text:
\section{Introduction}
Developments in quantum mechanics lead to emergence of many new research areas including quantum cryptography\cite{QKD}, and quantum computation \cite{QComp}. The goal of quantum information theory is to develop new technologies for information processing that will take us from the traditional classical information age into the age of quantum information. Quantum key distribution \cite{BB84}, the most secure known way for sending secret messages, is a significant achievement in the field of cryptography. It's techniques allow Alice and Bob to establish a shared secret key using an insecure quantum channel and public communication.

Besides the validity of the laws of quantum physics, the security of all QKD schemes relies on some other assumptions. The foremost among them, always present in any such protocol, is that all parties concerned have secure laboratories, \textit{i.e.}, at no stage should there be a leakage of secure classical data from any laboratory. This assumption is crucial and cannot be removed. Another basic assumption is that all players have complete control over their own physical devices, \textit{i.e.}, they have full knowledge over what quantum system their apparatuses use and they also know the exact operation of their measuring devices, \textit{etc.} The goal of the device-independent \cite{MY98} analysis of quantum protocols is to eliminate the latter assumption, \textit{viz.} players can distrust the source of particles and they can also distrust their measuring apparatuses as they might have been prepared by a malicious party.

In 2007, Ac\'in \textit{et al.} \cite{ABGSPS07}, introduced a device independent QKD protocol secure against collective attacks. Earlier questions of a similar type were also addressed by several researchers in different contexts \cite{BHK05,AGM06,SGBMP06}. In 2011, Masanes {\em et al.} \cite{MPA11} provided a more general security scheme based on causally independent measurement processes. The security of all these protocols is undermined as the measurement at any step may depend on the classical or quantum memory of all previous inputs and outputs. Recently secure protocols where device re-use is allowed were introduced \cite{BCK12,VV12}.

In all protocols mentioned above, the parties make measurements on entangled subsystems, check for a violation of some Bell inequality to see if their outcomes are random from the eavesdropper's point of view and, if indeed they are, use them as their secret key. In this manuscript we present a family of protocols which are significantly different. The parties announce their {\it outcomes} and use their choices of measurement {\it settings} for key generation. Our protocol shares this property with the non-device-independent prepare-and-measure SARG04\cite{sarg}.

The potential benefit of flipping the roles of outcomes and settings is that the latter are chosen by the parties using their random number generators (RNGs), which are typically assumed to be perfect, while the former are obtained from measurements on the systems supplied by the eavesdropper. It was shown that even small imperfectness in RNGs are a big threat to QKD \cite{Honza,badRNGqkd}. We demonstrate that they are much a bigger threat to the protocols where the key is obtained from the outcomes than from the settings. More precisely, we take a standard device independent QKD and show that it cannot be secure if the bias of RNGs is greater than 0.1 while our protocol allows for positive key rates far beyond this point. This is the main motivation of our approach.

Obviously, the parties need a way to convince themselves that the correlations they share cannot be classical. Checking for a violation of a Bell inequality is only one possible way of doing so. Another option is to \textit{e.g.} verify the so-called Hardy's paradox \cite{Har92,Fritz12}. There, more than a single security parameter is estimated, which gives the parties more knowledge about the correlations they share. In \cite{LubiePlacki,moreRand,completeStats} this approach has been used to improve the rate of certified randomness.

The main result of this paper is the presentation of a protocol which remains secure, even if the source of randomness used by the parties is strongly biased. Besides that, the protocol serves as a proof of principle that one can use the bits from private random number generators as a key for the device independent QKD. It is shown how a protocol with these properties can be constructed and how its security can be proven. These features may be exploited by some future protocols.

We generalize the results of \cite{MPA11} stating that a condition imposed on a single Bell inequality may certify the randomness of the outcomes. Here we consider the case when there are many parameters used, and the key is formed from the measurement settings with the outcomes made public. What is more, we show that this intrinsically many-valued estimation can be as simple to conduct experimentally, as the standard Bell scenario.

Apart from proving the security of such protocols, we provide a way of using semi-definite programming relaxations to evaluate their key rates. We give explicit numerical results for a protocol basing on the original Hardy's paradox.

\subsection{Organization of the paper}
The organization of our paper is as follows.

We start in Sec. \ref{sec:HardyAndQKD} with recapitulation of the original Hardy's paradox, show the uniqueness of the Hardy state (Sec. \ref{sec:HardyState}), then we describe a QKD protocol and show that in the perfect case it allows for reusing the devices (Sec. \ref{sec:HardyProtocol}).

In Sec.~\ref{sec:biased} we present the main motivation of the paper by discussing the case when the distribution of settings is biased, and compare the presented protocol with other \cite{MPA11} QKD schemes.

We develop methods that allow to analyze the introduced family of protocols when the measurements are causally independent in Sec.~\ref{sec:Methods}. In Sec. \ref{sec:notation} we describe the notation used in the analysis, and in Sec.~\ref{sec:setup} the system configuration. Sec.~\ref{sec:guessing} discusses the definition of the {\em guessing probability of a measurement setting}.

The following Sec.~\ref{sec:sdpRelax} presents a method of evaluation of the guessing probability of a measurement setting using semi-definite programming.

Sec.~\ref{sec:keyrate} discusses the methods of evaluating robustness of the protocol and describes several strategies of post-processing that allow to increase the privacy.

The key rates obtained for these strategies are evaluated, again using semi-definite programming, for the case of Hardy's paradox, in Sec.~\ref{sec:Robustness}.

\section{Hardy's paradox and Quantum Key Distribution}
\label{sec:HardyAndQKD}
In this section we introduce the Hardy's paradox\cite{Har92}, and describe a quantum key distribution protocol based on it.

Consider a physical system consisting of two subsystems shared between two distant parties. The two observers (Alice and Bob) have access to one subsystem each. Both can choose one of two binary measurement settings labeled $0$ and $1$, with outcomes $0$ and $1$. The settings are chosen at random in subsequent runs of the experiment. Settings are denoted by letters $A$ and $B$, while outcomes by $a$ and $b$, for Alice and Bob respectively.

\subsection{The Hardy's state}
\label{sec:HardyState}
The Hardy-type argument starts with the following set of four joint probability conditions for two two-level systems:
\begin{equation}
\label{hardy2q}
\begin{aligned}
P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0) \equiv q > 0, \\
P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=0) = 0, \\
P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=1) = 0, \\
P(a=1,b=1|A=1,B=1) = 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let us find the set of states $\rho$ for which the conditions of the Hardy-type argument given in \eqref{hardy2q} are satisfied for a given pair of observables. Let us denote the eigenstates of the observable $P=0(1)$ by $\ket{0}_P$ $(\ket{0'}_P)$ and $\ket{1}_P$ $(\ket{1'}_P)$ for the outcome $0$ and $1$ respectively. We now associate a product state with every condition in the test \eqref{hardy2q}, say:
\begin{equation}
\label{prodS}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{\phi_3} &= \ket{0}_A\ket{0}_B, \\
\ket{\phi_2} &= \ket{0'}_A\ket{0}_B, \\
\ket{\phi_1} &= \ket{0}_A\ket{0'}_B, \\
\ket{\phi_0} &= \ket{1'}_A\ket{1'}_B.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}
\label{obser2}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{0'}_P & \equiv \alpha_P \ket{0}_P + \beta_P \ket{1}_P, \text{ and} \\
\ket{1'}_P & \equiv \beta^*_P \ket{0}_P - \alpha^*_P \ket{1}_P,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $|\alpha_P|^2 + |\beta_P|^2=1$ and $0<|\alpha_P|<1$ for $X=A,B$. The last condition is due to the non-commutativity of $X=0$ and $X=1$.

Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the subspace spanned by the three linearly independent states $\ket{\phi_0}, \ket{\phi_1}$ and $\ket{\phi_2}$ given in \eqref{prodS}. To satisfy the conditions given in \eqref{hardy2q}, $\rho$ has to be confined to a subspace $\mathcal{S}^{\perp}$ of $\mathcal{C}^2\otimes \mathcal{C}^2$, which is orthogonal to $\mathcal{S}$ but not orthogonal to $\ket{\phi_3}$. The dimension of $\mathcal{S}^{\perp}$ is one. Therefore, $\rho$ must be an unique (up to a local unitary) pure two-qubit entangled state, which we denote $\ket{\psi^H}$. Thus, {\it no mixed state of two spin-1/2 particles will satisfy Hardy's argument} \cite{Kar97}. It can also be shown that no two maximally entangled qubit states satisfy Hardy's argument \cite{Har92}.

The four product states $\{\ket{\phi_i}\}_{i=0}^3$ are linearly independent, hence, by the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization procedure, one can find an orthonormal basis $\{\ket{\phi'_i}\}_{i=0}^3$, in which state $\ket{\phi'_3} = \ket{\psi^H}$ is its last member:
\begin{equation}
\label{hardys2}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{\phi'_0} &= \ket{\phi_0}, \\
\ket{\phi'_i} &= \frac{\ket{\phi_{i}}-\sum^{i-1}_{j=0}\langle \phi'_j|\phi_{i}\rangle\ket{\phi'_j}}{\sqrt{1-\sum^{i-1}_{j=0}|\langle \phi'_j|\phi_{i}\rangle|^2}}, \mbox{~for $i=1,2,3$}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The probability $q$ in conditions \eqref{hardy2q}, for the Hardy state, $\ket{\psi^H}$, reads
\begin{equation*}
\label{value_q}
q = |\langle \psi^H |\phi_3\rangle|^2 = 1-\sum_{i=0}^2|\langle \phi'_i|\phi_3\rangle|^2=
\frac{|\alpha_A\alpha_B|^2|\beta_A\beta_B|^2}{1-|\alpha_A\alpha_B|^2}.
\end{equation*}
Its maximum is $\frac{5\sqrt{5}-11}{2}$ for $|\alpha_A|=|\alpha_B|=\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2}}$ \cite{Jor94}.

\subsection{The protocol}
\label{sec:HardyProtocol}
We consider a scenario in which two distant parties, Alice and Bob, want to generate a secure key. They are allowed to use public classical communication. The QKD protocol proceeds as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
S1. In the \textit{initial phase} of the protocol, the two parties obtain pairs of entangled qubits. In each round one of the qubits from each pair is given to Alice, and the other to Bob. Each pair is called a subsystem.
\item
S2. Alice randomly chooses whether to measure $A=0$, or $A=1$ on each of her qubits. Bob does the same by choosing randomly between measurements of $B=0$ and $B=1$. Parties repeat such measurements on all subsystems, and collect statistics. In each run, labeled by $i$, they write down the chosen observables, $A_i$ and $B_i$ respectively, together with the obtained results, $a_i$ and $b_i$.
\item
S3. {\em Check for eavesdropping:} For some randomly selected runs, Alice and Bob both announce their measurement choices ($A_i$ and $B_i$) and the corresponding outcomes ($a_i$ and $b_i$). Alice and Bob publicly compare their announced measurement choices in order to estimate security parameters. For this reason this phase is called the \textit{estimation phase}.
\item
S4. For the remaining runs, Alice and Bob announce only their measurement outcomes, not their bases. Next, to generate their key, they select only those runs for which both of them got outcome $0$. (Alice and Bob ignore those unrevealed pairs that do not have outcomes on both sides equal to $0$, so they are working on some subset of the states.)
\item
S5. For each run with outcomes $0$, they assign a bit value according to their settings.

If the pairs of entangled qubits emitted by the shared source are all perfect copies of the two-qubit `Hardy' states $\ket{\psi^H}$ given by Eqs (\ref{hardys2}) the assigned bit values will be perfectly correlated due to (\ref{hardy2q}). That is, in the ideal case they generate the same key. In the noisy case, \textit{key reconciliation} is required.
\end{itemize}
Device-independent approach allows to quantify all possible interventions of the eavesdropper. These may include influencing the internal working of the devices used by Alice and Bob, \textit{e.g.} by establishing any type of correlation, by coupling to the state, by emitting a different state, or by using measurement settings different from those specified by the protocol.

As mentioned earlier, the ideal Hardy test \eqref{hardy2q} for maximum probability of success $q=\frac{5\sqrt{5}-11}{2}$ is fully device-independent \cite{RZS12} - there is a unique quantum probability distribution associated with this value. The conditions \eqref{hardy2q} assure that both parties got outcome $0$ only if they have chosen the same measurement basis. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\begin{aligned}
0 & < P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0) = \frac{5 \sqrt{5} - 11}{2} \\
& < P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1) = \sqrt{5} - 2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for a given set of observables and the choice of observable on each side is fully random. The protocol is secure against the most general form of collective memory attacks. Unfortunately this case requires perfect experimental data which is not possible to obtain in practice. The remaining part of this paper analyzes the noisy case.

\section{Biased sources of randomness}
\label{sec:biased}
Before we move to the detailed analysis of the protocol in the case with imperfect experimental data let us present the main motivation of this approach. To this end we will compare the robustness to compromised random number generators in our protocol and the standard one based on CHSH inequality. In both cases we assume that the observed data corresponds to what an experimenter would expect from perfect states and devices.

A common assumption in QKD states that the source of randomness is perfect, meaning that settings are \textit{i.i.d.} with a probability distribution defined by numbers
\begin{equation}
\label{perfectDistribution}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}&_{perfect}(A,B) = \\
&(P(0,0) = p_{A} \cdot p_{B}, P(0,1) = p_{A} \cdot (1 - p_{B}), \\
&P(1,0) = (1 - p_{A}) \cdot p_{B}, P(1,1) = (1 - p_{A}) \cdot (1 - p_{B}))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $p_{A} = p_{B} = \frac{1}{2}$ for the uniform probability distribution. In Sec.~\ref{sec:nonuniform} we introduce a \textit{nonuniform} probability distribution with and with $p_{A} = p_{B} = \frac{1}{2} (\sqrt{5} - 1)$.

In this section we consider the case in which the average probability distribution of the source of randomness is given by Eq. \eqref{perfectDistribution}, but in particular runs, the probability distribution is biased in a way known to eavesdropper. For the sake of simplicity we consider biases modeled by changing the parameters $p_{A}$ and $p_{B}$ to $p_{A} \pm \epsilon$ and $p_{B} \pm \epsilon$, respectively, for given $\epsilon$, which gives four possible biased distributions, $\left(\mathbb{P}_{biased,i}(A,B)\right)_{i=1,2,3,4}$.

It is easy to see that the average distribution \eqref{perfectDistribution} can be obtained only if the proportions of all biased distributions in the total number of runs are equal.

Note that if we know only the average distribution given by Eq. \eqref{perfectDistribution}, then for runs with a particular biased distribution $\mathbb{P}_{biased,i}(A,B)$, the observed conditional probabilities are under- or overestimated, \textit{viz.}
\begin{equation}
\label{underOverEstimated}
P_{observed}(a,b|A,B) = P_{actual}(a,b|A,B) \frac{P_{biased,i}(A,B)}{P_{perfect}(A,B)}.
\end{equation}

Let us consider the case without noise described by Eq. \eqref{hardy2q} with
\begin{equation}
P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0) = q = \frac{5 \sqrt{5} - 11}{2}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and thus with
\begin{equation}
P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1) = \tilde{q} = \sqrt{5} - 2,
\end{equation}
and with nonuniform distribution of settings. Then, for a given biased distribution $\mathbb{P}_{biased,i}(A,B)$, the probability that the generated key is $0$, $P_{i,key=0}$and is given by (\textit{cf.} Eq. \eqref{guessingBayes0})
\begin{equation}
P_{i,key=0} \equiv \frac{q P_{biased,i}(0,0)}{q P_{biased,i}(0,0) + \tilde{q} P_{biased,i}(1,1)}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The guessing probability is given by $P_{guess,i} = \max(P_{i,key=0}, 1 - P_{i,key=0})$, since the eavesdropper tries to guess the more probable key value. To obtain the average guessing probability this expression has to be averaged over all four possible biased probability distributions, namely
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{1}{4} P_{guess,i}.
\end{equation}
Guessing probabilities for different $\epsilon$ with nonuniform distribution of settings are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CHSHvsHardy}.

\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{CHSHvsHardy.eps}
\caption{(Color on-line) Comparison of guessing probabilities of key values certified with the protocols using Hardy paradox and CHSH inequality in case when the distribution of settings is biased. $\epsilon$ refers to the bias defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:biased}. \label{fig:CHSHvsHardy}}
\end{figure*}

In order to compare the efficiency of the presented protocol with other QKD protocols, we use the method of \cite{NPA1,NPA2} to evaluate the guessing probability of the outcomes of Alice certified by the maximal violation the CHSH inequality with uniform, but biased, distribution of settings. We consider the bound on the guessing probability implied by the observed value of $2 \sqrt{2}$ of the following expression
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\begin{aligned}
4 & \left( P_{biased,i}(0,0) C(0,0) + P_{biased,i}(0,1) C(0,1) \right. + \\
& \left. P_{biased,i}(1,0) C(1,0) - P_{biased,i}(1,1) C(1,1) \right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $4$ is the inverse of the uniform probability of each pair of settings in the distribution were unbiased, and $C(A,B)$ is the correlation between outcomes, when the pair of settings $A$ and $B$ is chosen,
\begin{equation}
\nonumber
\begin{aligned}
C(A,B)& \equiv P(0,0|A,B) - P(0,1|A,B) \\
& - P(1,0|A,B) + P(1,1|A,B).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Similarly as in the case of the Hardy protocol, the guessing probability has to be averaged over cases with different biases. The results are shown in fig.~\ref{fig:CHSHvsHardy}. We see that for $\epsilon \approx \frac{1}{10}$ the Hardy protocol is still able to work, whereas the CHSH protocol gives zero key rate.

\section{Methods for analysis of Quantum Key Distribution protocols based on Hardy-like paradoxes}
\label{sec:Methods}
Below we describe the notation used within this paper, the arrangement used in the analysis of the QKD, and give more details about the phases of the QKD protocol.

For the sake of simplicity we consider here a case with perfect RNGs. This can be extended in a natural way to the case with biased probability distributions.
\subsection{Notation and arrangement}
\label{sec:notation}
In the perfect case, we can use the uniqueness of the Hardy state to protect against the collective memory attacks, whereas if the noise occurs we need to assume that the measurements are causally independent, meaning that their operators commute. This is justified by the no-signaling principle if we use many spatially separated measuring devices and perform the measurements on all emitted pairs simultaneously, or if we use a single measuring device that does not have a memory.

We treat successively emitted pairs of particles as separated subsystems. These subsystems together with the subsystem of Eve form one system. We assume that the order of the subsystems is irrelevant.

Let $L_0$ be a set of labels of pairs of Alice's and Bob's subsystems. For $l \in L_0$ we denote the Hilbert space of the relevant subsystems of Alice and Bob by $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{A}_l$ and $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{B}_l$, respectively. The subsystem of Eve lives on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{E}$. We assume that all spaces are finite dimensional. The Hilbert space of the whole system is
\begin{equation}
\label{wholeHilbert}
\mathcal{H} \equiv \mathcal{H}^\mathcal{E} \otimes \prod_{l \in L_0} \mathcal{H}^\mathcal{A}_l \otimes \mathcal{H}^\mathcal{B}_l.
\end{equation}
Vectors on $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{E}$ are denoted by $\ket{e}^\mathcal{E}$, and on $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{P}_l$ for $\mathcal{P} \in \{\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}\}$ by $\ket{e}^\mathcal{P}_l$.

For every pair of subsystems both Alice and Bob perform one of the two measurements, each labeled by either $0$ or $1$. The measurements are binary POVMs denoted by $\tilde{M}^\mathcal{P}_{l,X,x}$, where $\mathcal{P} \in \{\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}\}$ denotes the party, $l \in L_0$ denotes the pair of subsystems, $X \in \{0,1\}$ denotes the party's setting, and $x \in \{0, 1\}$ denotes the outcome. The measuring operator $\tilde{M}^\mathcal{P}_{l,X,x}$ acts on $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{P}_l$.

The natural extension of the operator $\tilde{M}^\mathcal{P}_{l,X,x}$ to the space $\mathcal{H}$ is denoted by $M^\mathcal{P}_{l,X,x}$, and acts with identity operators on spaces different to $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{P}_l$. From the construction, $M^{\mathcal{P}_1}_{l_1,X_1,x_1}$ commutes with $M^{\mathcal{P}_2}_{l_2,X_2,x_2}$ if $\mathcal{P}_1 \neq \mathcal{P}_2$ or $l_1 \neq l_2$. Recall that $l \in L_0$, and we denote by $a_l$ and $b_l$ the outcomes, and by $A_l$ and $B_l$ the settings, of Alice and Bob, respectively.

Let $S_\mathcal{E}$ be an arbitrary set, and $\{\ket{e}^\mathcal{E}\}_{e \in S_\mathcal{E}}$ be a set of orthogonal states on $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{E}$. Without any loss of generality, we assume the concerning state in the device independent scenario is of the following form:
\begin{equation}
\label{rhoABE}
\ket{\Phi}^\mathcal{ABE} \equiv \sum_{e \in S_\mathcal{E}} c_e \ket{\phi_e},
\end{equation}
with $c_e \in \mathcal{C}$, $\sum_{e \in S_\mathcal{E}} |c_e|^2 = 1$, where
\begin{equation}
\ket{\phi_e} \equiv \ket{e}^\mathcal{E} \otimes \left( \prod_{l \in L} \ket{e}^\mathcal{A}_l \otimes \ket{e}^\mathcal{B}_l \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{P} \in \{\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}\}$, $l \in L_0$, and $\ket{e}^\mathcal{P}_l$ is a state on $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{P}_l$. Eve is allowed to choose the state $\ket{\Phi}^\mathcal{ABE}$, and the measuring operators $\{M^\mathcal{P}_{l,X,x}\}$.

For a subsystem $l$ a conditional probability distribution $\mathbb{P}_l (a,b|A,B) = (P_l(a,b|A,B))_{a,b,A,B}$ can be defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{Pl}
P_l(a,b|A,B) \equiv \Tr \left( \tilde{M}^{\mathcal{A}}_{l,a,A} \tilde{M}^{\mathcal{B}}_{l,b,B} \rho_l \right),
\end{equation}
where $\rho_l$ is the state obtained by tracing all other subsystems in \eqref{rhoABE}.

Let us consider a family of sets of $N_B$ functionals, $\left\{H_k\right\}_{k = 1, \ldots, N_B}$, acting on conditional probability distributions of the form $\mathbb{P}(a,b|A,B) = (P(a,b|A,B))_{a,b,A,B}$ (thus $\mathbb{P}_l$ fits this form). These functionals are defined by a set of values $\{\alpha_{k,a,b,A,B}\}$, with $k = 1, \ldots, N_B$, $a,b,A,B \in \{0,1\}$, and are linear combinations of conditional probabilities of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{Hk}
H_k[\mathbb{P}] = \sum_{a,b,A,B} \alpha_{k,a,b,A,B} P(a,b|A,B).
\end{equation}

From the equation \eqref{hardy2q}, it follows that, in the case of the protocol using original Hardy's paradox, $\alpha_{1,0,0,0,0} = 1$, $\alpha_{2,0,0,1,0} = -1$, $\alpha_{3,0,0,0,1} = -1$, $\alpha_{4,1,1,1,1} = -1$ and the remaining $\alpha_{k,a,b,A,B}$s are equal to $0$.

\subsection{Setups of interest}
\label{sec:setup}
The protocol presented in this paper is device independent, since it relies only on the observed statistics. The main aim is to show that it is possible to prove the security of a key generated out of settings.

In order to illustrate what orders of key rates can be expected to occur in real experiments, we refer to the setup of each subsystem with Hardy's measurements and the following state
\begin{equation}
\label{noise_state}
\rho(\eta) \equiv (1-\eta) \frac{\openone}{4} + \eta \proj{\psi^H}.
\end{equation}

The observed statistics $\mathbb{P}(a,b|A,B)$ do not depend on the distribution of settings, $\mathbb{P}(A,B)$, nevertheless the key rate does. We consider two distributions: uniform and the one described in the section \ref{sec:nonuniform}, referred further as \textit{nonuniform}.

An additional benefit of using nonuniform distribution is the fact that it requires less randomness.

\subsection{The guessing probability of a setting}
\label{sec:guessing}
Let us consider a particular subsystem $l$. We are interested in conditional probabilities of Alice's \textit{settings} $A$, when we know that both Alice and Bob got the outcome $0$, namely $P(A|a=0,b=0)$. These probabilities may be expressed in terms of $\mathbb{P}(a,b|A,B)$ with use of the Bayes rule, as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{guessingBayes0}
P(A=0|a=0,b=0) = \frac{\sigma}{\sigma+\nu} \text{, and }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{guessingBayes1}
P(A=1|a=0,b=0) = \frac{\nu}{\sigma+\nu},
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{guessingBayesX}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma \equiv & P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0) P(A=0,B=0) + \\
& P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=1) P(A=0,B=1)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{guessingBayesY}
\begin{aligned}
\nu \equiv & P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=0) P(A=1,B=0) + \\
& P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1) P(A=1,B=1).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}

Let $\mathbf{h} = \left(h_1, \cdots, h_{N_B} \right)$ denote the values of functionals defined by Eq.~\eqref{Hk} over the probability distribution $\mathbb{P}_l$ defined by Eq.~\eqref{Pl}, so that $h_k = H_k[\mathbb{P}_l]$. For the setup of interest, \eqref{noise_state}, $\mathbf{h}$ is given by the following (\textit{cf.} \eqref{hardy2q}):
\begin{equation}
\label{h_noise}
\begin{aligned}
h_1 = \eta q + \frac{1-\eta}{4}, \\
h_2 = h_3 = h_4 = \frac{1-\eta}{4}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Now, let us ignore the full knowledge about $\mathbb{P}_l$, and consider only the vector $\mathbf{h}$. We introduce two functions, $\Gamma_0(\mathbf{h})$ and $\Gamma_1(\mathbf{h})$, that give upper bounds for values of $P_l (A=0|a=0,b=0)$ and $P_l (A=1|a=0,b=0)$, respectively, allowed by quantum mechanics. Note, that these functions do not depend on $l$, since they do not make any assumptions about the state and the measurements, so they give device-independent bounds. Examples of these functions for $\mathbf{h}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{h_noise} are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gammas}.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{gammas.eps}
\caption{(Color on-line) Functions $\Gamma_0(\mathbf{h})$ and $\Gamma_1(\mathbf{h})$ for uniform and nonuniform (see Sec.~\ref{sec:nonuniform}) distribution of settings. These functions give upper bounds for values of $P(A=0|a=0,b=0)$ and $P(A=1|a=0,b=0)$ for $\mathbf{h}$ given by \eqref{h_noise}.\label{fig:gammas}}
\end{figure}

\section{Semi-definite programming relaxation of the guessing probability}
\label{sec:sdpRelax}
This section describes how to use semi-definite programming \cite{SDP} methods to evaluate upper bounds for functions $\Gamma_0(\mathbf{h})$ and $\Gamma_1(\mathbf{h})$. Expressing them as a semi-definite problem is desired, since such programs may be efficiently treated numerically using the primal-dual interior point algorithm \cite{SeDuMi102,IntPoint}.

In \cite{MPA11} the authors have been able to use a hierarchy of semi-definite programs from \cite{NPA1, NPA2}, called NPA, to find upper bounds for their case. It was possible because they were interested in the probability of guessing the outcome if the setting is known, $P(a|A)$. These probabilities appear directly in the semi-definite programs as problem variables. In our case there is no variable corresponding to $P(A|a,b)$, and therefore we have to find it another way.

Let us consider a subsystem $l$. Without loss of generality, using no signaling principle, we may assume that the eavesdropper performs her measurement with result $e$ before Alice and Bob start the protocol. This does not reduce the generality of the attacks available to the eavesdropper \cite{MPA11}. Moreover, to consider probability distributions allowed for a particular subsystem $l$, we may trace out other subsystems and perform optimization over bipartite states.

To use the NPA method, we introduce functions $\tilde{\Gamma}_0(\mathbf{h})$, and $\tilde{\Gamma}_1(\mathbf{h})$, which give the relevant upper bounds on $P(A|a=0,b=0)$ assuming that the state under consideration is pure. Then $\Gamma_0(\mathbf{h})$, and $\Gamma_1(\mathbf{h})$, are concave hulls of $\tilde{\Gamma}_0(\mathbf{h})$, and $\tilde{\Gamma}_1(\mathbf{h})$, respectively.

We are interested in using the NPA hierarchy in order to calculate $\tilde{\Gamma}_0(\mathbf{h})$. Since the expressions in \eqref{guessingBayes0} and \eqref{guessingBayes1} are not linear in variables occurring in NPA, they cannot by use neither as target, nor as constraint.

To overcome this difficulty, we notice that both $\sigma$ and $\nu$ in \eqref{guessingBayesX} and \eqref{guessingBayesY} are linear in NPA variables. In the general case we need to perform the optimization in two stages. In the first stage we impose the constraints given by the vector $\mathbf{h}$, which can be easily done in the NPA hierarchy and calculate the scope of the allowed values of $\sigma$ for given $\mathbf{h}$. In the second stage we calculate the scope of the allowed values of $\nu$ for given $\mathbf{h}$ and given value of $\sigma$, for some grid of values. This way we obtain a boundary of some region for which it is possible to evaluate the bounds on both \eqref{guessingBayes0} and \eqref{guessingBayes1}.

For Hardy's paradox the optimization is much simpler. In this case $\sigma$ is a function of $\mathbf{h}$. It is easy to see that the expressions \eqref{guessingBayes0} and \eqref{guessingBayes1} achieve their maximal values, if $\nu$ gets it's minimal or maximal value, respectively.

Obviously calculating a function for all possible values of a continuous parameters is impossible. Instead we calculate it only for some grid of values. Now, if we represent the function with set of vectors, each containing the coordinates of a single point together with the value of the function, then the problem of linearly constrained optimization over this function can be solved with linear programming. Examples of such problems are programs stated in Eqs~\eqref{program1} and \eqref{program2} further in this paper.

\section{Evaluating key rates and post-processing strategies}
\label{sec:keyrate}
Here we describe the method of evaluating the key rate achieved by protocols based on Hardy-like paradoxes. We also discuss some post-processing strategies that allow to increase the key rate.

\subsection{Basic case}
In the simplest case described in Sec.~\ref{sec:HardyProtocol}, the best thing the eavesdropper may do is to maximize his guessing probability, namely $P^{(1)}_{guess}(\mathbf{h})$. Subsystems can be divided into two groups. For states within the first group, the eavesdropper makes a guess that the key value is $0$, and for states from the second group, she guesses the key value $1$.

The probability that a subsystem belongs to the first group is $p_0$. The average values of the Bell observables \eqref{Hk} (or \textit{statistics}) from this group is given by $\mathbf{h}_0$, which allows for guessing $0$ by the eavesdropper with the probability upper bounded by $\Gamma_0(\mathbf{h}_0)$. The remaining part of subsystems (with probability $p_1 = 1 - p_0$) has the statistics given by $\mathbf{h}_1$, and the eavesdropper guesses correctly the key value $1$ with probability not exceeding $\Gamma_1(\mathbf{h}_1)$.

The solution of the following program gives the relevant upper bound for the average guessing probability:
\begin{align}
\label{program1}
\begin{split}
\text{maximize } &\null p_0 \Gamma_0(\mathbf{h}_0) + p_1 \Gamma_1(\mathbf{h}_1) \\
\text{subject to } &\null p_0 \mathbf{h}_0 + p_1 \mathbf{h}_1 = \mathbf{h}, \\
&\null p_0 + p_1 = 1, \\
&\null p_0, p_1 \geq 0.
\end{split}
\end{align}

Solutions of this program for $\mathbf{h}$ given by \eqref{h_noise} are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:guessingProbabilities}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{guessingProbabilities.eps}
\caption{(Color on-line) Solutions of the program \eqref{program1} for cases with uniform and nonuniform (see Sec.~\ref{sec:nonuniform}) distribution of settings.\label{fig:guessingProbabilities}}
\end{figure}

The key rate is given by the following formula:
\begin{equation}
K_1 = P(a=0, b=0) \left( -\log_2(P^{(1)}_{guess}(\mathbf{h})) - H(A|B) \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where both expressions, $P(a=0, b=0)$ and the conditional entropy $H(A|B)$ can be evaluated from the setup. Examples of conditional entropies for different setups from sec.~\ref{sec:setup} and post-processing strategies, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:HABs}.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{HABs.eps}
\caption{(Color on-line) Values of conditional entropies of the setting of Alice given the setting of Bob, $H(A|B)$, if outcomes on both sides were equal to $0$. The cases with uniform and nonuniform distribution of settings, and with and without dropping strategy, are considered. The $\eta$ parameter refers to the state given by Eq. \eqref{noise_state}. In the case with nonuniform distribution, the line referring to use of dropping strategy is slightly above the one without dropping.\label{fig:HABs}}
\end{figure}

\subsection{A dropping strategy}
In a long sequence of $N$ runs, the number of runs with both outcomes equal to $0$ is
\begin{equation}
n \approx P(a=0, b=0) \cdot N. \nonumber
\end{equation}

Eve in $p_0$ fraction of all runs tries to guess that the key value is $0$, and in $p_1 \equiv 1 - p_0$ part of the runs, that it is $1$. The former part of runs gives statistics $\mathbf{h}_0$, and the latter $\mathbf{h}_1$. Since the observed statistics are given by $\mathbf{h}$, we have $\mathbf{h} = p_0 \mathbf{h}_0 + p_1 \mathbf{h}_1$.

Let her success probability in each of these two cases be denoted by $P_0$ and $P_1$, respectively.

Now, let us consider only those runs in which both published outcomes were $0$. Among them the number of runs with the setting of Alice equal to $0$ is
\begin{equation}
\left( p_0 P_0 + p_1 (1 - P_1) \right) n \equiv p^\mathcal{A}_0 n, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and equal to $1$ is
\begin{equation}
\left( p_0 (1 - P_0) + p_1 P_1 \right) n \equiv p^\mathcal{A}_1 n. \nonumber
\end{equation}

If $p^\mathcal{A}_0 < p^\mathcal{A}_1$, then Alice discards (or \textit{drops}) $(p^\mathcal{A}_1 - p^\mathcal{A}_0) \cdot n$ runs with the value $1$. After dropping she has equal number of both values, namely $p^\mathcal{A}_0 \cdot n$ of each. In this situation Eve correctly guesses $p_0 P_0 n$ of runs with the value $0$, and $\frac{p^\mathcal{A}_0}{p^\mathcal{A}_1} p_1 P_1 n$ of runs with the value $1$, so her guessing probability (among those runs that were not dropped) is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}_{guess} & \equiv \frac{1}{2 p^\mathcal{A}_0 n} \left( p_0 P_0 n + \frac{p^\mathcal{A}_0}{p^\mathcal{A}_1} p_1 P_1 n \right) \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{p_0 P_0}{p^\mathcal{A}_0} + \frac{p_1 P_1}{p^\mathcal{A}_1} \right) \nonumber
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The case with $p^\mathcal{A}_0 > p^\mathcal{A}_1$ gives exactly the same formula.

To calculate $P^{(2)}_{guess}(\mathbf{h})$ (as a function of $\mathbf{h}$) \textit{via} a linear optimization, the values $p^\mathcal{A}_0 = P(A=0 | a=0, b=0)$, and $p^\mathcal{A}_1 = P(A=1 | a=0, b=0)$ have to be calculated from the setup. Then the bound on the guessing probability is given by the solution of the following program:
\begin{align}
\label{program2}
\begin{split}
\text{maximize } &\null \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{p^\mathcal{A}_0} p_0 \Gamma_0(\mathbf{h}_0) + \frac{1}{p^\mathcal{A}_1} p_1 \Gamma_1(\mathbf{h}_1) \right) \\
\text{subject to } &\null p_0 \mathbf{h}_0 + p_1 \mathbf{h}_1 = \mathbf{h}, \\
&\null p_0 + p_1 = 1, \\
&\null p_0, p_1 \geq 0.
\end{split}
\end{align}

The key rate is now given by the following formula:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
K_2 & = P(a=0, b=0) ( 2 \min(p^\mathcal{A}_0,p^\mathcal{A}_1) ) \\
& \left( -\log_2(P^{(2)}_{guess}(\mathbf{h})) - H(A|B,\text{dropping}) \right)
\end{aligned} \nonumber
\end{equation}

Both expressions, $P(a=0,b=0)$ and the conditional entropy $H(A|B,\text{dropping})$ can be evaluated directly from the setup.

\section{The robustness of Quantum Key Distribution protocols basing on Hardy's paradox}
\label{sec:Robustness}
In this section the method described in Secs~\ref{sec:sdpRelax}~and~\ref{sec:keyrate} is applied to the experimental setup described in the section \ref{sec:setup}. The resulting key rates are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:keyrates}.

\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{keyratesNoZerosConstraint.eps}
\caption{(Color on-line) Comparison of key rates in different scenarios.\label{fig:keyrates}}
\end{figure*}

The numerical results concerning the obtained key rates in different situations are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:keyrates}. The optimal choice of the distribution of settings depends on the value of the noise parameter $\eta$. Although the nonuniform distribution gives better key rates with lower noise, the uniform distribution can be more robust.

In case of nonuniform distribution, the role of the dropping strategy seems to be marginal. This is not surprising, since the aim of that distribution is to make the number of values $0$ and $1$ more or less equal. Similar results refers to conditional entropies (\textit{cf.} Fig.~\ref{fig:HABs}).

A characteristic property of these protocols is the fact, that the use of nonuniform distribution of settings not only requires less randomness, but also in some cases improves the key rate.

\subsection{The case without noise}
The analysis of the case without noise gives an insight to the reason, why the use of the dropping strategy can increase the key rate. It also explains the role of nonuniform distribution of settings.

\subsubsection{The dropping strategy}
In the perfect case with uniform distribution we have $P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0) = \frac{5 \sqrt{5} - 11}{2} \approx 0.090167$ and $P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1) = \sqrt{5} - 2 \approx 0.236068$, so $P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0) < P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1)$. Hence, the guessing probability for Eve is higher than $\frac{1}{2}$. The following dropping strategy makes the guessing probability equal to $\frac{1}{2}$.

After performing her measurements, Alice randomly selects only $\frac{P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0)}{P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1)}$ runs from the total runs with $a=b=0$, where her measurement settings was $A=1$ (in the perfect case, then also $B=1$). Alice sends the list of selected runs to Bob via a public channel.

For this reduced list (from which the key is generated) of runs Alice have equal number of $0$s and $1$s. (In the perfect case they correspond to the same values on the side of Bob.) Hence, the guessing probability is now exactly equal to $\frac{1}{2}$.

We have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} \nonumber
P_\text{not dropped}&(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0) + \\
& P_\text{not dropped}(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1) \\
& = 5 \sqrt{5} - 11 \approx 0.180334.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
To get the actual ratio of runs that are contained in the key, this should be multiplied by
\begin{equation}
P(A=B=0) = P(A=B=1) = \frac{1}{4}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus the key rate is approximately $\frac{5 \sqrt{5} - 11}{4} \approx 0.04508$.

\subsubsection{Nonuniform distribution of settings}
\label{sec:nonuniform}
Instead of choosing measurement settings with equal probabilities, both Alice and Bob may choose the observables $A=0$ (resp. $B=0$) and $A=1$ (resp. $B=1$) with a ratio $r : 1-r$, for some $r$.

Let us denote for simplicity $P(a=0,b=0|A=0,B=0)=x$ and $P(a=0,b=0|A=1,B=1)=y$. Then to obtain guessing probability equal to $\frac{1}{2}$, the condition for $r$ is
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
x r^2 = y (1-r)^2, \text{ or equivalently}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
r = \frac{\sqrt{y}}{\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{y}}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The key rate is thus $2 x r^2 = 2 x \frac{y}{(\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{y})^2}$.

In the perfect case $x = \frac{5 \sqrt{5} - 11}{2}$ and $y = \sqrt{5} - 2$, so the key rate is $2 x r^2 \approx 0.06888$. The ratio is $r = \frac{1}{2} \left(\sqrt{5} - 1\right) \approx 0.61803$.

\section{Conclusions}
Our paper provides an example of an entirely new class of QKD protocols and provides tools for their analysis.

We have presented a QKD protocol based on Hardy's paradox and analyzed its security in both ideal and noisy scenarios. It has two novel features: (a) The bits used for the secret key do not come from the results of the measurements on an entangled state, but from the choices of settings which are more difficult for an eavesdropper to influence; (b) Instead of a single security parameter a set of them is used to estimate the level of trust in the secrecy of the key, or to construct a certifying observable.

We have shown that these two properties were not chosen by accident. They both make the eavesdropping harder, leading to protocols which can produce a positive amount of shared key even if the biases of the source of randomness are strong. Using more than a single parameter for security provides more information to the parties about the correlations that they share and puts more limits on the eavesdropping strategies.

\section{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the Foundation for Polish Science TEAM project (TEAM/2011-8/9/styp7), co-financed by EU European Regional Development Fund and ERC grant QOLAPS (291348), a grant of Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland IDEAS PLUS (IdP2011 000361), a National Science Centre (NCN) grant 2013/08/M/ST2/00626, and a National Science Centre project Maestro DEC-2011/02/A/ST2/00305. RR also acknowledges partial support by the UGC (University Grants Commission, Govt. of India) Start-Up Grant.

SDP was implemented in the free software package GNU OCTAVE\cite{octave} using the SeDuMi\cite{SeDuMi102,IntPoint} toolbox.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Intrigo: Dear Agnes is a 2019 German-Swedish-American mystery crime drama film directed by Daniel Alfredson and starring Carla Juri, Gemma Chan and Jamie Sives.  It is the sequel of the 2018 film Intrigo: Death of an Author (2018).

Cast
Carla Juri as Agnes
Gemma Chan as Henny
Jamie Sives as Peter
Cal MacAninch as Erich Neuman-Hansen
John Sessions as Pumpermann
Predrag Bjelac as Caretaker
Ash Hunter as Johann Clausen
Laurie Kynaston as Johannes
Ed Cooper Clarke as Thomas Neuman-Hansen
Jason Wong as Benjamin
Tor Clark as Doris
Clemmie Dugdale as Clara
Jacob James Beswick as Klaus-Joseph
Chris Crema as Ansgar
Josephine Butler as Susanne Lieberman
Predrag Bjelac as caretaker
Ash Hunter as Johann Clausen
Amelia Clarkson as Louise
Anina Isabel Haghani as Cordelia
Elizabeth Counsell as Frau Bloeme
Kim Adis as student 1
Ivana Dudic as student 2
Olaf Ouwersloot as neighbor
Aleksandra Lojić as colleague

Reception
Kristen Yoonsoo Kim of The New York Times wrote: "Through flashbacks, the film traces the falling out that led to the women's current iciness. Their own connections, revealed bit by bit, make their plan even more ludicrous".

References

External links

American mystery drama films
American crime drama films
2019 crime drama films
German mystery drama films
German crime drama films
Swedish crime drama films
English-language German films
English-language Swedish films
Films based on Swedish novels
Films directed by Daniel Alfredson
Lionsgate films
2010s mystery drama films
Swedish mystery drama films
2010s English-language films
2010s American films
2010s German films
2010s Swedish films

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Is there any difference between biblical counseling and Christian psychology or Christian counseling?
At a superficial glance, it would appear that a biblical counselor and a psychotherapist who is a Christian do many of the same things. Both converse with people; both care about people; both get to know people; both are interested in motivation, thoughts, emotions, and behavior; both explore the various pressures in a person's situation; both give feedback; perhaps both talk about Jesus or a passage of Scripture. So how do they differ?
To understand how Christianized psychotherapy differs from biblical counseling it is necessary to look closely at what each practices and teaches. Here are some of the distinctives of each.
Perspective of the Bible and its contribution to counseling. Most Christian psychologists view the Bible as an inspirational resource, but their basic system of counseling, both theory and methods, is transferred unaltered from secular psychology. Most are frankly and self-consciously eclectic, picking and choosing theories and techniques according to personal preference. In contrast, biblical counselors follow the Bible's view of itself as the source of a comprehensive and detailed approach to understanding and counseling people (2 Tim. 3:15–17; 2 Pet. 1:4).
Some Christian psychotherapists use few Scriptures; others use many. But frequency of citation is much less important than the way passages are used- or misused- and in the vast majority of cases the passages cited are completely misused. There is a dearth of contextualized exegesis (a critical interpretation of a text) and an abundance of eisegesis (interpreting a text by reading one's own ideas into it). Biblical counseling is committed to letting God speak for Himself through His Word, and to handling the Word of Truth rightly (2 Tim. 2:15).
Perspective of God. There are many aspects of God that Christian psychologists routinely ignore. In particular, His sovereignty, holiness, justice, kingly authority, and power are virtually unmentioned. The fatherly love of God is the great theme of these psychotherapists, but detached from the entirety of who God is, this love becomes the unconditional positive regard of a great therapist in the sky, indistinguishable from classic liberal theology. Biblical counseling follows the Bible and seeks to minister the love of the true and living God, whose love deals with sin and produces obedience (1 John).
Perspective of human nature and motivation. Almost every Christian psychologist espouses some variety of need theory. Needs for self-esteem, for love and acceptance, and for significance tend to dominate. If these needs are met, it is believed that people will be happy, kind and moral; if not met, people will be miserable, hateful, and immoral. Christian psychologists borrow their motivation theory directly from humanistic psychology. Scripture flatly opposes such need theories because it teaches that sinful human motivation roots in various cravings and lusts (Gal. 5:16–24, Eph. 2:3; James 1:14–16; 3:13–4:12). Scripture teaches that God changes our desires and that godly motivation is rooted in the desire for God and godliness. If people crave self-esteem, love, and significance, they will be happy if they get it and miserable if they don't, but they will remain self-centered in either case. On the other hand, if people desire God (Ps. 42:1f; 73:25), God's kingdom (Matt. 6:9–13; 6:33; 13:45f), godly wisdom (Prov. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:22), and resurrection glory (Rom. 8:18–25), they will be satisfied, joyous, obedient, and profitable servants of God.
Perspective of the gospel. For most Christian psychologists, Jesus Christ is the meeter of built-in psychic needs and the healer of psychic wounds. The love of God at the cross simply portrays how valuable one is to God in order to boost self-esteem and to meet the need to be loved. But in the Bible, Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God crucified in the place of sinners. The love of God actually demolishes self-esteem and the lust for self-esteem. It produces, instead, a great and grateful esteem for the Son of God, who loved us and gave His life for us- the Lamb of God who alone is worthy. The love of God does not meet our lust to be loved as we are. It demolishes that deluded craving in order to love us despite who we are and to teach us to love God and neighbor (1 John 4:7–5:3).
Source: MacArthur, John F. Jr, Mack, Wayne A., et. al. Introduction to Biblical Counseling: A Basic Guide to the Principles and Practice of Counseling. (Dallas, TX: W Publishing Group, 1994). 362-364.


« Is misinterpreting scientific papers an Academic crime ? No, its not, I do it often !
My dear physician , don't feel ashamed to prescribe Digoxin for Atrial fibrillation !
It was delicate few minutes in one of my recent visits to a corporate hospital , when I noticed an emergency physician hesitated to follow my advice to prescribe IV Digoxin for a patient with Atrial fibrillation and fast ventricular rate.His fear was, his consultant, a modern day cardiologist wouldn't like it as Amiodarone has become a default drug for atrial fibrillation in that Institution. I could sense. . .he felt so out of place to take on my suggestion.
I reminded the young physician , the uniqueness of Digoxin and its un-diminished value for this particular indication ,still he was reluctant and didn't oblige.
I realised , it was my mistake to expect a place for the humble fox glove in corporate crash-carts of centrally climate controlled cardiology suits !
"Medicine need to be practiced not only with best science(Truth) but also in a holistic and cost efficient manner . There is no place for glamor, glitter and commerce in your prescriptions ! In near future , teaching Medicine to students would essentially become "more of moral" than "science" .


1Later, Jesus went to Jerusalem for another Jewish festival.5.1 another Jewish festival: Either the Festival of Shelters or Passover. 2In the city near the sheep gate was a pool with five porches, and its name in Hebrew was Bethzatha.5.2 Bethzatha: Some manuscripts have "Bethesda" and others have "Bethsaida".
8Jesus told him, "Pick up your mat and walk!" 9At once the man was healed. He picked up his mat and started walking around. The day on which this happened was a Sabbath.
10When the Jewish leaders saw the man carrying his mat, they said to him, "This is the Sabbath! No one is allowed to carry a mat on the Sabbath."5.10: Ne 13.19; Jr 17.21.
12They asked him, "Who is this man that told you to pick up your mat and walk?" 13But he did not know who Jesus was, and Jesus had left because of the crowd.
14Later, Jesus met the man in the temple and told him, "You are now well. But don't sin any more or something worse might happen to you." 15The man left and told the leaders that Jesus was the one who had healed him. 16They started making a lot of trouble for Jesus because he did things like this on the Sabbath.
17But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working." 18Now the leaders wanted to kill Jesus for two reasons. First, he had broken the law of the Sabbath. But even worse, he had said that God was his Father, which made him equal with God.
I tell you for certain that the Son cannot do anything on his own. He can do only what he sees the Father doing, and he does exactly what he sees the Father do. 20The Father loves the Son and has shown him everything he does. The Father will show him even greater things, and you will be amazed. 21Just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son gives life to anyone he wants to.
22The Father doesn't judge anyone, but he has made his Son the judge of everyone. 23The Father wants all people to honour the Son as much as they honour him. When anyone refuses to honour the Son, that is the same as refusing to honour the Father who sent him. 24I tell you for certain that everyone who hears my message and has faith in the one who sent me has eternal life and will never be condemned. They have already gone from death to life.
25I tell you for certain that the time will come, and it is already here, when all the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God. And those who listen to it will live! 26The Father has the power to give life, and he has given that same power to the Son. 27And he has given his Son the right to judge everyone, because he is the Son of Man.
28Don't be surprised! The time will come when all the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Man, 29and they will come out of their graves. Everyone who has done good things will rise to life, but everyone who has done evil things will rise and be condemned.5.29: Dn 12.2.
30I cannot do anything on my own. The Father sent me, and he is the one who told me how to judge. I judge with fairness, because I obey him, and I don't just try to please myself.
31If I speak for myself, there is no way to prove I am telling the truth. 32But there is someone else who speaks for me, and I know what he says is true. 33You sent messengers to John, and he told them the truth.5.33: Jn 1.19-27; 3.27-30. 34I don't depend on what people say about me, but I tell you these things so that you may be saved. 35John was a lamp that gave a lot of light, and you were glad to enjoy his light for a while.
36But something more important than John speaks for me. I mean the things that the Father has given me to do! All of these speak for me and prove that the Father sent me.
37The Father who sent me also speaks for me, but you have never heard his voice or seen him face to face.5.37: Mt 3.17; Mk 1.11; Lk 3.22. 38You have not believed his message, because you refused to have faith in the one he sent.
39You search the Scriptures, because you think you will find eternal life in them. The Scriptures tell about me, 40but you refuse to come to me for eternal life.
41I don't care about human praise, 42but I do know that none of you love God. 43I have come with my Father's authority, and you have not welcomed me. But you will welcome people who come on their own. 44How could you possibly believe? You like to have your friends praise you, and you don't care about praise that the only God can give!
45Don't think that I will be the one to accuse you to the Father. You have put your hope in Moses, yet he is the very one who will accuse you. 46Moses wrote about me, and if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me. 47But if you don't believe what Moses wrote, how can you believe what I say?


In a week or so I will go to visit family&friends back in Spain. It will be a short trip, a week + 1.
Ops, I just saw this thread is on Digital not on Film, any admin can move it please?
Last edited by alexvaras on Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I haven't had any problem with the machines they use for carry-on bags; the machine they use on the luggage checked into the hold left plainly visible wavy lines when I left some film in my case accidentally.
I should add my experience is all with fairly slow film, up to ISO 400.
No problem with a few scans of carry-on bagagge with ISO 400 film or lower, I have had ISO 400 film go through these scanners many times. In a typical trip I may get from 4 to 6 scans on the film and it has come out OK every time, both C-41 and B&W.
On the other hand, checked lugagge scanners will fog film for sure. Never send film in checked baggage. Don't ask me how I know.
If you have an opportunity, show the film and camera to the guards before scanning, or ask for hand inspection. Depending on the airport and on how busy they are, you might have the chance to avoid scanning. No big deal if your film is in carry-on.
Once (I think it was in L.A. airport) I was showing a 120 roll to a guard, she told me "Get that in your pocket and go through the arc, no problem". And she was right. But it may depend on the arc equipment.


Meanwhile, anti-abortion advocates claim abortion hurts the mental health of women.
Legal battles around abortion rage on more than ever — from Ohio's controversial anti-abortion legislation, dubbed the Heartbeat Bill, to a Texas ruling that aborted fetuses must be cremated or buried.
These might make it seem that the fetus is of the foremost concern for anti-abortion advocates, but that's not quite true. The 300 abortion restrictions in place across the United States harken back to a central argument that abortion hurts both the fetus and its mother. In nine states, women seeking an abortion are required to go through counseling on the negative psychological and emotional responses to abortion before they can receive it.
However, consistent research demonstrates that women who receive abortions are not at a greater risk for mental health problems than women who actually don't go through with abortions. A study published Tuesday by JAMA Psychiatry adds further evidence to this. According to a team of researchers led by Dr. M. Antonia Briggs of the University of California, San Francisco, women who are denied an abortion initially report less psychological well-being compared to women who did have an abortion. Briggs and her team believe this means that the restrictions placed on women's access to abortion on the basis of mental health concerns are not scientifically sound.
Briggs and her team assessed the well-being of 956 women over the course of five years after they were either denied or received an abortion. These women were recruited from 30 abortion facilities across 21 states. There were three groups of women: 425 who received an abortion because their pregnancy was within two weeks under their facility's gestational limit, 273 women who received a first-trimester abortion, and 231 women who were denied an abortion because their abortion was three weeks past a facility's gestational limit. This group was further divided into 161 women who gave birth and 70 women who either miscarried or had an abortion somewhere else (gestational age limits vary among facilities).
Anti-abortion activists claim their work is to protect the mental health of the mother.
When the researchers interviewed the women who were denied an abortion one week later, they found that these women reported more anxiety symptoms, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction than the women who had received an abortion. Their levels of depression were the relatively the same as the women who received an abortion just under the facility's gestational limits. The women's elevated levels of anxiety and lower life satisfaction became increasingly similar to the women in the other groups after six months to a year.
In the case of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt in March, the Supreme Court ruled against massive restrictions on clinics and the doctors who work there put in place by the Texas government. They determined their ruling on the scientific evidence that demonstrated the Texas ruling did not do a better job of protecting women's health. Nine months later, Texas instituted its mandatory fetal cremation or burial rule. The Supreme Court ruling, based on science, did little to sway the goal of the legislature.


text:
Home/Entertainment/Alia Bhatt to Konkona Sen Sharma, Celebs Who Had First Child After a Year of Marriage
Alia Bhatt to Konkona Sen Sharma, Celebs Who Had First Child After a Year of Marriage
Relationships, weddings, and pregnancies have always been the talk of the town when it comes to Bollywood. Similar to relationship rumours, B-town is always filled with wedding gossip and pregnancy announcements. Many popular actresses have started flaunting their baby bumps on social media, embracing their motherhood, and sharing snippets of their pregnancy photoshoots. Alia Bhatt, Sonam Kapoor, Bipasha Basu, and many others have hopped onto the trend.
Here is a list of 5 celebrities who have announced the good news within a year after marriage.
Alia Bhatt-Ranbir Kapoor:
Popular B-town celebs and one of the most adorable power couples of the tinseltown, Ranbir Kapoor and Alia Bhatt ushered their little ball of munchkin, a baby girl on November 6. Alia who tied the nuptial knot with Ranbir on April 14 announced her pregnancy on June 27 via an Instagram post, featuring her going under sonography.
Shahid – Mira Kapoor
Shahid and Mira Kapoor are undoubtedly the most adorable star couples in Bollywood. Shahid got married to his ladylove Mira in 2015. Soon after their wedding on August 26 of the following year, this celebrity pair welcomed their daughter Misha Kapoor.
Top showsha video
Actress Neha Dhupia was three months pregnant when she married Angad Bedi on May 10, 2018. Neha and Angad's marriage was a private and intimate affair. They welcomed their first child on November 18 and named their daughter Mehr Dhupia Bedi. Later, the couple welcomed their second child, Guriq Singh Dhupia Bedi.
Dia Mirza
Sanju actress Dia Mirza welcomed her bundle of joy within a month after getting hitched to her partner Vaibhav Rekhi on May 14, 2021. The couple named their son Avyaan Azaad Rekhi. The actress made all the headlines after making the sudden pregnancy announcement back at that time.
Konkona Sen Sharma
One of the most talented actresses of Bollywood, Konkona Sen Sharma, put a ring on her finger on September 2010. She welcomed her first offspring, Haroon with Ranvir Shorey a year later in March.
Read all the Latest Movies News here
Captain, Vice-Captain, Playing Teams of Match 66 Between Bengal Warriors vs UP Yoddha
India Lockdown Teaser Out Prateik Babbar Shows Corona Outbreak Tragedy Madhur Bhandarkar Film Releasing On Zee5

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


For their first programming contest (2002), the search engine Google made available just under one million web pages from their index, totalling 5 Gb of data. This dataset was read in about 15 minutes by MarkovPR, on a 500Mhz Pentium III, taking just under 200Mb of RAM, (which is fairly impressive for low end hardware of the time).
This repository of web page information is being provided to you by Google Inc. solely for academic and research purposes related to the Google programming contest. You may not modify, distribute, or make any commercial use of the repository.
MarkovPR is a collection of programs (written in C++) which build a web link graph and calculate various types of page ranking distributions by means of suitable Markov chains (screenshot). The data defining the web graph must be obtained separately as described inside the download. You can find technical descriptions of this software on my preprints page. Tested on Linux.


I received a copy of Sing For Me from author Gracie Madison to review for her book blog tour. I would like to thank the author for allowing me to review her book.
Madeline is a Choir, one of the highest and most sacred sects of angels. She and her guardian, the demon-hunter Damascus, are hiding on earth among the mortals. Madeline is a soprano for a theatre group and spends her time amidst costume alterations and one terrible prima donna. Her voice is intense when she sings, has the power to shatter glass and can even kill. She is forbidden to use her voice at full potential and must tamper her emotions to keep herself under control. This includes all emotions, even love, which is forbidden to those of the Choir.
This book was very well written and thought out from the steps of the angel hierarchy down to the demons. I enjoyed the different take on angel/demon mythology. When one of Madeline's human friends, Natalie, encounters her secret, readers are introduced to Madeline's world at the same time.
Natalie is a lovable character and her banter with demon hunters Shiloh and Tyre totally steals the show. I loved these three characters and their exchanges. I couldn't decide who I liked more with Natalie since she had great chemistry with both Shiloh, who was funny, and Tyre, who was the serious one. I can only hope these three get more time in the next book!
But not everything was fun and games. Madeline fled heaven because it wasn't safe, but then she and Damascus discover something is hunting down and killing members of the Choir and all five characters must race to save her life. Further complicating things are Madeline's feelings for Damascus.
I enjoyed the fact that it is forbidden for demon-hunters and a member of the Choir to be in love. It made the romance very star-crossed and entertaining. Also, knowing that they would be killed if they touched each other added another level of thrill and excitement to the romance, making Damascus and Madeline's passion for each other extremely hot.
This book had a ton of action, romance, and comic relief and was full of surprises. I couldn't put it down from start to finish and I can't wait to read the next one in the series!
This sounds fantastic! I'm definitely going to give it a read!


text:
Reforming Mexico's Moribund Oil Industry
Today marks the 75th anniversary of the nationalization of Mexico's oil industry.
In a January post on EnergyTrendsInsider.com, I wrote that one of the top energy trends to watch in 2013 will be developments around Mexico's oil industry. Here is an excerpt from that post:
Mexico's oil industry has been in a perpetual state of decline. In its heyday, the country was the world's second largest oil producer, just behind the United States. But when the industry was nationalized in the 1930s, it all began to go south. Private foreign companies – with their capital, skills and technology – left the country and spent years seeking compensation from the government to cover their losses. In their place, the industry was left with the state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos – Pemex. Unfortunately, Pemex never quite brought the same resources to bear as its foreign competitors and has been plagued by technical deficiencies that have contributed to poor management of its oil fields and their subsequent decline. One need only look to Mexico's Cantarell super-giant oil field as a case in point: production has sharply declined from about 2 million barrels a day (mbd) in 2004 to 400,000 barrels a day in April 2012. It bodes poorly for a government that relies on oil revenue for roughly 35 percent of its budget.
But all that is starting to change and Mexico's moribund oil industry may be on the rebound. Since his election in July, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto started the move toward privatization of the oil industry, which would help bring the necessary capital, technology and skills to onshore oilfields that have been in decline and the deepwater oil fields that have effectively gone untapped. If the industry does turn around, Peña Nieto may singlehandedly be responsible for unleashing the country's energy potential, potentially adding as much as 1.6 mbd of petroleum to North American output by 2020.
Mexican President Peña Nieto has run into some opposition in Congress, particularly around the future of Pemex. On Sunday, Peña Nieto tried to allay concerns that his support to allow private investment in the country's oil sector would be the death knell for Pemex, which has long been heralded as a symbol of the 1938 nationalization order and national identity. Pemex will not "be sold, nor will it be privatized," he said. Instead, Pemex would be "modernized and transformed."
Peña Nieto's effort to assuage concerns about Pemex's future comes after the company announced it increased its proven reserves for the second straight year, largely as a result of ultra-deepwater oil discoveries. Proven reserves are technically recoverable oil – though Mexico claims much larger probable reserves that are not considered recoverable today, due to a combination of operating conditions, costs and technical hurdles. Of course, the ongoing debate around Pemex is whether it has the necessary experience and expertise to safely tap into those ultra-deepwater proven resources, or whether Mexico should reform its laws to allow more experienced international major oil companies to acquire the rights to explore and produce those proven resources. As I foreshadowed in January, this is going to be an interesting issue to watch.
Can Tariffs and Sanctions Lead to a Better Climate Change Strategy?
A little more than two years since he announced in the Rose Garden that the United States was "getting out" of the Paris climate change agreement, President Donald Trump was i...
By Neil Bhatiya
Climate Change: The New Asian Drama
When the Swedish economist and sociologist Gunnar Myrdal wrote his magisterial three volume study of postwar economic and political development in Asia, he questioned whether ...
Why Abandoning Paris Is a Disaster for America
Ever the showman, President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday about his soon-to-be-announced decision on whether or not to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement with the air of...
Elizabeth Rosenberg before Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Elizabeth Rosenberg, senior fellow and director of the Energy, Environment and Security program, testifies before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources....
By Elizabeth Rosenberg


Speedshield Technologies provides telemetry and engineering products and solutions to various industries and aftermarket applications including aviation, automotive, industrial, mining, and mobile fleet equipment.
Since its founding in 1996 it has become an industry leader in advanced telemetry solutions.
Speedshield's telemetry solutions are some of the most advanced fleet safety, reporting and management systems available today.
Speedshield's products provide unprecedented levels of business intelligence and performance for client's assets; our products connect our customers with significant economic, environmental and operational benefits.
Speedshield Technologies are a preferred technology partner at the forefront of innovation and advancement.


Your right to privacy and security is a major focus for us. At AOW, our goal is to help you maintain control over your personal data while we continue to offer you the best online solution to help you plan your business or personal travel. The following are guidelines we use to protect your information when you visit AOW.
AOW does not engage in the selling or marketing of your personal information. We only require your personal information when it is essential to do so -- such as holding or finalizing your reservation. Storage of your personal information is needed only to better serve you as an AOW customer and to allow you to make your travel purchases quickly and easily.
In order to complete your travel reservation properly and comply with recent government-mandated security regulations, we must have the correct legal names for each traveler in your itinerary.
AOW uses your profile information only to support your customer relationship with us and our booking agent.
Airlines of the Web registers and/or keeps a record of your IP address to help diagnose problems with our server, and to administer our website. Your IP address is used to gather broad demographic information.


text:
You are here: Home | Born-again Christians surge in influence
Born-again Christians surge in influence
Wednesday March 5, 2003 Religion Trends
God, Satan and the media
The International Herald Tribune, Mar. 5, 2003 (Opinion)
http://www.iht.com/
NEW YORK – Claims that the American news media form a vast liberal conspiracy strike me as utterly unconvincing, but there is one area where accusations of institutional bias have merit: Nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans.
That is the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians. Evangelicals have moved from the fringe into the mainstream, and that is particularly evident in the current administration. It is impossible to understand President George W. Bush without acknowledging the centrality of his faith. Indeed, there may be an element of messianic vision in the plan to invade Iraq and "remake" the Middle East.
Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago argues that America is now experiencing a fourth Great Awakening, like the religious revivals that have periodically swept America in the last 300 years. Yet offhand, I cannot think of a single evangelical working for a major news organization.
Evangelicals are increasingly important in every aspect of American culture. Among the best-selling books in America are Tim LaHaye's Christian "Left Behind" series about the apocalypse; some 50 million copies have been sold. One of America's most prominent television personalities is Benny Hinn, watched in 190 countries, but few of us have heard of him because he is an evangelist.
Bush has said that he does not believe in evolution (he thinks the jury is still out). President Ronald Reagan felt the same way, and such views are typically American. A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest are not sure or lean toward creationism). According to recent Gallup briefings, Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution.
In its approach to evangelicals, the national news media are generally reflective of the educated elite, particularly in the Northeast. It's expected at New York dinner parties to link crime to deprived childhoods – conversation would stop abruptly if someone mentioned Satan.
I tend to disagree with evangelicals on almost everything, and I see no problem with aggressively pointing out the dismal consequences of this increasing religious influence. For example, evangelicals' discomfort with condoms and sex education has led the administration to policies that are likely to lead to more people dying of AIDS at home and abroad, not to mention more pregnancies and abortions.
But liberal critiques sometimes seem not just filled with outrage at evangelical-backed policies, which is fair, but also to have a sneering tone about conservative Christianity itself. Such mockery of religious faith is inexcusable. And liberals sometimes show more intellectual curiosity about the religion of Afghanistan than that of Alabama, and more interest in reading the Upanishads than in reading the Book of Revelation.
I care about this issue partly because I grew up near Yamhill, Oregon, which has 790 people and five churches. My science teacher at Yamhill Grade School taught that evolution was false, and a high school girlfriend attended a church where people spoke in tongues (she was an ace student, smarter than many people fluent in more conventional tongues like French or Spanish). In the evangelical tinge to its faith, Yamhill is emblematic of a huge chunk of Middle America that we in the Northeast are out of tune with.
Moreover, increasingly it is not just Middle America, but Middle World. As Professor Philip Jenkins notes in a new book, fundamentalist Christianity is racing through the developing world. The number of African Christians has soared over the last century, to 360 million from 10 million, and the boom is not among tweedy Presbyterians but among charismatic Pentecostalists.
One of the deepest divides in America today is already the gulf of mutual suspicion that separates evangelicals from secular society, and policy battles over abortion and judicial appointments will aggravate these tensions further in coming months. Both sides need to reach out, drop the contempt and display some of the inclusive wisdom of Einstein, who wrote in his memoir: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Religion News Blog posted this on Wednesday March 5, 2003.
Profs study race, religion
Beer and the Bible
God is back: How Ned Flanders won the evangelical crusade
Episcopal 'U2-charist' uses songs in service
Spiritual Britain worships over 170 different faiths


text:
Ceremony to honor 95 African-Americans whose remains were found in Sugar Land
Brooke A. Lewis Nov. 8, 2019 Updated: Nov. 8, 2019 4:03 p.m.
Ceremony to honor 95 African-Americans whose remains were...
1of4Naomi Carrier, right, speaks to community members, incluidng activist Reginald Moore, left, as they held a candelight vigil on the steps of City Hall, Sunday, Dec. 16, 2018, at Sugar Land Town Square, in Sugar Land, to honor the 95 African-American remains found at Fort Bend ISD construction site earlier this year.Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle / Staff photographer
2of4Activist Reginald Moore, from left, and FBISD Superintendent Charles E. Dupre shake hands following a presser celebrating progress on the Sugar Land 95 Memorial Project in Sugar Land, Monday, June 17, 2019. Gov. Abbott signed a bill that would allow Fort Bend County to operate and maintain the cemetery where 95 African American remains were found last year.Photo: Juan Figueroa, Houston Chronicle / Staff photographer
3of4State Rep. Rick Miller, R-Sugar Land, speaks at a presser celebrating progress on the Sugar Land 95 Memorial Project in Sugar Land, Monday, June 17, 2019. Gov. Abbott signed a bill Miller authored that would allow Fort Bend County to operate and maintain the cemetery where 95 African American remains were found last year.Photo: Juan Figueroa, Houston Chronicle / Staff photographer
4of4On a plan, Fort Bend ISD's chief operations officer Oscar Perez Jr. points at the burial site on Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2019, in Sugar Land where the remains of 95 black prison laborers were found.Photo: Marie D. De Jesús, Houston Chronicle / Staff photographer
The remains of 95 African-Americans discovered at a Sugar Land construction site last year will be honored in a public ceremony this month.
The vigil, scheduled for 6 p.m. Nov. 17, will be held at the James Reese Career and Technical Center, on the same site where the remains were discovered. The "Blessing the Ground" ceremony is expected to feature several performances and a candlelight walk, according to a press release from the Fort Bend ISD. In the days and weeks following the ceremony, a private burial service will occur, the news release said.
The remains are believed to be part of the convict-leasing system, where prisoners were contracted out to perform cheap labor across the state. Their discovery in 2018 drew national attention and gripped the surrounding community.
"This has been an unprecedented journey for Fort Bend ISD, and the time has now come for us to lay the Sugar Land 95 to rest," Fort Bend ISD Superintendent Charles Dupre said in a written statement. "These 95 souls suffered a grave injustice during their time on earth, but we remain committed to ensuring that their lives are not forgotten, and that our students will learn about this part of our history for generations to come."
Despite the steps forward, some community members implored the district during a September school board meeting to oppose a contract with a funeral home for the memorial service. School board members still voted to pay Missouri City Funeral Directors at Glen Park $284,375 to rebury the remains. Some community members have been upset since a deal between Fort Bend County and the school district surrounding the 95 seemed to unravel.
HISD fourth-grader takes top prize at MLK Jr. oratory event
Samantha Ketterer, Houston Chronicle
By Zach Despart and Jasper Scherer, Staff writers
Why was Texas unable to stop a second COVID surge?
By Gabrielle Banks, Staff writer
By Olivia P. Tallet, Staff writer
Woman falsely accused detention center of rape in ploy for visa
2,600 Houston vaccination appointments get booked up in 16...
Harris County Jail population again at dangerous levels
By Jasper Scherer, Staff writer
Most Houston MLK events to be held virtually or canceled due...
By Andrea Leinfelder, Staff writer
Pair of UH cadets to join the US Space Force
Nicole Hensley, Houston Chronicle
Houston police officer resigns after being linked to Capitol riot
Originally, the school district was going to pay the county $1 million and convey part of the cemetery for re-interment of the remains and an additional 10 acres of land for a memorial park. A bill signed into law in June would authorize the county to operate the cemetery. However, the school district has since shifted course, withdrawing the payment offer.
The breakdown stemmed from a split over the need for continued court oversight of the process. County officials want the courts involved, but Dupre, the superintendent, said the school district believes this would drag out the process and add to the financial costs incurred by taxpayers. The deal between the two parties remains in limbo.
Reginald Moore, an advocate who originally warned the school district that it would find remains if it began construction at the site, also expressed his dismay about the situation during the meeting.
"They're being treated today in death the way they were treated when they were alive," Moore told the school board.
On Friday, an attorney for Moore delivered a cease-and-desist letter to Fort Bend ISD's attorney, Robert Scamardo, according to a news release from the Convict Leasing and Labor Project. The letter orders the school district not to use materials depicting Moore or created by him. Footage and images of Moore were used without his permission in a Sept. 17 district video about the Sugar Land 95 posted to YouTube, according to the letter. The school district had planned to use images and recordings of Moore in the public ceremony honoring the remains if he declined to attend the event, the release stated.
"We consider any such use exploitation of him to further FBISD's continued attempts to destroy the history of the Sugar Land 95 and prevent any meaningful oversight of their actions from the community or the courts," the letter states.
Moore also stated in the news release he will not attend the public ceremony honoring the remains as a result of the school district's actions.
"Though our hearts and efforts will continue to be with the Sugar Land 95 and their descendants, we cannot give FBISD's efforts the veneer of legitimacy by participating further in any of their events related to the Sugar Land 95," Moore said.
brooke.lewis@chron.com
Brooke A. Lewis
Follow Brooke A. on:
brookelewisa
Brooke Lewis is a native Houstonian who covers a wide range of stories in Fort Bend County for the city desk. She started out in 2016 as a summer intern at the Chronicle and then went on to work as the night breaking news reporter. She holds a master's degree in journalism from Syracuse University and an English Writing & Rhetoric degree from St. Edward's University in Austin.
Richmond emergency services official who died of COVID-19 complications remembered for dedication
Spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations in Fort Bend triggers bar closures
Eligible Fort Bend residents will soon be able to receive COVID vaccine


Water ahoy! The "Playa" outdoor case provides all-round protection for your smartphone and is the ultimate accessory whether you go snorkelling or skiing. What is more, you do not have to take your mobile device out of the case for sending e.g. stunning shots to your friends. Brilliant!
Want to know when Hama "Playa" Outdoor Bag for Smartphones, Size XXL, black - ozgameshop.com drops below a certain price? Enter your email address and price below and we'll let you know when it drops below that price!


text:
BEE&YOU's story began when Asli Samanci, a mother, scientist, and entrepreneur, started struggling with a health problem of her 5-year-old son. Her son was getting sick so frequently, was often treated with antibiotics and eventually developed an autoimmune disease due to his weakened immune system. The doctor advised Asli to give her son propolis and royal jelly to support his immune system. Knowing that many propolis products on the market were of low quality or worse adulterated, Asli went herself and got raw propolis from a beekeeper and devised a pioneering (later to be patented) way to extract propolis in her lab. After Asli gave this to her son for about six months, they saw a miraculous improvement in his health and eventually cured his autoimmune disease. Due to the incredible results experienced by her son, in 2013 Asli decided to become an entrepreneur and founded BEE&YOU to start the production of propolis as a natural immune enhancer for all the children, mothers, and families in the world who had similar problems.
BEE&YOU has today been granted 46 awards internationally for its innovative, award-winning, and patented extraction method and for female entrepreneurship.
Products Traceable from the "Hive to Your Table"
Recognizing that raw material quality is equally important as pioneering science, BEE&YOU introduced a unique business model called "Contracted Beekeeping" to secure a sustainable supply of high-quality bee products, while working with exclusive contracted beekeepers who only produce for BEE&YOU with good beekeeping practices. With 500,000 contracted beehives and 5,000 contracted beekeepers, this model allows the brand to care for the society of its beekeepers and their families, as well as trace the quality and origin of its products from the hive to the table while helping to keep the planet green.
BEE&YOU produces its own branded honey, royal jelly, and propolis products and their mixes vary depending on different consumer needs such as consistency and flavor preferences. The formulas of all products are developed in BEE&YOU's Research and Development (R&D) center and are 100% natural and protected under patents.
Propolis & The Anatolia Difference
Propolis, a natural bee product that bees gather from plant stems, leaves and buds has powerful anti-bacterial and antioxidant effects, is used to kill germs inside the hive and to keep the bee colony healthy. The main function of propolis for bees is to provide and maintain the antiseptic environment in the hive. Honeybees use propolis for protecting larvae and themselves against microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, fungus) and they use it as a source of disinfectant in the hive. It has a high antioxidant capacity due to its rich content of flavonoids and phenolic compounds. Propolis that has been harvested in Anatolia is called Anatolian propolis.
Anatolia is a fascinating ancient region right between Europe and Asia; It has three different climate zones and an incredible natural biodiversity. It is also an endemic biodiversity hotspot and almost 1/3 of the plants are native to that region and do not exist anywhere else. Since the nature in Anatolia is so diverse and rich, the propolis, pollen and the nectar foraged by bees in the area are also richer in nutrients. Due to this incredible plant biodiversity, the nutrients found in Anatolian propolis are not found anywhere else. Upon testing over hundreds of different propolis throughout the world, studies have found that Anatolian propolis is much higher in antioxidants, especially the phenolics and flavonoids, which give propolis it's incredible immune boosting effects. To date, no other propolis in the world can be compared to the quality of Anatolian propolis.
ABOUT OUR FOUNDER: Dr. Asli Samanci
Dr. Asli Samanci is a renowned and award-winning food scientist committed to creating natural and healthy products for the educated consumer. Dr. Samanci is a pioneering advocate for combining science and nature to create safe and effective natural bee products. She has created a business model that contracts beekeepers to prevent bees from becoming extinct and has allowed her to create Propolis in its healthiest, most natural, and safe form, thanks to her innovative, patented extraction process.
As a food scientist, bee enthusiast, and entrepreneur, Dr. Samanci's ultimate goal and mission is to make Propolis available to the world. Dr. Samanci strives to introduce the world to the natural healing powers of Anatolian Propolis, the highest grade of Propolis that can be harvested by bees because of the 3,500 endemic plants of Anatolia.
With Dr. Samanci's mission in mind, she founded BEE&YOU, a now leading and innovative provider of natural bee products. BEE&YOU products (Propolis, Royal Jelly, Pure Raw Honey) are antiviral, antibacterial, natural energy boosters. BEE&YOU's powerful and science-backed products are effective in naturally fighting allergy symptoms and support the immune system. The products are also 100% natural, gluten free, non-GMO, pesticide free, and free from additives, colorants, and preservatives. BEE&YOU products are safe for both children and adults and have creative taste options for kids and adults. In addition to BEE&YOU's direct website, its products are sold at 3,000 CVS stores nationally, Trader Joe's, and via Amazon.
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-ginger-raw-honey-throat-spray
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-pure-liquid-extract
https://www.beeandyou.com/plus-natural-propolis-nasal-spray
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-water-soluble-extract-with-d3-k2
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-nasal-spray-5-pure-propolis-alcohol-free-1-fl-oz-30-ml
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-extract-with-d3-k2
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-water-soluble-extract-1-fl-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-1-fl-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-raw-honey-throat-spray
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-raw-honey-67-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-raw-honey-syrup-alcohol-free-5-fl-oz-150-ml
Royal Jelly & Propolis Tablet & Mixes
https://www.beeandyou.com/royal-jelly-ginseng-propolis-tablets
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-royal-jelly-raw-honey-for-kids-67-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-royal-jelly-raw-honey-67-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/royal-jelly-raw-honey-67-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/royal-jelly-bee-pollen-propolis-chewable-tablets-500-mg-x-60-tablets-1-month-supply
Performance Mixes & Shots
https://www.beeandyou.com/energy-x-propolis-ginseng-royal-jelly
https://www.beeandyou.com/energy-x-propolis-ginseng-royal-jelly-12-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-elderberry-strawberry-juice-shots-for-kids
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-elderberry-strawberry-juice-shots-for-kids-12-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/zinc-vitc-propolis-shot
https://www.beeandyou.com/zinc-vitc-propolis-shot-12-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/on-the-go-immune-support
https://www.beeandyou.com/on-the-go-immune-support-12-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/on-the-go-detox
https://www.beeandyou.com/on-the-go-detox-12-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/energy-x-bundle-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/wildflower-raw-honey-106-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/pine-raw-honey-10.6-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/bee-pollen
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-raw-honey-for-kids-67-oz
https://www.beeandyou.com/school-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/kids-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/suncare-bundle
https://www.beeandyou.com/anti-aging-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/apibeauty-anti-wrinkle-anti-aging-face-serum
https://www.beeandyou.com/tip-to-toe-moisturizing-set
https://www.beeandyou.com/apibeauty-anti-wrinkle-anti-aging-eye-contour-serum
https://www.beeandyou.com/apibeauty-anti-wrinkle-anti-aging-face-cream
https://www.beeandyou.com/daily-skincare-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/apicare-moisturizing-foot-cream
https://www.beeandyou.com/apicare-moisturizing-body-cream
https://www.beeandyou.com/apicare-moisturizing-hand-cream
https://www.beeandyou.com/lipbalm-pack
https://www.beeandyou.com/apicare-lip-balm-with-propolis-and-black-elderberry
https://www.beeandyou.com/lip-balm-with-raw-honey-and-propolis
https://www.beeandyou.com/propolis-raw-honey-lip-balm-with-shea-butter-vit-e-and-oils-018-oz-5g
https://www.beeandyou.com/natural-mineral-sunscreen-for-face
https://www.beeandyou.com/natural-mineral-sunscreen
https://www.beeandyou.com/natural-mineral-sunscreen-for-kids
https://www.beeandyou.com/natural-after-sun-lotion
https://www.beeandyou.com/natural-diaper-rash-cream
https://www.beeandyou.com/skin-care-set-for-kids
https://www.beeandyou.com/apicare-sos-intensive-care-face-cream
https://www.beeandyou.com/natural-roll-on-deodorant-for-men
https://www.beeandyou.com/natural-roll-on-deodorant-for-women
Website: https://www.beeandyou.com/
Instagram (@beeandyounatural): https://www.instagram.com/beeandyounatural/
Facebook (@beeandyounatural: https://www.facebook.com/BeeAndYouNatural/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ8hCs-NHK6Fa5pC9jupg_w/videos?view_as=subscriber
Aslı Samanci (@propolisexpert) : https://www.instagram.com/propolisexpert/?hl=en


text:
THEME 2010: CHARACTER
8th-14th November 2010
NEoN digital arts festival 2010 adopted the theme of 'character' and featured appearances from Akinori Oishi and Pictoplasma, with contributions also coming from EIDOS and tDR. Running from the 8th until the 14th of November, the festival consisted of talks, workshops, exhibitions, screenings and performances at many of Dundee's cultural, business and public spaces, including the city's Centre for Excellence.
The overarching curatorial theme was Character: evaluating the abstracted or physical agent in a work of art; investigation of the fictional or psychological systems; observation of the unit of information, symbol, sound or written language. Through this focused dimension, NEoN explored the notion of collaboration between visual art, information communication, media production and gaming that would expand digital development and knowledge.
NEoN delivered a packed festival programme of talks, workshops, exhibitions, commissions, screenings, performance and more at many of Dundee's cultural, business and public spaces. NEoN 10 was proud to be working with Japanese artist Akinori Oishi, graphics duo TADO and artists from the eponymous Berlin-based project Pictoplasma. Cross-sector speakers such as Ian Livingstone from EIDOS, Ian Anderson from the Designers Republic and artist/entrepreneur Lars Denicke will stimulate debates around development, design and digital character play.
NEoN exchanged knowledge in key areas such as new business models, digital developments and latest production techniques. It expanded on the notion that art, digital media and games communities can come together to explore new collaborations and open up new levels of opportunities. NEoN showcased new technology, new software and new art forms that inevitably had a developmental and cultural impact on the context of the sector and encouraged growth in many areas.
NEoN offered work placements to local students and they worked on a verity of things such as web development, marketing and logistics. Here is what some of them had to say …
"I am excited to be involved in NEoN purely for the fact that digital media is the now and will keep growing, and to be a part of one of the biggest up and coming festivals in the field is unbelievable not to mention a good laugh." Tommy Stewart
"I see NEoN 2010 as a great opportunity to promote Dundee's design and creative community and I wish to be part of it." John Patterson
We were also lucky to have on board Asuka Miki who was at the time studying towards her MSc Animation and Visualization. Before coming to the UK Asuka worked in the media industry in Tokyo. She spent 10 years as an animation production manager and web director for 2D animation and entertainment websites. Asuka was working alongside our marketing team and tackling the UK media.


text:
Simon Matthäus von Rosenhand, auch Simon Matthaeus, Simon Mathaei oder Simon Rosenhand, (* 31. Mai 1613 in Stralsund; † 1. Juni 1668 in Stettin) war Regierungsrat in Schwedisch-Pommern.

Leben
Simon Mathaeus war der Sohn des Stralsunder Ratsverwandten Nicolaus Mathaeus († 1629 an der Pest) und der Catharina Tessin († 1632), Tochter des Ratsverwandten Nicodemus Tessin. Er wurde 1636 Sekretär bei der schwedischen Rentkammer in Pommern und 1639 Referendar in der von den Schweden eingesetzten Regierung für Pommern. 1641 wurde er Archivar im Archiv der Regierung. Ab 1644 diente er dem Prinzen und späteren König Karl X. Gustav als Geheimsekretär. 1647 wurde ihm der Titel Geheimrat verliehen.

Im selben Jahr wurde er Assistenzrat bei der schwedischen Regierung in Pommern. Am 21. Februar 1648 wurde er durch die Königin Christina in den schwedischen Adelsstand erhoben. Im Namen des Königs Karl X. Gustav nahm er 1654 die Huldigung der Landstände Hinterpommerns entgegen. 1655 wurde er zum Regierungsrat ernannt. Er nahm 1662 seinen Abschied.

Simon Matthäus von Rosenhand besaß die Güter Venzvitz auf Rügen und Börkeholm (Björkholm). Er starb 1668 und wurde in der Stettiner Jakobikirche beigesetzt.

Familie
Simon Mathaeus heiratete 1647 Catharina Regina Schlegel (1628–1663), eine Tochter des Daniel Schlegel, Kammer- und Ökonomierat in Pommern, und der Barbara Simons. Die beiden hatten drei Töchter und zwei oder drei Söhne, von denen nur Daniel Nikolaus den Vater überlebte. Mit ihm starb das Adelsgeschlecht von Rosenhand in der männlichen Linie aus.

Literatur
 Gabriel Anrep: Svenska adelns Ättar-Taflor. P. A. Norstedt & Söner, Stockholm, 1862, Bd. 3, S. 478, (Google bücher, schwedisch).

Einzelnachweise

Regierungsrat (Schwedisch-Pommern)
Nobilitierter (Schweden)
Geboren 1613
Gestorben 1668
Mann