement concerning Jessup was made, according to Reid, around November 3, 1966, before Reid's penultimate trip, concededly a part of the conspiracy. Reid was in Hong Kong, working out arrangements with Hopes, Summerill, and Lewis (known to Reid as 'Mulligan'). Reid drew Mulligan aside, recalled a previous promise to introduce him 'to some of the customers in New York City,' and mentioned that he 'was thinking of buying some heroin from the Chinese people I know in Hong Kong, taking it to the United States and selling it myself.' Mulligan then gave 'a telephone number to a person named Dog.' Lewis, alias Mulligan, testified to the same episode; his version was that the conversation took place in late November, after they had both returned from New York, and that Reid asked, 'What about that address you were going to give me so I can go into business for myself instead of just carting for Egan, Bennett and Hopes?', whereupon Lewis gave the Dog's phone number. Jessup contends that Lewis' statement was in furtherance not of the conspiracy charged in the indictment but of a separate venture of Reid's and hence was inadmissible hearsay.
As indicated, we think this argument takes too narrow a view of the agreement charged and proved. Reid wanted the information not in order to leave the conspiracy but to enable him to continue it with some links in the chain to the exclusion of others, and Lewis, another member of the conspiracy, was passing on information gathered from his own participation that was useful to that end. Nothing in the proof indicates that Jessup placed the kind of reliance on the maintenance of a given chain of command among the Australian suppliers that would justify finding the conspiracy ended as to him when the Australians changed their relations to each other without ceasing to supply heroin through the same channels as before.
Alternatively, we believe the hearsay rule was satisfied by the fact that here the declarant, Lewis, himself testified. Assuming that Lewis' statement should be treated as an elliptical way of saying that in the course of the conspiracy he had had dealings with Jessup, a report given directly and unambiguously in other portions of Lewis' testimony, he was open to cross-examination as to the underlying facts. We fail to see why, under the circumstances, the embodiment of his experience in an earlier declaration would inhibit effective cross-examination. See Morgan, Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept, 62 Harv.L.Rev. 177, 192-96 (1948), reprinted in Ass'n of American Law Schools, Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial, 764, 774-77 (1950). Certainly the opportunity for cross-examination was far better than in many instances of preserved memory where admission is routine. See Morgan, The Relations between Hearsay and Preserved Memory, 40 Harv.L.Rev. 712, 719-20, 724-32 (1927), reprinted in Ass'n of American Law Schools, supra, 374, 378-79, 382-87. The testimony would clearly be admissible under the definitions of hearsay in the ALI Model Code of Evidence, Rule 503(6), and Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence proposed by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. We limit our ruling to the situation here presented, where the witness' statement was made in the course of imparting information for a use desired by the hearer; we are not approving a general practice of admitting prior consistent extra-judicial statements of a witness, such as those made to investigating officers, for the truth of the matter asserted. See United States v. De Sisto, 329 F.2d 929 (2 Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 979, 84 S.Ct. 1885, 12 L.Ed.2d 747 (1964).6
III. Evidence obtained in the search of Thomas' apartment
Farris Thomas' principal points concern the extent of a search of his apartment incident to his concededly lawful arrest on March 1, 1967, and the admissibility of a letter from Egan found during the search.
While the record does not disclose close the size of Thomas' apartment, nothing indicates that the search went beyond the bedroom where he was found in pajamas along with his girl friend Joyce Hoffman,7 and the adjoining bathroom and closet. A loaded .38 caliber revolver was discovered in a night table by the bed and a quantity of marihuana was found in the bathroom adjoining the bedroom and underneath the mattress of the bed. Also found in the night table, a dresser drawer and a pocket of Thomas' coat, which was lying on a chair in the bedroom, were two address books containing Jessup's telephone numbers and the business card of an 'Austin Burke' of Miami, Florida. Finally a letter from Egan to 'Farris or Joyce' was discovered in a woman's pocketbook in the bedroom closet. The address books, card and letter were received in evidence at the trial.
We are unable to perceive how the extent of the search exceeded what was sanctioned in Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947), and United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950). The search in Harris, also conducted without a search warrant, for the purpose of finding two stolen checks, burglar tools and pens, lasted for five hours, included each room of a four room apartment, and ultimately led to a bedroom bureau drawer where the agents found and opened a sealed envelope marked 'personal papers'; the envelope contained forged draft cards which were seized as contraband and admitted into evidence on the same ground. Here the search was for the instrumentalities used in a ramified narcotics conspiracy and for evidence thereof. The agents were entitled to search for narcotics, easily concealed in pockets, pocketbooks, and furniture drawers, for weapons, and also under Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), for evidence showing the identity of other conspirators and Thomas' connection with them.
In overruling the holding of Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 309, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647 (1921), that a search may not include 'mere evidence,'8 /8/ the Supreme Court in Hayden, supra, entered the following caveat, 387 U.S. at 302-303, 87 S.Ct. 1642, at 1648.
The items of clothing involved in this case are not 'testimonial' or 'communicative' in nature, and their introduction therefore did not compel respondent to become a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908. This case thus does not require that we consider whether there are items of evidential value whose very nature precludes them from being the object of a reasonable search and seizure.
Since all the Fruits of the search received in evidence except the letter from Egan would have qualified as instrumentalities under pre-Hayden law, the caveat requires consideration only with respect to that.
The letter, dated January 29, 1967, was addressed to 'Farris or Joyce.' It introduced Egan's attorney and stated that the recipients could be assured of its genuineness by its mention of the name of Jodie Brown, an alias Harris had used on his ill-starred trip to buy the last installment of heroin from Reid, and also of a ride in their new Eldorado. Egan said he needed 'help in getting a bondsman and some bread for legal fees and hospital expenses' since he had been 'busted' and hospitalized for three weeks. He continued, 'The problems that have arisen can be solved but I need to be on the outside.' If Thomas couldn't help, perhaps two friends, 'the big fellow and the golfer can.' Egan felt that the recipients owed him a small favor and was sure that performing it would be to their 'advantage in the long run.'
We find no distinction of constitutional dimensions between the seizure of Hayden's clothing and of Egan's letter. While the demise of the 'mere evidence' rule may well require the development of some new restriction on allowable search and seizure in its place, we suggest with deference that an approach geared to the objective of the Fourth Amendment to secure privacy would seem more promising than one based on the testimonial character of what is seized. The latter criterion marks the boundaries of the protection accorded by the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, as the Court noted in the passage in the Hayden opinion that we have quoted, as well as by the hearsay rule. The considerations relevant to such issues are different from those applicable to determining the scope of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite Mr. Justice Bradley's dicta in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 633, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886), now largely repudiated by Hayden, 387 U.S. at 302-307, 87 S.Ct. 1642, the Fourth Amendment does not protect broadly against the seizure of things whose compulsory production would be forbidden by the Fifth. See State v. Bisaccia, 45 N.J. 504, 509, 213 A.2d 185 (1965) (Weintraub, C.J). The Fifth Amendment would have prohibited a subpoena requiring Thomas to produce the address books and Egan's business card, on the basis that by responding he would be giving testimony that 'the articles produced are the ones demanded,' 8 Wigmore, Evidence 2264 at 379-380 (McNaughton rev. 1961); yet no one could have seriously asserted, even before Hayden, that the Fourth Amendment protected such papers against seizure pursuant to a search warrant or a reasonable search incident to a lawful arrest.
Judge Learned Hand wrote in United States v. Poller, 43 F.2d 911, 914 (2 Cir. 1930):
'* * * the real evil aimed at by the Fourth Amendment is the search itself, that invasion of a man's privacy which consists in rummaging about among his effects to secure evidence against him. If the search is permitted at all, perhaps it does not make so much difference what is taken away, since the officers will not be interested in what does not incriminate, and there can be no sound policy in protecting what does. Nevertheless limitations upon the fruit to be gathered tend to limit the quest itself * * *.'
Characterizing the last remark as the rationale most frequently suggested for the rule preventing the seizure of evidence, Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. hayden, supra, 387 U.S. at 309-310, 87 S.Ct. 1642, Mr. Justice Brennan concluded that the limitations had not served the purpose for which they were intended. But Judge Hand's preceding statements afford the best clue to the formulation of any new limitation that we have been able to conceive. As he observed, the vice lies in the unlimited search. The reason why we shrink from allowing a personal diary to be the object of a search is that the entire diary must be read to discover whether there are incriminating entries; most of us would feel rather differently with respect to a 'diary' whose cover page bore the title 'Robberies I Have Performed.' Similarly the abhorrence generally felt with respect to 'rummaging' through the contents of a desk to find an incriminating letter would not exist in the same measure if the letter were lying in plain viwe. The Hayden opinion stated that 'in the case of 'mere evidence,' probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction.' 387 U.S. at 307, 87 S.Ct. 1642 at 1650. Elaboration by the Court of that pregnant remark may afford whatever new boundary the death of Gouled may demand.
The facts of this case do not require us to essay, even in the tentative way to which we are limited, the task the Supreme Court left for the future in Hayden. Here there was no 'rummaging' through private papers; the letter was discovered in a lawful search of Joyce Hoffman's pocketbook for narcotics. Having found the letter in the course of a lawful search, the agents would have been entitled, even under pre-Hayden law, to read it to see whether it was an 'instrumentality' for effecting the conspiracy-- as it would have been if Egan had outlined ways by which Thomas and his girl friend could have continued the enterprise while Egan's troubles persisted. The clear import of Hayden is to abolish any distinction because the letter turned out to be 'mere evidence' of a conspiracy rather than a proposal to continue it. To hold that seizure of Egan's letter was impermissible would elevate the caveat in Hayden above the holding.9
The final question is whether admission of the letter offended the hearsay rule. Thomas' counsel first objected to its receipt solely on the ground that, having been found in Joyce's pocketbook, it had 'no probative value, no materiality with respect to Mr. Thomas.' This was overruled. Later, after the letter had been read to the jury, a colloquy took place at side-bar. Thomas' counsel there objected on the ground that since the letter was written from jail, it was not 'in furtherance of a conspiracy at large.' The judge said he would receive the letter only against Thomas for the purpose of showing his prior relationship with Egan, and proceeded to give a limiting instruction with respect to the person but not the purpose. No further exception was taken.
If sufficiently specific objection had been registered, a question of some difficulty would have been presented. The letter seems plainly enough to be an assertion by Egan of past criminal association with Farris Thomas and Joyce Hoffman. For reasons indicated in fn. 6, we are not at all sure that the hearsay nature of such an assertion can be overcome simply by characterizing the evidence as 'circumstantial.' On the other hand, if Thomas had given help to Egan as requested, the letter would have been admissible against him on the ground, among others, that his performance of the acts requested was an admission of the letter's contents. Arguably the retention of the letter for a month and the subsequent discovery of it in Miss Hoffman's handbag go far enough down the same road, see 4 Wigmore, Evidence 1073 at 90-91 (3d ed. 1940); McCormick, Evidence 247 at 531-532; cf. United States v. Becker, 62 F.2d 1007, 1009 (2 Cir. 1933). Certainly these circumstances dispel what would otherwise be legitimate fears with respect to the danger of a plant.
We find it unnecessary to decide this. The original objection was without basis, and 'a specific objection overruled will be effective to the extent of the grounds specified, and no further.' 1 Wigmore, Evidence 18 at 339 (3d ed. 1940). While the later objection at side-bar came close to presenting the real point, the judge was warranted in believing that counsel was satisfied with the limiting instruction he proposed; if counsel objected to that or to the short-fall of the instruction as given, he should have said so. Our discussion of admissibility at least suffices to show there was not 'plain error' in receiving the letter, F.R.Cr.P. 52(b), which, indeed, was largely cumulative, see fns. 3 and 7.
IV. The identification of Haywood
Haywood's main contention relates to his pre-trial identification by Summerill.
In his direct testimony Summerill gave the account summarized in fn. 1 and made a court-room identification of 'Caroline.' Cross-examination brought out grand jury testimony by Summerill that an Assistant United States Attorney had showed him 'several pictures of Negroes' from which he selected one as Caroline. When defense counsel indicated an intention to pursue the matter, the prosecutor requested a side-bar conference and warned 'that the picture which the witness identified from several others is a mug shot and * * *.' Defense counsel interrupted to say he didn't know that and appreciated having been told. Apparently the photographs were shown to the judge who stated, outside the hearing of the jury, that, reading from left to right, these were Bennett, Haywood, Stanton, Harris, Jessup and Thomas. Defense counsel said that under these circumstances he would not introduce the photographs, and the matter was dropped. Haywood argues that the identification as a result of the exhibition of only six photographs violated the due process standard laid down in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed. 1247 (1968), and that the procedure followed by the prosecution deprived him of the right to the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. We find both contentions unsustainable.
The Court held in Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, at 971, 'that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eye-witness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.' The record is inadequate for us to make such a finding here. We know only that Summerill was shown photographs of six men, four of them Negroes, and that Haywood's photograph was a mug shot. The latter point might be of considerable consequence if Haywood's was the only mug shot but the record does not tell us that. While counsel understandably did not wish to develop this fact before the jury, there was nothing to prevent making an adequate record at side-bar or interrogating Summerill outside the presence of the jury. See United States v. Davis, 399 F.2d 948, 950 (2 Cir. 1968). Moreover this was by no means a case where proof of a defendant's participation rested wholly on identification, see fns. 1 & 4.
The Sixth Amendment directs that 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' There is every reason to think this was intended only to reject the then rule in England whereby defendants charged with felonies other than treason could not have the aid of retained counsel at their trials with respect to issues of fact, see Beaney, Right to Counsel 8-- 12, 22-30 (1953). However, a broad consensus has developed that, as stated in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344, 83 S.Ct. 792, 796, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), which made binding on the states the rule that Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 463, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), had applied to the United States, 'in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.' Haywood's argument raises a question how far the guarantee of the 'Assistance of Counsel for his defense' in 'all criminal prosecutions' applies before a prospective defendant is 'haled into court.'
The high watermarks of such an expansion of the Sixth Amendment have been Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), dealing with interrogation, and the lineup trilogy, United States v. Wade, supra, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967); and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).10 Although in all four cases the defendant had been indicted or arraigned and either had counsel or had manifested an intention to get one, both Wade and before arraignment or indictment, is a that 'confrontation' at a line-up, even vefore arraignment or indictment, is a 'critical stage' in a prosecution, requiring that an opportunity for the assistance of counsel be afforded. See Wade, 388 U.S. at 227, 228, 229-230, 236-237, 87 S.Ct. 1926; Stovall, 388 U.S. at 298, 87 S.Ct. 1967. Haywood argues that the reasons given in Wade for insisting on counsel at a line-up, namely, that eyewitness identifications are inherently untrustworthy, that the police may suggest whom the witness should pick, and that it may be hard later to reconstruct what actually happened, apply in equal or even greater measure to an exhibition of photographs which the accused has not even seen. See United States v. Marson, 644 F.2d 408 (4 Cir. 1968) (concurring and dissenting opinion of Judge Winter); Comment, Criminal Procedure-- Photo Identifications, 43 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1019 (1968); Lawyers and Lineups, 77 Yale L.J. 390 (1967).
Against this, to require that defense counsel be allowed or appointed to attend out-of-court proceedings where the defendant himself is not present would press the Sixth Amendment beyond any previous boundary. None of the classical analyses of the assistance to be given by counsel, Justice Sutherland's in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), and Justice Black's in Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, 304 U.S. at 462-463, 58 S.Ct. 1019, and Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, 372 U.S. at 344-345, 83 S.Ct. 792, suggests that counsel must be present when the prosecution is interrogating witnesses in the defendant's absence even when, as here, the defendant is under arrest; counsel is rather to be provided to prevent the defendant himself from falling into traps devised by a lawyer on the other side and to see to it that all available defenses are proffered. Many other aspects of the prosecution's interviews with a victim or a witness to a crime afford just as much opportunity for undue suggestion as the display of photographs; so, too, do the defense's interviews, notably with alibi witnesses. Although in Simmons the Court noted that the right to counsel was not involved, since the photographs were shown to the witnesses before any arrests had been made, Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion contains language bearing on this problem, 390 U.S. at 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, at 971:
Despite the hazards of initial identification by photograph, this procedure has been used widely and effectively in criminal law enforcement, from the standpoint both of apprehending offenders and of sparing innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing eyewitnesses to exonerate them through scrutiny of photographs. The danger that use of the technique may result in convictions based on misidentification may be substantially lessened by a course of cross-examination at trial which exposes to the jury the method's potential for error. We are unwilling to prohibit its employment, either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement.
And in Wade itself, the Court listed as one of the ways the prosecution might attempt to show that a witness' identification of defendant at trial was not the fruit of a lineup held in the absence of counsel a showing of 'the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup,' 388 U.S. at 241, 87 S.Ct. 1926, at 1940, which clearly implies that such identifications are permissible even when defendant's counsel is not present. Since we thus refuse to project United States v. Wade and its siblings into new ground, see McGee v. United States, 402 F.2d 434, 436 (10 Cir. 1968), we have no occasion to consider the effect or validity of 18 U.S.C. 3502, added by 701 of the Crime Control Act of 1968.
VI. Other claims
We can dispose of appellants' other claims more briefly.
The contention that the indictment should be dismissed because based on hearsay is wholly lacking in merit. All the appellants save Haywood were first charged in a superseding indictment filed March 17, 1967. This was based largely on the testimony of Narcotics Agent Matuozzi who had interviewed Lewis in Australia; it is not contended that he failed to make the source of his information clear. Lewis, Bennett and Summerill were later brought here from Australia, and Lewis and Summerill decided to cooperate. On the basis of Summerill's testimony the same grand jury that had returned the two previous indictments filed a further superseding indictment adding Haywood. The claim is that Lewis also should have been called.
None of our opinions on this subject, whether in majority or in dissent, has ever intimated or, in light of Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956), permissibly could intimate, that hearsay evidence can never be a basis for an indictment. We have criticized 'excessive use of hearsay' and have said that hearsay 'should only be used when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts from personal knowledge,' United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725, 730 (2 Cir. 1966), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 389 U.S. 80, 88 S.Ct. 253, 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967). See United States v. Arcuri, 405 F.2d 691 (2 Cir. 1968) and cases there cited. Here it was impossible to have Lewis testify at the time of the first superseding indictment, and no purpose would have been served by requiring the grand jurors who already had lawfully indicted the other defendants to hear him repeat Matuozzi's version, when the sole purpose of the second superseding indictment was to add a defendant whose guilt was indicated primarily by the testimony of Summerill.
Jessup complains of the court's refusal to allow his counsel, Mr. Solomon, who had been retained shortly before trial to raise at trial the legality of the search incident to Jessup's arrest. Jessup had been represented by competent counsel before Mr. Solomon's retainer and the judge's ruling was wholly appropriate in light of the important policy of F.R.Cr.P. 41(e) of avoiding the serious inconvenience to jurors from unnecessary disruptions of trial to deal with issues that could and should have been raised in advance. See United States v. Volkell, 251 F.2d 333, 336 (2 Cir. 1958), and cases there cited.
In the cross-examination of Lewis, defense counsel, after having brought out that he had been released on his own recognizance and was working, asked where. The court interjected, 'Don't give any addresses, just explain the type of work.' Lewis said he worked 'in a plant' but didn't wish to say what kind. When he was asked 'Why not?', the prosecution objected and a conference at side-bar let to the judge's saying that Lewis might give 'a general idea.' He answered 'a manufacturing plant.' There the matter was dropped.
We decline to sustain the claim that this was reversible error under Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 88 S.Ct. 748, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968). There the witness, apparently a local resident, conceded he was testifying under a false name but the court sustained prosecution objections to questions seeking to elicit what his real name was and where he lived. The Supreme Court held that to be a denial of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation since 'The witness' name and address open countless avenues of in-court examination and out-of-court investigation.' 390 U.S. at 131, 88 S.Ct. 748 at 750. Here Lewis was testifying under his right name; he was asked not where he lived but where he worked; and the place where information about him could best be obtained was not at his temporary seat of employment in the United States but at his home in Australia. Moreover, so far as we can see, defense counsel accepted the judg'e solution. If they had a particularized need for the name and address of Lewis' employer they should have explained this so that the judge could weigh these requirements against danger to the witness.
Appellants' point as to the charge on reasonable doubt is disposed of by United States v. Baratta, 397 F.2d 215, 227 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 393 U.S. 939, 89 S.Ct. 293, 21 L.Ed.2d 276 (1968). Their attack on the constitutional validity of the inference of knowledge of illegal importation permitted by 21 U.S.C. 174 has been rejected by us so often as to render citation unnecessary; whatever the decision in Leary v. United States, 383 F.2d 851, 868-870 (5 Cir. 1967), cert. granted, 392 U.S. 903, 88 S.Ct. 2058, 20 L.Ed.2d 1362 (1968), concerning the similar inference permitted as to marihuana, 21 U.S.C. 176(a), may be, see also United States v. Adams, 293 F.Supp. 776 (S.D.N.Y.1968), it would not affect these rulings. The court's instructions carefully avoided the pitfalls we have had occasion to note with some such charges in the past.
Still other points raised are so completely without basis as not to warrant lengthening this opinion further. Appellants received a fair trial; the facts proved against them made the verdict inevitable.
Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation
The first mention of Caroline's name was a designation given in mid-November by Hopes to Summerill in Hong Kong for use in the event that Summerill could not locate Egan on arriving in New York. Summerill called Egan's apartment, and found the defendant Hill there. Ultimately Hill met Summerill and they went to the apartment. The phone rang and Hill announced, 'We got a customer.' Shortly Haywood entered the apartment, was introduced by Hill as 'Caroline,' and received a quantity of heroin. There was also evidence that Egan and Hill had driven to Haywood's apartment in early January
Jessup's name appears in the conspiracy as early as the summer of 1966 when, as Lewis testified, hopes spoke of him as the 'Dog' and told Lewis that 'if ever anything gers stuck,' Jessup was 'the person that will be making contact with you.' After a trip by Lewis, Reid and Summerill from Hong Kong in early September, they met Hopes in Los Angeles. When the heroin was delivered by the couriers and their fees paid, Hopes left, asying he had 'to get this junk back there because the Dog is waiting, he is about out and needs it.' Before the next trip Hopes gave Jessup's telephone number to Lewis and instructed Lewis to deliver to Jessup the heroin that was being carried by Stanton. Lewis did this
Thomas had been designated by Hopes as recipient of the heroin carried by Lewis on a journey in early October, 1966. Hopes told Lewis that if he ever got into Thomas' apartment, he should look at The bedroom ceiling since 'it is one of the fanciest mirrors I've even seen.' On arriving in New York, Lewis called Thomas, whose number Hopes had given him. Lewis made the delivery in the bedroom of Thomas' apartment; he observed a mirror in the form of a Maltese served a mirror in the form of a Maltese cross directly over the bed
Searches of Hopes' and Egan's apartments and Stanton's and Bennett's homes in Sydney, Australia, during January, 1967, turned up a large amount of evidence, including the telephone numbers of Jessup and Haywood (Hopes); the names and telephone numbers of Jessup, Stanton and Joyce Hoffman, Thomas' girl friend who was found in his apartment on the night of his arrest (Bennett); an address book containing the names and phone numbers of Jessup and Thomas (Egan); and business cards bearing the names and phone numbers of Thomas, Jessup, Haywood, Egan, Bennett and Reid (Stanton)
Judge Tyler's opinion deals also with a challenge to the method of selecting petit juries not made here
We are not sure we would agree with another argument for admissibility advanced by the Government, appealing though it seems at first blush. This starts from what seems the unquestionably sound premise that when a member of a conspiracy is arrested, even after termination of the conspiracy, names and addresses found upon him or in his premises are admissible as circumstantial evidence, as in fact a card with Jessup's name and phone number, found on Reid at the time of is arrest, was received without objection here. The Government argues that since this card, very likely stemming from Lewis' statement, was properly admitted, a sip of paper written out by Lewis and given to Reid should also be; that Lewis' statement amounted to no more than that; and that the statement was therefore admissible as circumstantial evidence, whether or not it came within the conspiracy exception and quite apart from Lewis' having taken the stand. Yet the inference the jury would be expected to draw from Lewis' declaration is equivalent to that from an explicit statement, 'On the basis fo dealings I or others have had with Jessup, I know he is a first-rate fellow for distributing heroin.' That would seem about as clear an instance of hearsay as can be imagined and would plainly be inadmissible if made by a declarant not a member of the conspiracy who was not available for cross-examination
The agents noted the bedroom ceiling had a mirror in the shape of a Maltese cross; see fn. 3
While the search in Gouled was pursuant to a warrant, United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 465-466, 52 S.Ct. 420, 76 L.Ed. 877 (1932), extended the 'mere evidence' rule to a search of premises incident to a lawful arrest. On the other hand the rule was not applied to a search of the person incident to such an arrest. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769-770, 86 S.Ct. 1826 (1966)
Fleshing out the caveat in Hayden must also take account of the statement in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 354-357 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 516 (1967), authorizing warrants for limited surveillance of telephone communications. Such communications often would be 'testimonial' and would include nonincriminating material
We have omitted Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), in light of the explanation in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 465-466, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1623, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), that the denial of Escobedo's request for the assistance of counsel was not necessarily a violation of the Sixth Amendment as such but 'heightened his dilemma, and thus made his later statements the product of this compulsion' in violation of the Fifth


I started using these mostly with photos from my HTC Evo devices using Retro Photo. That seems long ago now (Dec, 2018) The Retro Photo's are shot in square sizes and look great as 1 on a 4×6 piece of paper, but really great as smaller squares, and a 4×6 piece of paper can hold 2 square photos easily. I don't like how photos print without these invisible frames, the borders aren't even, it's nuts, but these "frames" are magic, perfect once you get the picture how you want it.
Just click inside to load the file interface to look for the photo you want in each frame. Easy slide to zoom in or out (how much of the photo showing in the frame). You can use these frames as is, or change them any way you want. This is something you can make in PSE but it's kind of convoluted, so I'm putting these files here for your ease of use.
I take photos with my modern cell phone camera (Note8) for these frames. I just deal with some of what I take is cropped out, it's a zoomed in square that prints. Great for December Daily, small photo books, artsy.


I can't get the GeoIP PHP extension working on CentOS 7 and PHP 5.5.21.
So I figured the yum package was bad and removed it. I then did pecl install geoip and enabled the extension /etc/php.d/geoip.ini with extension=geoip.so and restarted httpd. Same error - undefined function.
I do have Apache's mod_geoip installed. Do the 2 conflict with each other?
It looks like you've obtained PHP 5.5 from Red Hat Software Collections. Unfortunately this SCL doesn't include the PECL geoip extension, so you will need to install it yourself.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged php httpd geoip or ask your own question.


text:
Lose Control Missy Elliott feat. Ciara & Fatman Scoop Download 'Lose Control' on iTunes
Kid Ink Home
15 Things You Didn't Know About Kid Ink
It's been a big year for Kid Ink and 2014 is set to be even bigger with the release of his album 'My Own Lane'.
1. Meet Kid Ink, real name: Brian Todd Collins
2. He was born on April 1st 1986 in Los Angeles.
3. Kid Ink released his first mixtape 'World Tour' under the name Rockstar.
4. He caught the attention of DJ Ill Will who signed him to his label, The Alumni Group.
5. In January of this year Kid Ink launched his debut major label single 'Bad Ass'.
6. He also launched clothing line 'Alumni clothing' - which he's often seen sporting.
7. To celebrate hitting one million likes on Facebook he dropped 'Fired Up'.
8. The rapper has racked up over 60 million combined hits on his YouTube channel.
9. In September he debuted the single 'Show Me' featuring Chris Brown.
10. Kid Ink got his first tattoo when he was sixteen.
11. He now has over 100 all over his body.
12. He likes receiving fan art from his friends and shares the best ones on his Facebook page.
13. His 'Roll Up' European tour arrived in the UK this November.
14. Kid Ink's album 'My Own Lane' is being released on January 7th 2014.
15. Catch him talking to E-Plus on Capital XTRA tomorrow.


Kingston is a volunteer board member serving on the Advancing in Manufacturing (AIM) committee in Brevard County, Florida. For the past sixteen months, CareerSource Brevard (CSB), a regional workforce board, has been working with the manufacturing community through the AIM committee, to create an industry led sector strategy to identify skills gaps and build a talent pipeline to meet the current and future needs of the rapid expansion of manufacturing in Brevard County. The effort was made possible through a two-year Sector Strategy U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) National Emergency Grant for $765,000 from CareerSource Florida and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), branded as AIM.
The AIM grant is a funding source to pay for building a sector strategy, provide skills training to unemployed workers and on the job training dollars to manufactures who hire eligible qualified candidates to offset the cost on onboarding new employees.
The funding for the AIM Grant was part of a 2015 U.S. DOL $150 million-dollar nationwide Sector Partnerships National Emergency Grant program to help states develop innovative employment and training services that focus on enhanced regional and industry-specific collaborations. $7 million-dollars from this program was awarded awarded to CareerSource Florida and the DEO to assess the needs of employers in advanced manufacturing. Twelve other counties in Florida also received this grant (in various amounts).
U.S. DOL statistics confirm there were about 324,000 manufacturing job vacancies in November 2016. The manufacturing skills gap in the Brevard area was further confirmed by a study commissioned by CareerSource Florida and FloridaMakes to understand the needs of manufacturers in the area. An industry survey conducted by the Economic Development Council of the Space Coast confirmed the regional needs with 90 percent of respondents believing their company's workforce will expand in the next 2 years.
Berger says these efforts help the Brevard community by providing career training services and resources to move local residents seeking employment into well-paying careers with a promising future in advanced manufacturing, while at the same time supporting the growth of manufacturing talent for the future, which will be in high demand.
In October 2015, AIM held its first meeting in partnership with Eastern Florida State College's (EFSC) Manufacturing Advisory Council. Employers identified four specific skill sets that needed immediate attention- machinist, solderers, quality inspectors and welders.
Since then, CSB has been holding quarterly AIM meetings, with representatives from over 60 organizations in the community attending, including manufacturing businesses, economic development organizations and education institutions, to find solutions to the skills gap that is being seen in the local manufacturing industry. Industry volunteers actively participate in meetings dedicated to growing a talent pipeline, upgrade current employee skills, and improve education curriculums to address the workforce challenges in Brevard County.
Other proposed solutions AIM has considered include practical revisions in training, a heavy focus on education and skills development initiatives for high school and college students including internships, investing in on the job training programs, developing effective skills assessment tools, updating the image of manufacturing industry, creating education mapping and training, creating streamlined certification programs designed to facilitate the placement of qualified employees in critical job vacancies, and continually working with industry to identify skill gaps and industry needs by regional employers.
One of the grant's goals is to provide qualified unemployed career seekers with relevant training to ultimately provide employers with skilled labor. Since starting, AIM has served around 100 career seeker participants through Individual training classes, employed worker training and On the Job training funds to employers.
For nearly a decade, EFSC had a Machining Shop sitting idle. With the help of AIM's advocacy, the college recently received $530,000 to refurbish and equip their new Manufacturing Training Center. EFSC also added new manufacturing themed programs with updated labs. AIM's Manufacturing Occupation Subcommittee helped EFSC re-write curriculum changes in welding, machining and quality management inspection courses. EFSC accepted recommendations and is in the process of implementing them.
"EFSC responded quickly to the manufacturer's critical skill challenges by offering training to meet immediate job opening needs," Berger said.
With the help of AIM advocating on their behalf, Brevard Public Schools received a legislative award of $500,000 to open the Manufacturing Academy at Bayside High School and an Aerospace Academy at Eau Gallie. The funding provided money for equipment, training materials and a dedicated teacher with manufacturing experience.
AIM Champions helped design the lab space layout, determine what equipment was needed and advised on the curriculum program. Currently 85 students are enrolled in the Bayside High School Manufacturing Academy. The Academy offers online simulation CNC Machinist training and will soon offer a soldering/electronics program so the students can exit the program with experience and industry credentials which will be accepted for credit towards a degree at EFSC should the student want to continue their education. AIM also encourages employers to connect education with real world work environment.
Bayside High School teacher Ms. Mary McCormick and Dennis Sobolewski, from the Office of Career and Technical Education, recently toured MC Assembly to better understand employer's need. As a result, the Academy will soon be offering soldering classes.
Kingston says MC Assembly highly values tour opportunities as ways to teach more people about modern electronics manufacturing work floor.
Changing the perceptions of manufacturing is a critical component to the sector strategy success. AIM's Summer Youth Internship program is designed to expose high school students to career opportunities in manufacturing through direct engagement with companies.
Kingston says MC Assembly is excited to take part in AIM's summer internship program this June and will host 2 high school student interns through the program for six weeks.
Automation and modern technology have modernized manufacturing facilities so they no longer resemble the outdated images most people remember. Most modern manufacturing facilities are well lit, safe and clean. The challenge is in showing younger workers that manufacturing can be a rewarding career path.
The National Emergency Grant runs through June 30, 2017. CareerSource has applied for an extension to this grant for an additional year so they can continue work on apprenticeship programs and more occupation training challenges.
"It is very rewarding to have a small part in revitalizing the manufacturing industry that is the backbone to a strong US economy," Berger said.
About MC Assembly MC Assembly (http://www.mcati.com), based in Melbourne, Fla., with operations in Billerica, Mass. and Zacatecas, Mexico, is a national leader in the contract manufacturing arena with annual revenues of approximately $200 million. It provides turnkey solutions to original equipment manufacturers and focuses on assembly of medium volume, medium mix printed circuit boards assemblies (PCBAs) and box builds. MC Assembly's capabilities include surface mount and pin-through-hole interconnection technologies, PCB and box build DFM, DFT, DFA engineering, in-circuit, functional and environmental testing, full box-build and direct order fulfillment.
About CareerSource Brevard CareerSource Brevard administers The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and Welfare Transition programs in Brevard County as well as grants and other employment support activities. CareerSource Brevard, formerly Brevard Workforce, is a non-profit, regional public/private partnership under CareerSource Florida. Workforce Boards create local workforce development systems through one-stop career centers which combine multiple federal, state, and local program funds, providing comprehensive services, labor market information and access to resources for businesses and career seekers. Visit www.careersourcebrevard.com or call (321) 504-7600 for more information about our services and resources. For more information on how you can get involved and have your company's voice heard contact Tina Berger, Sector Strategy Program Manager 321-394-0515 or tberger@caereersourcebrevard.com.


text:
Eine Funduskamera, auch Netzhautkamera, ist ein ophthalmologisches Gerät, mit dem fotografische Aufnahmen der hinteren Augenabschnitte (Netzhaut) angefertigt werden. Bereits ab 1915 gab es die Nordensonschen Netzhautkamera in der Augenheilkunde.

Die Fotos einer Funduskamera unterstützen die augenheilkundliche Diagnostik und dienen dazu, krankhafte Veränderungen sichtbar zu machen und zu dokumentieren. Bei der herkömmlichen Untersuchung des Augenhintergrundes mittels Spaltlampenmikroskopie oder Ophthalmoskopie musste bislang zur exakten Inspektion auch der mittleren Netzhautbereiche bis 50–60° meist die Pupille des Auges mit entsprechenden Medikamenten vergrößert werden (Mydriasis), um einen ungehinderten Einblick zu erhalten. Neuere Geräte arbeiten dagegen mit infraroter Beleuchtung, sodass sich ein Weitstellen der Pupillen in der Regel erübrigt.

Eine Funduskamera ist mit einer handelsüblichen digitalen Spiegelreflexkamera sowie einem Ringblitz ausgestattet, was hochauflösende Bilder ermöglicht, die in einer digitalen Patientenakte gespeichert oder in ausgedruckter Form in der Karteikarte hinterlegt werden können. Damit ist, anders als bei Untersuchungen mittels Spaltlampe oder Ophthalmoskop, auch eine spätere Beurteilung durch Dritte oder eine Kontrolle des Krankheitsverlaufs möglich.

Fundusfotos zeigen den Augenhintergrund typischerweise orange-rötlich. Die benötigten Kameras werden wegen ihrer hohen Spezialisierung nur von wenigen Herstellern angeboten, zum Beispiel von Topcon, Nidek, Carl Zeiss, Meditec, Canon oder Kōwa.

Funduskameras werden unter Berücksichtigung der Norm DIN EN ISO 10940 hergestellt. Sie sind als fest auf einem Tisch installiertes oder tragbares Handgerät verfügbar. Zudem können sie als Zusatzausrüstung an einer Spaltlampe angebracht werden.

Einzelnachweise

Diagnostisches Hilfsmittel in der Augenheilkunde
Bildgebendes Verfahren (Medizin)
Kamera
Diagnostikgerät