Oppo deal heads up: if you're looking for a cheap and not-crappy unlocked Android phone, Newegg has the unlocked version of the ZTE ZMAX 2 for $120 after a promo code. Sorry, deal's expired, but it's still a good, cheap phone!
It's not a particularly fancy phone, but it seems to be a well-realized package that people like, according to what reviews I could find. It's got a 5.5" 720p screen, Snapdragon 410 CPU, 2 GB of RAM, 16 GB of ROM, mostly-stock Android 5.1, a big, removable battery, and a microSD slot.
My gf has an old Pantech Discover she's wanted to replace, but she just bought herself a treadmill (long story) and isn't making any other big purchases for a while. She wants a phone with a bigger screen but otherwise doesn't need anything fancy.
So I grabbed this ZTE since it's cheap enough to be a borderline impulse purchase and given as either an anniversary (on Dec 20) or Christmas present, while being a nice upgrade for her to a more modern phone.
Which now brings my total Black Friday/Cyber Monday spending up to a pair of sneakers and hoodie for myself, and this phone for her. I'm such a big spender.
UPDATE: The phone has arrived, and I gave it to my gf as an early anniversary present, since her old phone is all old. She's extremely happy with it.
The specs aren't fancy, there's no NFC or 5 GHz wifi, but it's got an almost entirely stock build of Android 5.1.1 and runs nice and smooth with no issues. Only having to render stuff at 720p resolution probably helps keep it from getting bogged down.
I've played with it and it's a totally decent phone especially for how cheap it is. The 720p screen is at least nice and bright and clear with good colors and you don't really notice any pixels.
Obviously, this phone is not as nice as my Moto X Pure Edition, but it's only like 1/3 the price. If you just want a basic, totally-functional Android phone with a big screen, I can totally recommend it.
Now, the bad news: Newegg is all sold out at $119. As it sits right now, the best price on the unlocked ZMAX 2 is $164.95 through a couple of Amazon third-party sellers.
If you have AT&T, or use an MVNO that piggybacks on AT&T's network like Straight Talk or Cricket, you can get the AT&T GoPhone branded version of the ZMAX 2 for $129 at either Walmart or Best Buy. It should work fine with any AT&T-compatible SIM card. You can just buy the GoPhone version and not activate the GoPhone service.
So really, if you want a cheap phone with a big, totally-ok screen, and mostly stock Android Lollipop (who knows about future updates) this is a pretty solid pickup for the price. Keep an eye out for deals and maybe it'll get cheaper again.


Gerhold Chemetals Co., Ltd is a German company founded both in Germany and China in 1997, focuses on research and development of Metallic powders, Metal Compounds Nano powders. We can customize products according to customers special requirements.Our technologies are from Elektrotechnik University, Aachen University, München University and Beijing University.
we are Italian base dealers of ferrous and non ferrous scrap material we have in stock large quantities of various type of scrap material ranging from metal and non metal scrap we also have different type of plastic scrap contact us for more details.
Garbage treatment , it provides more grinding power and less jamming, saving you time, water energy and money. Our reliable waste disposer is equipped with high-speed rotation and is powered with permanent magnet motors.
We are capable to supply around 100 MT per week or as per buyers capacity.
The Russian company has the ability delivery of rail scrap A5 cut to 1.5 meter prepared to deliver abroad. Production - Russian Railways scrap. Volume: a minimum of 30 000 MT per month with a possible increase to 100 000 MT.
Please, If You are interested in this offer send LOI for FCO.
9 Zhuji Ciwu Chaoneng Electrical Equipment Factory Китай Our factory : Located in Zhuji city, zhejiang province, 50KM from xiaoshan airport and hangzhou east rail station, 3500 square meter, over 50 employees, annual sales exceed 3.0 Million dollars and export 70% of our products worldwide.
20 Evrochas Pty Ltd ЮАР We currently have 1000 MT of electrolytic copper cathodes grade A, ASTM B115/00. The Cu is in Dar es salaam (Tanzania and zambia) ready for inspection, customs clearance and export. We seek reliable buyers who can enter long-term contracts with us for regular deliveries. Our price is 3500 USD per MT and we accept LC and TT. Please contact us for more details.


text:
Meet Norman Cheung, Co-founder of Boxful
Lunch with Norman
Enjoy lunch with Norman, and hear his journey in jumping from the corporate world to founding two fast-growing and promising startups in China and Hong Kong
Norman co-founded Boxful, a by-the-box valet storage services with free door-to-door delivery in Hong Kong
Norman Cheung is the Co-Founder and CEO of Boxful.com, an on-demand mini-storage service for households and businesses in Hong Kong. Recently named by SCMP as one of the 5 most promising start-ups in the city, Boxful was launched as a lifestyle service to change the way people use their living and work space. The company has since disrupted the storage industry with its flexibility, convenience, and technology integration.
Prior to Boxful, Norman co-founded Zooq.com, a leading online fashion retailer based in Shanghai that carries over 100 international high street and designer brands, as well as several in-house private label brands. He began his career as a finance professional for 8 years at UBS and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Norman graduated from The London School of Economics with a degree in Management in 2004.
All volunteer hours must be completed during Jan - Apr 2016.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If you're looking for some quality workwear, you're probably not after something fashionable.
You'd rather have sturdy clothing that is ready to take some serious beating. Pants, overalls or jackets that will keep you warm even when it's more than cold outside. Convenient pockets and durable belt loops to hold all your tools and accessories.
Carhartt and Dickies are two brands that understand any contractor's needs well. For decades they have clothed generations of men and women from the trades. There's a reason they're still here – and still in booming business.
Which leads us to the BIG question: Is one better than the other?
For me – yes, indeed there is a winner. In most cases, Carhartt is a better choice.
For example, their take on classic duck pants stays true to the 'You get what you pay for' cliche. The quality and durability of the fabric are way ahead than Dickies.
However, there are some cases where Dickies clothing is sensible choice too.
Some trades involve more intensive work than others. Take steel workers or connectors for example – no matter what kind of pants you get, they will get trashed in no time. In other words, your workwear becomes disposable really fast.
This is one example when sticking to the more affordable Dickies is a sound strategy. Dickies also don't fade as easily as Carhartt clothing. Their denim stuff is – generally – also a good bang for your buck.
OK, let's look at these points one by one. I'd be glad if you could give me your opinion in the comments too.
#1 Are you looking for duck-cloth pants or overalls?
Recommendation: Carhartt, no doubt. Their classic dungaree is legendary.
Why: Yes, both brands use 12 ounce thick fabric. However, Carhartt's manufacture is better and more durable. The pockets and side pockets for your tools are bigger too. If you keep a lot of tools around, this is a must-have.
With pants, Carhartt belt loops are also reinforced and will withstand more wear and tear than the Dickies' equivalent. The latter definitely suffers from what I call the 'Pockets too narrow' syndrome!
For overalls, Carhartt's bib and its fit / overall design go a long way. For your safety and convenience, there's reinforced paneling at the knees so you skip on the dreaded bruising or irritation around the area when you kneel down.
As a whole, Carhartt justify their higher price tag with sturdier fabrics and more intelligent design. The process of organizing your tools is simply easier. However, make sure that you order a larger size than your usual!
#2 Are you stuck with working out there in the cold?
Recommendation: If the temperature is moderate, you can do well with the cheaper Dickies alternative. If it's very cold, Carhartt's lined Yukon workwear is unmatched.
Why: While Dickies is a good solution for milder weather, Carhartt's Yukon series was sewn to keep you warm in extreme conditions. And it also looks quite stylish, unlike other goofier winter workwear.
We're talking about a 1000-denier, ultra cozy, water-repellent champion! The pockets are spacious and in abundance – two upper chest ones, two inside pockets, two at the waist, a small sleeve pocket and two back pockets. Oh, and one pocket at each leg.
This is every contractor's paradise – all your accessories and tools in one pace!
The additionally reinforced polyester lining is arctic-weight.
A cheaper solution, Dickies premium insulated coverall still performs well. As long as it's not too cold!
It doesn't look remotely as sharp, and the zipper is a little bit clunky. However, for its price, it will provide you with protection and convenience without any fuss. Good amount of pockets too.
#3 Are you a woman in the trades?
Why: Including these overalls, Carhartt bibs fit way better and keep warmer. They're also more stylish with that curve around the waist, instead of the typical square-formed bib.
The only thing that they get worse than the Dickies equivalent is that they're hard to snap in the beginning.
As far as pants go, Dickies really makes mediocre women pants. Carhartt's best option here is their Crawford pants.
Mid-rise, stretchy and flexible (letting you move freely, instead of being stiff like a lot of other work pants.) The pockets might be a bit less in numbers, but the agility and freedom you get are worth it. Also, seaming work is well done!
As for Dickies, you can see that a lot of women seem a bit dissatisfied with their work pants here.
Recommendation: As I mentioned before, if you're looking for outerwear that fares well with low temperatures, go for Carhartt. They have a thermal lined duck jacket that is cozy, very flexible and wind-resistant plus water-repellent.
For regular use, Dickies actually have this sanded duck jacket which is an absolute bargain considering its price. It's soft, the lining is good quality, the seams are double needle reinforced, and unlike other Dickies' zippers, this one is darn good!
I'd say Dickies does things pretty well in the men's denim department. Well, mostly. Their overalls are great for the price, as is their work shirt all denim style.
I'd stick to Carhartt if you want denim work pants though. Their carpenter jeans are better than what Dickies have at hand.
The same applies for women work wear painted in this classic look. Carhartt also failing a bit in this department is rather surprising, but yet here we are.
Funnily enough, Carhartt is a completely different brand if you go overseas. In the UK (and Europe as a whole), they are more of a fashion brand!
Sure, a little bit more on the mundane side of things – nothing too fancy. Yet this would be quite a shock for many Americans (or Canadians) who have grown accustomed to the brand associating itself with workwear only.
So, remember – European Carhartt is not its North American equivalent!


text:
The 21st Canadian Film Awards were held on October 4, 1969 to honour achievements in Canadian film. The ceremony was hosted by Fred Davis.

The most historically unusual characteristic of the 1969 Canadian Film Awards was that not a single theatrical feature film was entered into competition. Several theatrical films whose directors had intended to submit them to the awards committee were not completed by the submission deadline, and a few feature films which had been submitted were deemed not of award-worthy quality. The award for Film of the Year was presented to the television film The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar, but the awards were otherwise presented solely in the non-feature categories.

Winners

Films
Film of the Year: The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar - National Film Board of Canada, John Kemeny and Barrie Howells producers, Peter Pearson director
Feature Film: Not awarded
Film Under 30 Minutes: At Home - Allan King Associates, Martin Lavut director
Film Over 30 Minutes: Vertige - National Film Board of Canada, Gilles Boivin and Clément Perron producers, Jean Beaudin director
Documentary Under 30 Minutes: Juggernaut - National Film Board of Canada, Walford Hewitson producer, Eugene Boyko director
Documentary Over 30 Minutes: Good Times Bad Times - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Donald Shebib producer and director
Animated: Walking - National Film Board of Canada, Ryan Larkin producer and director
TV Drama: The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar - National Film Board of Canada, John Kemeny and Barrie Howells producers, Peter Pearson director
TV Information: The Style Is the Man Himself - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Cameron Graham producer
Sports and Recreation: Les canots de glace (Ice Rally in Quebec) - Office du Film du Québec, Jean-Claude Labrecque producer
Public Relations: Rye on the Rocks - Westminster Films, Don Haldane producer
Sales Promotion: More Logs Follow the Leader - Peterson Productions, S. Dean Peterson producer

Technical Development and Innovation Awards
Warren Collins for Musical Chairs
Kar Liang and John Pley "for the application of computer control to animation stand cinematography".

Non-Feature Craft Awards
Performance by a Lead Actor: Chris Wiggins - The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar (NFB)
Performance by a Lead Actress: Jackie Burroughs - Dulcima (CBC)
Supporting Actor: Michael Posner - And No Birds Sing (University of Manitoba Students' Union)
Supporting Actress: Ruth Springford - Corwin: Does Anybody Here Know Denny? (CBC)
Art Direction: Michael Milne - The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar (NFB)
Black-and-White Cinematography: Tony Ianzelo - The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar (NFB)
Colour Cinematography: Réo Grégoire - Là ou Ailleurs (No Matter Where) (NFB)
Direction: Peter Pearson - The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar (NFB)
Film Editing: Michael McKennirey - The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar (NFB)
Sound Editing: Donald Shebib - Good Times Bad Times
Screenplay: Joan Finnigan - The Best Damn Fiddler from Calabogie to Kaladar (NFB)
Written Commentary: James Carney - In One Day (NFB)
Sound Recording: Hans Oomes - Saul Alinsky Went to War (NFB)
Sound Re-Recording: Ron Alexander - Les canots de glace (Office du Film du Québec)

Special Awards
Margot Kidder, "in recognition of an outstanding new talent for Corwin: Does Anybody Here Know Denny? (CBC)
Serge Gerand, "for outstanding original achievement in Motion Pictures scoring in Vertige".
John Drainie Award: Andrew Allan, for "distinguished service to broadcasting".
Wendy Michener Award: Jean-Claude Labrecque "for outstanding artistic achievement".

References

Canadian
Canadian Film Awards (1949–1978)
1969 in Canada

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Data (Star Trek)
Data on the bridge of the Enterprise-D
Home planet
Omicron Theta
United Federation of Planets
USS Trieste
USS Enterprise-D operations officer/second officer
USS Sutherland commanding officer (temporary)
USS Enterprise-E operations officer/second officer (films), commanding officer (Countdown comics)
Lieutenant Commander Data ( /ˈdeɪtə/ day-tə) is a character in the fictional Star Trek universe portrayed by actor Brent Spiner. He appears in the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation and the feature films Star Trek Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, and Star Trek Nemesis.[1]
Designed and built by Doctor Noonien Soong, Data is a sentient android who serves as the second officer and chief operations officer aboard the starships USS Enterprise-D and USS Enterprise-E. His positronic brain allows him impressive computational capabilities.[2] Data experienced ongoing difficulties during the early years of his life with understanding various aspects of human behavior[3] and was unable to feel emotion or understand certain human idiosyncrasies, inspiring him to strive for his own humanity. This goal eventually led to the addition of an "emotion chip", also created by Soong, to Data's positronic net.[4] Though Data's strive for humanity and desire for human emotion is a significant plot point (and source for humor) throughout the series, he continually shows a nuanced sense of wisdom, sensitivity, and curiosity.
Data is in many ways a successor to the original Star Trek's Spock (Leonard Nimoy), in that the character offers an "outsider's" perspective on humanity.[5]
Data has a storage capacity of 88.81784 PB (800 quadrillion bits) and a total linear computational speed of 60 THz (60 trillion operations per second).[2]
He also has an aging program which allows him to age in appearance if he wants that (TNG: Inheritance (7x10)).
2 Depiction
2.1 Characteristics
3 Spot
Gene Roddenberry told Brent Spiner that over the course of the series, Data was to become "more and more like a human until the end of the show, when he would be very close, but still not quite there. That was the idea and that's the way that the writers took it." Spiner felt that Data exhibited the Chaplinesque characteristics of a sad, tragic clown.[6] To get into his role as Data, Spiner used the character of Robbie the Robot from the film Forbidden Planet as a role model.[6] Commenting on Data's perpetual albino-like appearance, he said: "I spent more hours of the day in make-up than out of make-up", so much so that he even called it a way of method acting.[6] Spiner also portrayed Data's manipulative and malignant brother Lore (a role he found much easier to play, because the character was "more like me"),[6] and Data's creator, Dr. Noonien Soong. Additionally, he portrayed another Soong-type android, B-4, in the film Star Trek: Nemesis. Spiner said his favorite Data scene takes place in "Descent", when Data plays poker on the holodeck with a re-creation of the famous physicist Stephen Hawking, played by Hawking himself.[6]
Spiner reprised his role of Data in the Star Trek: Enterprise series finale "These Are the Voyages..." in an off-screen speaking part. Spiner felt that he had visibly aged out of the role and that Data was best presented as a youthful figure.[7]
Depiction
Dialog in "Datalore" establishes some of Data's backstory. It is stated that he was deactivated in 2336 on Omicron Theta before an attack by the Crystalline Entity, a spaceborne creature which converts life forms to energy for sustenance. He was found and reactivated by Starfleet personnel two years later. Data went to Starfleet Academy from 2341–45 (he describes himself as "Class of '78" to Riker in "Encounter at Farpoint", but that may refer to the stardate and not the year that he graduated) and then served in Starfleet aboard the USS Trieste.[8][9] He was assigned to the Enterprise under Captain Jean-Luc Picard in 2364. In "Datalore", Data discovers his amoral brother, Lore, and learns he was not the first android constructed by Soong. Lore fails in an attempt to betray the Enterprise to the Crystalline Entity, and Data beams his brother into space at the episode's conclusion.
In "Brothers", Data reunites with Dr. Soong (also portrayed by Spiner). There he meets again with Lore, who steals the emotion chip Soong meant for Data to receive. Lore then fatally wounds Soong. Lore returns in the two-part episode "Descent", using the emotion chip to control Data and make him help with Lore's attempt to make the Borg entirely artificial life forms. Data eventually deactivates Lore, and recovers, but does not install the damaged emotion chip.
The episode "In Theory" traces Data's literary roots to Isaac Asimov's and Philip K. Dick's exploration of the nature of artificial intelligence and the nature of reality and humanity. The episode reflects the ideas created in such works as Bicentennial Man and Asimov's Robot Series (which introduced the Three Laws Of Robotics).
In "The Measure of a Man", Data is legally declared an autonomous individual, as opposed to Starfleet property.[10]
In "All Good Things...", the two-hour concluding episode of The Next Generation, Captain Picard travels between three different times. The Picard of 25 years into the future goes with La Forge to seek advice from Professor Data, a luminary physicist who holds the Lucasian Chair at Cambridge University.
Although several androids, robots and artificial intelligences were seen in the original Star Trek series, Data was often referred to as being unique in the universe as being the only sentient android known to exist (save the other androids created by Soong).[11]
In the film Star Trek Generations, Data finally installs the emotion chip he retrieved from Lore, and experiences the full scope of emotions.
In the film Star Trek Nemesis, Data beams Picard off an enemy ship before destroying it, sacrificing himself, saving the captain and crew of the Enterprise.
Data is immune to nearly all biological diseases and other weaknesses that can affect humans and other carbon-based lifeforms. This benefits the Enterprise many times, such as when Data is the only crew member unaffected by the inability to dream and the only member to be unaffected by the stun ray that knocked the crew out for a day. One exception however was in the episode "The Naked Now" where Data was also a victim of the Tsiolkovsky polywater virus. Data does not require life support to function and does not register a bio-signature. The crew of the Enterprise-D must modify their scanners to detect positronic signals in order to locate and keep track of him on away-missions. Another unique feature of Data's construction is the ability to be dismantled and then re-assembled for later use. This is used as a plot element in the episode Time's Arrow where a copy of Data's head (an artifact excavated on Earth from the late 19th century) is attached to his body in the future.
Data is vulnerable to technological hazards such as computer viruses, certain levels of energy discharges, ship malfunctions (when connected to the Enterprise main computer for experiments), remote control shutdown devices, or through use of his "off switch." Data has also been "possessed" through technological means such as; Ira Graves' transfer of consciousness into his neural net, Dr. Soong's "calling" him, and an alien library that placed several different personalities into him. Data cannot swim unless aided by his built in flotation device, yet he is waterproof and can perform tasks underwater without the need to surface. Data is also impervious to sensory tactile emotion such as pain or pleasure. In Star Trek: First Contact the Borg Queen grafted artificial skin to his forearm. Data was then able to feel pain when a Borg drone slashed at his arm, and pleasure when the Borg Queen blew on the skin's hair follicles. Despite being mechanical in nature, Data is treated as an equal member of the Enterprise crew. Being a mechanical construct, technicians such as Chief Engineer Geordi LaForge prove to be more appropriate to treat his mechanical or cognitive function failures than the ship's doctor. His positronic brain becomes deactivated, and then repaired and reactivated by Geordi on several occasions.
Data is physically the strongest member of the Enterprise crew, and - in terms of his ability to process and calculate information rapidly - the most intelligent member as well. He is able to survive in atmospheres which most carbon-based life forms would consider inhospitable, as well as in the lack of an atmosphere or the vacuum of space (the only other Star Trek main characters with the ability to survive the vacuum of outer space are Odo and USS Voyager's EMH Mark 1). However, as an android, he is the most emotionally challenged, and with the addition of Dr. Soong's emotions chip, the most emotionally unstable member of the crew. Before the emotions chip, Data was unable to grasp basic emotion and imagination, leading him to download personality subroutines into his programming when participating in holographic recreational activities (most notably during Dixon Hill and Sherlock Holmes holoprograms) and during romantic encounters (most notably with Tasha Yar and Jenna D'Sora). Yet none of those personalities are his own and are immediately put away at the conclusion of their usefulness. Also, the abilities of Data's hearing are explained in the episodes The Schizoid Man and A Matter of Time where his hearing is more sensitive than a dog's and that he can identify several hundred different distinct sound patterns simultaneously, but for aesthetics purposes limits it to about ten.
Because of Julianna Soong's inability to conceive children, Data has at least five robotic siblings (two of which are Lore and B4). Later on, his "mother" is revealed also to be his positronic sister as the real Julianna Soong died and was replaced with an identical Soong Type android, the most advanced one that Dr. Soong was known to have built. Data constructed a daughter, which he named Lal (Hindi for "beloved") in the episode The Offspring. This particular android exceeded her father in basic human emotion when she felt fear toward Starfleet's scientific interests in her. Eventually, this was the cause of a cascade failure in her neural net and she died as a result.
Spot is Data's pet cat and a recurring character in the show. Spot appears in several episodes during TNG's last four seasons, first appearing in "Data's Day". Spot also appears in the feature films Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: Nemesis.
Despite the name, Spot is not actually patterned with spots. Spot originally appears as a male Somali cat, but later appears as a female orange tabby house cat,[12] eventually giving birth to kittens (TNG: "Genesis"). The authors of the Star Trek Encyclopedia jokingly speculate that these inconsistencies can be explained by the idea that Spot is a shape-shifter or victim of a transporter accident (depending on which edition of the Encyclopedia one reads).[citation needed]
Data creates several hundred food supplement variations for Spot and composes the poem "Ode to Spot" in the cat's honor ("Schisms"). (The poem was actually written by Clay Dale, the visual effects artist.[citation needed]) A computer error later causes some of the ship's food replicators to create only Spot's supplements and replaces portions of a play with the ode's text ("A Fistful of Datas").[citation needed]
In "Genesis", the morphogenetic virus "Barclay's protomorphosis disease" temporarily mutates Spot into an iguana-like reptile.[citation needed]
Spot is notoriously unfriendly to most people other than Data. Commander William Riker once received serious scratches while trying to feed Spot ("Timescape"). Geordi La Forge borrowed her to experience taking care of a cat, but she knocked over a vase and teapot and damaged his furniture ("Force of Nature"). When Data asked Worf to take care of Spot, Worf proved to be allergic to her and sneezed in her face, angering her ("Phantasms"). However, she did get along with Lieutenant Reginald Barclay, so when Data had to leave on a mission at the same time Spot's kittens were due, he persuaded Barclay to take care of her ("Genesis"). After Data died, it was mentioned in a deleted scene of Star Trek: Nemesis that Worf is now taking care of her on board the Enterprise.[citation needed]
Like Spock,[13] Data became a sex symbol and Spiner's fan mail came mostly from women. He descibed the letters as "romantic mail" that was "really written to Data; he's a really accessible personality".[14]
Robotics engineers regard Data (along with the Droids from the Star Wars movies) as the pre-eminent face of robots in the public's perception of their field.[15] On April 9, 2008, Data was inducted into Carnegie Mellon University's Robot Hall of Fame during a ceremony at the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[16]
The Beat Fleet, a Croatian hip hop band, wrote a song called "Data" for their album Galerija Tutnplok dedicated to Data.[17] The release of this album coincided with reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation being shown on Croatian Radiotelevision. In 2005, the nerdcore group The Futuristic Sex Robotz released a song about Data entitled "The Positronic Pimp." [18]
^ Lee, Luaine. "A Data with Star Trek again". 9 January 2003. The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=3050422. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
^ a b TNG: "The Measure of a Man"
^ TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"
^ TNG: "Descent, Part II", "Star Trek: Generations"
^ Nemeck, Larry (2003). Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion. Pocket Books. ISBN 0-7434-5798-6.
^ a b c d e Lt. Commander Data visits the Honesty Bar: an Interview with BRENT SPINER
^ Brent Spiner Rules Out Star Trek XI
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clues_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29
^ http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Clues
^ Actually the ruling was that "[Data] has the right to choose [whether or not to submit to an ill-advised experiment involving his disassembly]". It does not mean that Data was declared, as a matter of law, human, with the full panoply of human rights, because this was not explicity stated in the ruling.
^ See the Star Trek: The Next Generation novel Immortal Coil, which explains what happened to all of these in the timeframe between the original series Star Trek and The Next Generation and how they relate to Data and Dr. Soong's other androids.
^ Okuda, Michael; Okuda, Denise. "S". The Star Trek Encyclopedia. Debbie Mirek. Pocket Books. pp. 460. ISBN 0671536095.
^ Kleiner, Dick (1967-12-04). "Mr. Spock's Trek To Stardom". Warsaw Times-Union. Newspaper Enterprise Association (Warsaw, Indiana): p. 7. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=B7dGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tHsMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3727,498929. Retrieved May 07, 2011.
^ Dubois, Stephanie (1990-10-29). "TREKKIES SWOON FOR ANDROID AS SHOW ENTERS NEXT WARP". Orlando Sentinel. Tribune Media Services: pp. A2.
^ James M. Conrad, Stiquito for Beginners: An Introduction to Robotics Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Pr; Book and Access edition (December 27, 1999), page 2, ISBN 0-8186-7514-4
^ "Science center honors robots". The Pitt News. 2008-04-10. http://pittnews.com/newsstory/science-center-honors-robots/. Retrieved 2010-07-18. "The Robot Hall of Fame inducted four new robots: Lt. Cmdr. Data from "Star Trek: The Next Generation," LEGO Mindstorms, NavLab 5 and Raibert Hopper."
^ Hip Hop Unity: TBF - Galerija Tutnplok. Fetched on Feb 23rd 2009.
^ "The Positronic Pimp". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qar0unFwm2I.
Lois H. Gresh & Robert Weinberg, Chapter 6, "Data" The Computers of Star Trek. New York: Basic Books (1999): 105 - 125
Data at Memory Alpha (a Star Trek wiki)
Data's biography at the official Star Trek website
[1] a review of the Star Trek: Countdown comics, with Cpt Data
An Android for All Seasons. Star Trek's science consultant Andre Bormanis about the creation of Data.
Spot at Memory Alpha (a Star Trek wiki)
Data at the Internet Movie Database
Data at Memory Beta
v · d · eStar Trek: The Next Generation
Primary characters
Beverly Crusher · Wesley Crusher · Data · Geordi La Forge · Jean-Luc Picard · Katherine Pulaski · William Riker · Deanna Troi · Worf · Tasha Yar
Generations · First Contact · Insurrection · Nemesis
Episodes · DVD releases · Recurring characters · USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) · USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) · "These Are the Voyages..."
Category:Star Trek
v · d · eStar Trek
Characters · Episodes (Season 1 · 2 · 3)
Christine Chapel · Pavel Chekov · James T. Kirk · Leonard McCoy · Janice Rand · Montgomery Scott · Spock · Hikaru Sulu · Uhura
The Animated Series
Episodes (Season 1 · 2)
Arex · Christine Chapel · James T. Kirk · M'Ress · Leonard McCoy · Montgomery Scott · Spock · Hikaru Sulu · Uhura
Characters · Episodes (Season 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7)
Beverly Crusher · Wesley Crusher · Data · Geordi La Forge · Jean-Luc Picard · Katherine Pulaski · Q · William Riker · Deanna Troi · Worf · Tasha Yar
Julian Bashir · Ezri Dax · Jadzia Dax · Dukat · Kira Nerys · Miles O'Brien · Odo · Quark · Benjamin Sisko · Jake Sisko · Worf
Chakotay · The Doctor · Kathryn Janeway · Kes · Harry Kim · Neelix · Tom Paris · Seven of Nine · B'Elanna Torres · Tuvok
Characters · Episodes (Season 1 · 2 · 3 · 4)
Jonathan Archer · Travis Mayweather · Phlox · Malcolm Reed · Hoshi Sato · T'Pol · Charles "Trip" Tucker III
The Motion Picture · The Wrath of Khan · The Search for Spock · The Voyage Home · The Final Frontier · The Undiscovered Country · Generations · First Contact · Insurrection · Nemesis · Star Trek
Games · Literature (Novels · Comics · Reference books) · Documentaries (Trekkies · Trekkies 2)
Characters · Prime Directive · Alien races (Klingons · Romulans · Vulcans · Borg) · United Federation of Planets · Timeline · Stardates · Ships · Starfleet · USS Enterprise · USS Defiant · USS Voyager · Deep Space Nine · Weapons · 'u' (Klingon opera) · Mirror Universe · Ranks and insignia · Uniforms
Canon · Cultural influence · Fan productions · Fandom · Medicine · Physics · Sexuality · Production staff (Gene Roddenberry) · Star Trek: The Experience · Star Trek the Exhibition · Star Trek: Phase II · Trekkie · Comparison to Star Wars
Book · Category · Portal · WikiProject
Star Trek: The Next Generation characters
Star Trek film characters
Starfleet officers
Fictional characters with superhuman strength
Fictional commanders
Fictional lieutenant commanders
Fictional actors
Fictional singers
Fictional violinists
Fictional artists
Fictional poets
Fictional robots
Fictional scientists
Fictional artificial intelligences
Fictional twins
Starfleet lieutenant commanders
Starfleet commanders
Fictional characters introduced in 1987
Fictional androids
Robot Hall of Fame
Hawker Pacific Aerospace
Data (Star Trek) — Data Personnage de fiction apparaissant dans Star Trek Naissance 2338 Origine Rendez vous à Farpoint ( … Wikipédia en Français
Data (Star Trek) — Dieser Artikel oder Abschnitt bedarf einer Überarbeitung. Näheres ist auf der Diskussionsseite angegeben. Hilf mit, ihn zu verbessern, und entferne anschließend diese Markierung. Dieser Artikel beschreibt die wichtigsten Personen im Universum von … Deutsch Wikipedia
Star Trek: la nueva generación — Para ver otros usos de Star Trek, ver Star Trek (desambiguación). Star Trek: The Next Generation Logo de Star Trek: la nueva generación Título Star Trek: la nueva generación Viaje a las estrellas: la nueva generación … Wikipedia Español
Star Trek : Nemesis — Star Trek : Nemesis Données clés Titre original Star Trek: Nemesis Réalisation Stuart Baird Scénario John Logan Rick Berman Brent Spiner Acteurs principaux Patrick Stewart Jo … Wikipédia en Français
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country — Theatrical release poster by John Alvin Directed by Nicholas Meyer … Wikipedia
Star Trek — (Deutsch: "Sternenreise", "Reise durchs All") ist der übergreifende Titel für sechs Science Fiction Fernsehserien mit insgesamt 726 Episoden sowie für elf Kinofilme, zahlreiche Romane, Computerspiele und andere Werke, deren Inhalte auf der 1966… … Deutsch Wikipedia
Star Trek: Nemesis — Star Trek : Nemesis Star Trek : Nemesis est un film de science fiction réalisé par Stuart Baird en 2002. Star Trek : Nemesis Titre original Star Trek Nemesis Réalisation Stuart Baird Acteurs principaux Patrick Stewart Jonathan Frakes… … Wikipédia en Français
Star Trek Nemesis — Star Trek : Nemesis Star Trek : Nemesis est un film de science fiction réalisé par Stuart Baird en 2002. Star Trek : Nemesis Titre original Star Trek Nemesis Réalisation Stuart Baird Acteurs principaux Patrick Stewart Jonathan Frakes… … Wikipédia en Français
Star Trek X — Star Trek : Nemesis Star Trek : Nemesis est un film de science fiction réalisé par Stuart Baird en 2002. Star Trek : Nemesis Titre original Star Trek Nemesis Réalisation Stuart Baird Acteurs principaux Patrick Stewart Jonathan Frakes… … Wikipédia en Français
Star trek : nemesis — Star Trek : Nemesis est un film de science fiction réalisé par Stuart Baird en 2002. Star Trek : Nemesis Titre original Star Trek Nemesis Réalisation Stuart Baird Acteurs principaux Patrick Stewart Jonathan Frakes Brent Spiner LeVar… … Wikipédia en Français


text:
Archive for the 'Arbitration as a Matter of Consent' Category
2018-2019 Term SCOTUS Arbitration Cases: What About Lamps Plus?
June 20th, 2019 Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Class Action Arbitration, Clause Construction Award, Consent to Class Arbitration, Contract Interpretation, Contract Interpretation Rules, Drafting Arbitration Agreements, FAA Preemption of State Law, Federal Policy in Favor of Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court 2 Comments »
On April 24, 2019 in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-998 (April 24, 2019), the United States Supreme Court considered whether whether consent to class arbitration may be inferred from ambiguous contract language.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. the Court held that ambiguity in and of itself was not enough to infer party consent to class arbitration. Parties would have to clearly express their consent to class arbitration before courts could impose it on them under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Does a Clear and Unmistakable Delegation Provision Require the Parties to Arbitrate Disputes About the Existence of an Arbitration Agreement?
April 27th, 2019 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration and Mediation FAQs, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Authority of Arbitrators, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Separability, Severability, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Supreme Court No Comments »
Parties can, and frequently do, agree to include in their contract a so-called
"Delegation Provision" that clearly and unmistakably delegates to the arbitrators questions of arbitrability. (See, e.g., Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum posts here, here, here, and here.) Questions of arbitrability include questions concerning: (a) the scope of an arbitration agreement, that is, whether the parties agreed to arbitrate particular disputes or categories of disputes; (b) the validity or enforceability of an arbitration agreement "upon upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract[,]" 9 U.S.C. § 2; or (c) whether an arbitration agreement has been formed or concluded, that is, whether an arbitration agreement exists in the first place. (See Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum post here.)
Typically, a "delegation provision" states in clear and unmistakable terms that arbitrability questions are to be decided by the arbitrators. For example, by making part of their contract Rule 8.1 of the 2018 version of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR)'s Non-administered Arbitration Rules, parties agree to the following broad Delegation Provision:
Rule 8: Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
8.1 The Tribunal shall have the power to hear and determine challenges to its jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement. This authority extends to jurisdictional challenges with respect to both the subject matter of the dispute and the parties to the arbitration.
CPR Non-Administered Arbitration Rule 8.1 (2018) (emphasis added).
Who Gets to Decide whether the Parties Entered into a Delegation Provision?
Suppose that Agent A, without the knowledge and consent of Party A, purports to bind Party A to a written contract with Party B, which includes a broad arbitration agreement that expressly incorporates by reference, and makes part of the purported contract, the 2018 version of CPR's Non-administered Arbitration Rules. Party B and Agent A deal with each other concerning the subject matter of the contract, and a dispute arises.
Party B demands arbitration of the dispute, and serves an arbitration demand on Party A, who is understandably surprised at being named a party in an arbitration proceeding concerning a purported agreement of which it had no knowledge, objects to the arbitration demand, and Party B commences an action to compel arbitration.
In the proceeding to compel arbitration, Party A argues that Agent A had no actual or apparent authority to bind it to the agreement that contained the arbitration agreement. Party B responds that because the Delegation Clause made part of the agreement requires arbitration of issues concerning the "existence" of the arbitration agreement, Party A must arbitrate the issue of whether Agent A had authority to bind it to the agreement.
Must Party A arbitrate the issue whether Agent A had authority to bind it to the agreement because the agreement contains a Delegation Provision? If the only consideration were the text of Rule 8.1, then the answer would be "yes."
Can Arbitrators Exceed their Powers by Making an Award in Manifest Disregard of the Parties' Agreement?
April 17th, 2019 Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Contract Interpretation, Contract Interpretation Rules, Exceeding Powers, Grounds for Vacatur, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Outcome Risk, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, United States Supreme Court, Vacatur Comments Off on Can Arbitrators Exceed their Powers by Making an Award in Manifest Disregard of the Parties' Agreement?
Suppose arbitrators decide an issue within the scope of their authority but do so in manifest disregard the parties' contract. Do they exceed their authority by making an award that has not even a barely colorable basis in the parties' contract or in applicable law?
The answer to that question, is, of course, "yes," and over the years we've discussed in a number of posts how arbitrators can exceed their powers under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) or Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act by making awards in manifest disregard of the parties' agreement. (See Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum Posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.) As discussed in those posts, the U.S. Supreme Court has on multiple occasions ruled that commercial and labor arbitrators can exceed their powers by making an award that manifestly disregards—or does not "draw its essence" from—the parties' agreement. See Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Inc., 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1768-70 (2010); Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S.Ct. 2064, 2067, 2068 (2013); Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000); Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599 (1960); Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987).
In our April 12, 2019 post (here) we reviewed how it is that the limited review powers courts have to vacate commercial and labor arbitration awards are designed to provide a limited, but very important, safety net to protect parties against egregious, material violations of arbitration agreements. Without that limited protection, the risks associated with agreeing to arbitrate would be intolerably high and parties would be much less apt to opt for arbitration over court litigation.
Courts vacate arbitration awards where arbitrators act outside the scope of their authority by ruling on issues that the parties did not agree to submit to them. That's what happened in Brock Indus. Servs., LLC v. Laborers' Int'l Union., __ F.3d ___, No. 17-2597, slip op. (7th Cir. April 8, 2019), which we discussed in our April 12, 2019 post here.
But to obtain vacatur of an award based on manifest disregard of the agreement, however, an award challenger must satisfy an exceedingly demanding standard. We've addressed the parameters of that standard in a number of other posts. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Our blog has also tried to give a feel for how Courts apply (or are supposed to apply) the standard by comparing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen, which held that an award should be vacated for manifest disregard of the agreement, to the Supreme Court decision in Oxford, which held that an award should not be vacated under that manifest disregard standard. (See Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum posts here, here, and here.) And from time-to-time we've reported on other cases that have applied the standard.
While challenges to awards based on manifest disregard of the agreement are not uncommon, a very large majority of those challenges are either virtually certain to fail or at least highly unlikely to succeed. It is a relatively small universe of remaining, close cases that pose the biggest challenges for parties and courts.
Today we'll look at one of those close cases, which was decided by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and explain why the case failed to satisfy the demanding standard, even though, at least at first glance, it may be difficult to square the arbitration award with the parties' agreement.
If an Arbitration Panel Rules on an Issue the Parties did not Agree to Submit to that Panel, Should a Court Vacate the Award?
April 12th, 2019 Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Vacated, Awards, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 3, Federal Policy in Favor of Arbitration, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Vacatur 2 Comments »
Introduction: Arbitration as a Way to Resolve those Disputes—and Only those Disputes—Parties Submit to Arbitrators
The "first principle" of labor and commercial arbitration law is that "arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion" —put differently, arbitration "is a way to resolve those disputes—but only those disputes—that the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration." Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 678-80 (2010) (citation and quotations omitted); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995) (citations omitted); Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 295 & n.7, 294 n.6 (2010); AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U. S. 643, 648 (1986). That first principle is integrally intertwined with "the central or primary purpose of the [Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")][,]" which is "to ensure that private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms."Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 679 (citations and quotations omitted).
What happens if the parties agree to submit one category of disputes to a two-person arbitration panel and to submit another category of disputes to a three-person panel?
Arbitrability of Arbitrability Questions: the Second Circuit Pushes Back (a little)
April 3rd, 2019 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Contract Interpretation, Contract Interpretation Rules, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Stay of Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007
In a January 16, 2019 post (here) on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schein v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ____, slip op. (January 8, 2019), we explained that arbitrability questions are ordinarily for courts to decide, but parties may, by way of a "delegation provision," clearly and unmistakably agree to submit them to arbitration. See, e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942-46 (1995); Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 2777 (2010). (See also Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum posts here, here, and here.)
Typically, a "delegation provision" states in clear and unmistakable terms that arbitrability questions are to be decided by the arbitrators. It might, for example, state that the parties agree to submit to arbitrators questions concerning their "jurisdiction," or the "existence, scope, or validity" of the arbitration agreement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, does not require the parties to expressly state in their agreement that they agree to submit arbitrability questions to the arbitrators. The Second Circuit has found that the parties may "clearly and unmistakably" submit arbitrability questions to arbitration when they agree to a very broad arbitration clause. See Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, 884 F.3d 392, 394, 396 (2d Cir. 2018) (An agreement "to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between you and Wells Fargo Advisors, or a client, or any other person[, and] . . . giving up the right to sue Wells Fargo Advisors . . . in court concerning matters related to or arising from your employment" "demonstrate[d] the parties' clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate all questions of arbitrability."); PaineWebber Inc. v. Bybyk, 81 F.3d 1193, 1199 (2d Cir. 1996) (A contractual provision that "any and all controversies . . . concerning any account, transaction, dispute or the construction, performance, or breach of this or any other agreement . . . shall be determined by arbitration" and that "the parties are waiving their right to seek remedies in court" clearly and unmistakably demonstrated "parties' intent to arbitrate all issues, including arbitrability.") (emphasis omitted); Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management, Inc. v. Schaffran, 445 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2006) (NASD Code Rule 10324, which authorized arbitrators "to interpret and determine the applicability of all provisions under [the] Code[]" was a clear and unmistakable delegation to arbitrators of arbitrability questions concerning interpretation of the NASD Code.).
In Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bucsek, No. 17-881, slip op. (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2019), the Second Circuit was faced with an unusual situation where party A sought to arbitrate against party B, a former member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA")'s predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD"), a dispute arising out of events that occurred years after party B severed its ties with the NASD.
The district court rejected A's arguments, ruling that: (a) this particular arbitrability question was for the Court to decide; and (b) the dispute was not arbitrable because it arose years after B left the NASD, and was based on events that occurred subsequent to B's departure. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.
After the district court decision, but prior to the Second Circuit's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Schein, which—as we explained here—held that even so-called "wholly-groundless" arbitrability questions must be submitted to arbitration if the parties clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability questions to arbitration. Schein, slip op. at *2, 5, & 8.
The Second Circuit faced a situation where a party sought to arbitrate a dispute which clearly was not arbitrable, but in circumstances under which prior precedent, including Alliance Berstein (cited above), suggested that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.
To give effect to the parties' likely intent that they did not agree to arbitrate arbitrability questions that arose after B left the NASD, the Second Circuit had no choice but distinguish and qualify its prior precedent without falling afoul of the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in Schein. That required the Second Circuit to modify, to at least some extent, the contractual interpretation analysis that courts within the Second Circuit are supposed to engage to ascertain whether parties "clearly and unmistakably" agreed to arbitrate arbitrability in circumstance where they have not specifically agreed to arbitrate such issues.
Metropolitan Life is an important decision because it means in future cases where parties have not expressly agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions, but have agreed to a very broad arbitration agreement, the question whether the parties' have nevertheless clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions may turn, at least in part, on an analysis of the merits of the arbitrability question presented.
It is easy to see how applying Metropolitan Life in future cases could raise some interesting and challenging questions for parties, their attorneys, and the courts. We may look at those challenges in more detail in a future post, but for now, let's take a careful look at the Second Circuit's decision.
Up Narrow Arbitration Clause Creek without a Papalote?—Narrow Arbitration Clauses and the Difference between Interpretation and Performance
March 26th, 2019 Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Policy in Favor of Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Presumption of Arbitrability, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1 Comment »
Hang Glider or Papalote
I am told "papalote" is a Spanish word meaning "kite" or "hang glider." It also appears in the name of a party to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning narrow arbitration clauses, Papalote Creek II, L.L.C. v. Lower Colo. River Auth., No. 17-50852, slip op. (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019) ("Papalote II"). The party was Papalote Creek II, L.L.C. ("Papalote"). It won the appeal.
What was the appeal about? Narrow arbitration clauses, and in particular whether a dispute about maximum, aggregate liability under a wind-energy purchase and sale contract was a dispute "with respect to performance" within the meaning of the parties' narrow arbitration clause.
The appeal was not the first, but the second, and the procedural history was tangled, both in terms of what transpired in the disputed arbitration and in the district court. The first appeal, Papalote I, resulted in a remand because at the time the district court compelled arbitration, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The issue on which the arbitration proponent sought arbitration was not ripe, even though it became ripe during the time Papalote I was pending. See Lower Colo. River Auth. v. Papalote Creek II, L.L.C., 858 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2017) ("Papalote I").
By the time Papalote I was decided, the arbitration panel had ruled against Papalote, the arbitration opponent. But Papalote I obligated the district court to vacate the arbitration award and to reconsider the issue of whether arbitration should be compelled under the narrow arbitration clause.
On remand the district court adhered to its previous decision that the dispute fell within the scope of the narrow arbitration clause, which resulted in another order to compel arbitration and the second appeal, Papalote II.
On the second appeal the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on arbitrability, ruling that the dispute was not about "performance," but about "interpretation." Going forward that means that the parties will either have to settle their dispute or litigate it in court, even though they've both no doubt already spent not only a good deal of time, but money, litigating about arbitration, and arbitrating a dispute they did not mutually consent to arbitrate. (Perhaps for Papalote that's not necessarily a bad outcome, but it's just speculation on our part.)
Bottom line: Irrespective of whether the parties considered the potential consequences associated with their narrow arbitration clause, at least one of them (and perhaps even both) may, at least to some extent, now feel like they're up that proverbial creek without a paddle—or even a papalote….
This post takes a closer look at Papalote II, focusing exclusively on the issue whether the dispute fell within or without the scope of the parties' narrow arbitration clause.
Narrow Arbitration Clauses: Papalote II Background
In Papalote II the Fifth Circuit held that a narrow arbitration clause that covered disputes about the "performance" of a contract did not cover a dispute concerning the meaning of an aggregate liability provision in a wind-energy contract. That dispute, said the Court, concerned the interpretation of the contract, not its performance, and therefore the arbitration opponent was not required to submit it to arbitration.
Federal Arbitration Act Section 1: SCOTUS Says Courts Decide Whether FAA Applies to Contract and this Time Answer is "No"
January 25th, 2019 Appellate Practice, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Separability, Severability, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from the FAA's scope disputes involving "contracts of employment of . . . workers engaged in . . . interstate commerce." 9 U. S. C. § 1. If parties to an arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, who decides whether a contract containing the arbitration agreement is such a "contract of employment?"
In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. ___, slip op. (Jan. 15, 2019), the nation's highest court held that courts decide whether a contract is within the scope of the FAA's coverage, even where the parties clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. Slip op. at 4. Addressing the merits of the FAA's applicability to the contract, the United States Supreme Court held that under Section 1 it was exempt from the FAA because in 1925, the year Congress enacted the FAA, the term "contracts of employment" was ordinarily understood to include not only contracts establishing an employer-employee (or master and servant) relationship, but also independent contractor relationships. Slip op. at 15.
Who gets to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies to the parties' agreement?
Today we'll focus on the first issue addressed by the Court: who gets to decide whether a contract falls within the Section 1 "contracts of employment" exemption when the parties have delegated arbitrability disputes to the arbitrators. In a later post we'll look at how the Court decided the contract before it was under Section 1 a "contract of employment of a "worker[] engaged in interstate commerce[,]" and thus outside the scope of the FAA.
Dispute between a trucker and a trucking company
New Prime was a dispute between a truck driver and a trucking company. The relationship between the two was established by a written contract which, at least in form, established an independent contractor, rather than an employer-employee relationship. The contract contained an arbitration clause which provided that "any disputes arising out of the parties' relationship should be resolved by an arbitrator—even disputes over the scope of the arbitrator 's authority." Slip op. at 1-2.
The trucker commenced a federal-court class action, which alleged that, irrespective of what the trucking company called its drivers, the trucking company "treat[ed] them as employees and fail[ed] to pay the statutorily due minimum wage." Slip op. at 2.
The trucking company asked the district court to compel arbitration of the dispute. In response the trucker contended that his contract was outside the scope of the FAA because it was a "contract[] of employment of . . . [a] worker[] engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 1. Thus, said the trucker, the FAA "supplied the district court with no authority to compel arbitration…." Slip op. at 2.
The trucking company replied that the parties had agreed to submit to arbitration the question whether the Section 1 "contracts of employment" exemption applied to the contract. The trucking company alternatively contended that, if the question was for the Court, then the term "'contracts of employment' refers only to contracts that establish an employer-employee relationship[,]" and the trucker was an independent contractor, not an employee, of the trucking company. Accordingly, said the trucking company, the Section 1 exclusion did not apply, the FAA applied, and the Court should stay the litigation and compel arbitration under FAA Sections 3 and 4. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 & 4; slip op. at 2-3.
The district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found in favor of the trucker. The First Circuit "held, first, that in disputes like this a court should resolve whether the parties' contract falls within the Act's ambit or [Section 1's] exclusion before invoking the [FAA's] authority to order arbitration." Slip op. at 3. The First Circuit further "held that [Section 1's] exclusion of certain 'contracts of employment' removes from the Act's coverage not only employer-employee contracts but also contracts involving independent contractors." Slip op. at 3. Accordingly, irrespective of whether the parties' agreement established an employer-employee or independent contractor relationship, the district court lacked FAA authority to compel arbitration. Slip op. at 3.
In an 8-0 Opinion written by Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the First Circuit's decision (Associate Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh took no part). Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a brief concurring opinion.
The Court Must Decide Whether Section 1 Exempts the Contract from the FAA's Scope
The Broad Authority the FAA Confers on Courts does not Extend to All Private Contracts
SCOTUS: Judicial authority to compel arbitration under the FAA "may be considerable[,]" but it is not "unconditional"
The answer to the "who" question was "immediately" "clear" to the Court. Slip op. at 3. Though "a court's authority under the [FAA] to compel arbitration may be considerable, it isn't unconditional." Slip op. at 3. FAA Sections 3 and 4 "often require a court to stay litigation and compel arbitration 'according to the terms' of the parties' agreement[,]" "[b]ut this authority doesn't extend to all private contracts, no matter how emphatically they may express a preference for arbitration." Slip op. at 3.
Section 1 and Section 2 are Antecedent Provisions that Limit Judicial Power to Stay Litigation and Compel Arbitration under Sections 3 and 4
Court must apply FAA Sections 1 and 2 to determine whether it has the authority to stay litigation or compel arbitration under Sections 3 and 4
Sections 1 and 2, the Court explained, are "antecedent statutory provisions" that "limit the scope of the scope of the court's powers under [Sections] 3 and 4." Slip op. at 3. Section 2 "applies only when the parties' agreement to arbitrate is set forth as a 'written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce.'" Slip op. at 3. Section 1, which "helps define [Section] 2's terms[,]" provides that "'nothing' in the [FAA] 'shall apply' to 'contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.'" Slip op. at 3-4 (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 1).
According to the Court, Section 1's exemption was included in the FAA, which was enacted in 1925, because "Congress had already prescribed alternative employment dispute resolution regimes for many transportation workers[,]" [a]nd it seems Congress 'did not wish to unsettle' those arrangements in favor of whatever arbitration procedures the parties' private contracts might happen to contemplate." Slip op. at (quoting Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 121 (2001)).
The FAA's "Terms and Sequencing" Demonstrates that under Section 1 Courts Decide whether a Contract Falls Under the FAA
The FAA's "terms and sequencing" supported the Court's conclusion that "a court should decide for itself whether [Section] 1's 'contracts of employment' exclusion applies before ordering arbitration." Slip op. at 4. Before a Court can "invoke its statutory powers under [Sections] 3 and 3 to stay litigation and compel arbitration according to a contract's terms, a court must first know whether the contract itself falls within or beyond the boundaries of [Sections] 1 and 2." Slip op. at 4. That is so even if the "parties' private agreement [is] crystal clear and require[s] arbitration of every question under the sun…." See slip op. at 4.
The Court's Prior Decisions have Stressed the Significance of the FAA's "Sequencing"
SCOTUS says its "holding" should come as no "surprise[,]" because its prior decisions require that a contract fall within the scope of Sections 1 and 2 before litigation may be stayed or arbitration compelled under Sections 3 or 4.
The Court said "[n]othing in our holding on this score should come as a surprise[,]" because the Court has "long stressed the significance of the statute's sequencing." By way of example the Court cited and quoted Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U. S. 198, 201–202 (1956), Circuit City, and Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 10–11, and n. 5 (1984). In Bernhardt the Court explained that "'Sections 1, 2, and 3 [and 4] are integral parts of a whole. . . . [Sections] 1 and 2 define the field in which Congress was legislating,' and §§3 and 4 apply only to contracts covered by those provisions." Slip op. at 4 (quoting Benhardt, 350 U.S. at 201-202). In Circuit City, the Court "acknowledged that 'Section 1 exempts from the [Act] . . . contracts of employment of transportation workers.'" Slip op. at 4 (quoting Circuit City, 532 U. S., at 119). In Keating the Court "noted that 'the enforceability of arbitration provisions' under §§3 and 4 depends on whether those provisions are ' part of a written maritime contract or a contract "evidencing a transaction involving commerce"' under §2—which, in turn, depends on the application of §1's exception for certain 'contracts of employment.'" Slip op. at 4-5. (quoting Keating, 465 U. S. at 10–11, and n. 5).
The Trucking Company's Delegation and Severability Arguments Put the Section 3 and Section 4 Cart before the Section 1 and Section 2 Horse
The trucking company's arguments put the Section 3 and 4 cart before the Section 1 and 2 horse. Admittedly, the above photo doesn't accurately depict that idiomatic scenario, but why make hay of it?
The trucking company contended that an arbitrator should decide the parties' Section 1 dispute, relying on the delegation provision in the contract and the severability doctrine. "A delegation clause," said the Court, "gives an arbitrator authority to decide even the initial question whether the parties' dispute is subject to arbitration." Slip op. at 5 (citing Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U. S. 63, 68–69 (2010)).
Under the severability doctrine, the Court "treat[s] a challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement (or a delegation provision) separately from a challenge to the validity of the entire contract in which it appears." Slip op. at 5. If a party does not "specifically challenge[] the validity of the agreement to arbitrate, both sides may be required to take all their disputes—including disputes about the validity of their broader contract—to arbitration. Slip op. at 5 (citing Rent-a-Center).
The trucking company argued that: (a) the trucker did not "specifically challenge[] the parties' delegation clause. . ."; and, therefore, (b) the parties had to arbitrate their dispute over whether the contract fell within Section 1's exemption.
The Court explained that this argument "overlooks the necessarily antecedent statutory inquiry we've just discussed." Slip op. at 5. "A delegation clause," said the Court, "is merely a specialized type of arbitration agreement, and the [FAA] 'operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other.'" Slip op. at 5 (quoting Rent-a-Center, 561 U. S. at 70.) To "use [Sections] 3 and 4 to enforce a delegation clause[,]" "the clause" must "appear[] in a 'written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce' consistent with [Section] 2[,]" "[a]nd only if the contract in which the clause appears doesn't trigger [Section] 's 'contracts of employment' exception." Slip op. at 5.
"In exactly the same way," said the Court, the FAA's "severability principle applies only if the parties' arbitration agreement appears in a contract that falls within the field [Sections] 1 and 2 describe." Slip op. at 5-6. Indeed, the Court "acknowledged as much some time ago, explaining that, before invoking the severability principle, a court should 'determine[] that the contract in question is within the coverage of the Arbitration Act.'" Slip op. at 6 (citing and quoting Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395, 402 (1967)).
More to follow on New Prime…
But if in the meantime you want to learn more now about arbitrability and delegation provisions, see prior posts here, here, here, here, and here.
Photo Acknowledgments:
The photos featured in this post were licensed from Yay Images and are subject to copyright protection under applicable law.
Delegation Provisions: SCOTUS Says Courts Must Compel Arbitration of Even "Wholly-Groundless" Arbitrability Disputes
January 16th, 2019 American Arbitration Association, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Exceeding Powers, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Stay of Litigation, United States Supreme Court 3 Comments »
Arbitrability questions are ordinarily for courts to decide, but parties may, by way of a "delegation provision," clearly and unmistakably agree to submit them to arbitration. See, e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942-46 (1995); Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 2777 (2010). (See, e.g., Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum posts here, here, and here.)
But suppose parties to a delegation provision disagree about whether they are required to arbitrate a dispute, yet their contract clearly excludes the dispute from arbitration. Can a Court preemptively decide the merits of an arbitrability question delegated to the arbitrators, and refuse to compel arbitration of the arbitrability question, if the Court decides that the argument for arbitration of the underlying dispute is wholly groundless?
Some federal courts have held that a federal court can, despite a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate arbitrability, refuse to compel arbitration of a "wholly groundless" arbitrability question, but others have held that the FAA requires Courts to refer to arbitration even "wholly groundless" arbitrability questions. Compare Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 877 F. 3d 522 (4th Cir. 2017); Douglas v. Regions Bank, 757 F. 3d 460 (5th Cir. 2014); Turi v. Main Street Adoption Servs., LLP, 633 F. 3d 496 (6th Cir. 2011); Qualcomm, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 466 F. 3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006), with Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, 844 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2017); Jones v. Waffle House, Inc., 866 F. 3d 1257 (11th 2017); Douglas, 757 F. 3d, at 464 (Dennis, J., dissenting).
On January 8, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, held that where parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability disputes, courts must compel arbitration even if the argument in favor of arbitration is "wholly groundless." Schein v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ____, slip op. at *2, 5, & 8 (January 8, 2019).
The Court said that "[t]he [FAA] does not contain a 'wholly groundless' exception, and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute…." Slip op. at 2; see also slip op. at 8. "When," said the Court, "the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties' decision as embodied in the contract." Slip op. at 2; see also slip op. at 8. The "wholly groundless" exception, said the Court, "is inconsistent with the statutory text and with precedent[,]" and "confuses the question of who decides arbitrability with the separate question of who prevails on arbitrability." Slip op. at 8.
Facts and Procedural History
Schein was a dispute between a dental equipment manufacturer and a distributor. The parties' contract contained an arbitration agreement, which required arbitration of "[a]ny dispute arising under or related to [the Parties'] Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of [the manufacturer]…." Slip op. at 2. Arbitration was to be "in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association [(the "AAA")]." Slip op. at 2.
Arbitration Law FAQs: Confirming Arbitration Awards under the Federal Arbitration Act
September 18th, 2018 Arbitration and Mediation FAQs, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Final Awards, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration Comments Off on Arbitration Law FAQs: Confirming Arbitration Awards under the Federal Arbitration Act
Confirming Arbitration Awards 1
Favorable arbitration awards are wonderful things, but they are not self-enforcing. Sometimes the other side voluntarily complies, but if not, there is really not much of anything the arbitrator can do to help.
Arbitrators are not judges and do not have the authority to garnish wages, seize property, foreclose on encumbered property, freeze bank accounts, impose contempt sanctions, and so forth. Parties can delegate to arbitrators broad adjudicatory and remedial authority, but that is relevant only to the nature and scope of their awards, and does not confer power on the arbitrators to enforce their awards coercively.
Apart from its potential preclusive effect in subsequent litigation or arbitration, an arbitration award stands on the same footing as any other privately prepared legal document, and for all intents and purposes it is a contract made for the parties by their joint agent of sorts—the arbitrator or arbitration panel. It may be intended by the arbitrator or panel, and at least one of the parties, to have legal effect, but it is up to a court to say what legal effect it has, and, if necessary, to implement that legal effect through coercive enforcement.
A judgment, by contrast, is an official decree by a governmental body (the court) that not only can be coercively enforced through subsequent summary proceedings in the same or other courts (including courts in other states and federal judicial districts), but is, to some extent, self-enforcing. A judgment, for example, can ordinarily be filed as a statutory lien on real property, and applicable state or federal law may, for example, authorize attorneys to avail their clients of certain judgment-enforcement-related remedies without prior judicial authorization.
The Federal Arbitration Act, and most or all state arbitration statutes, provide for enforcement of arbitration awards through a procedure by which a party may request a court to enter judgment on the award, that is to "confirm" it. Once an award has been reduced to judgment, it can be enforced to the same extent as any other judgment. See, e.g., 9 U.S.C. § 13 (Under Federal Arbitration Act, judgment on award "shall have the same force and effect, in all respects, as, and be subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in an action; and it may be enforced as if it had been rendered in an action in the court in which it is entered"); Fla. Stat. § 682.15(1)( "The judgment may be recorded, docketed, and enforced as any other judgment in a civil action."); N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. § 7514(a) ("A judgment shall be entered upon the confirmation of an award.").
Chapter One of The Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA"), and most or all state arbitration statutes, authorize courts to confirm domestic awards in summary proceedings. State arbitration-law rules, procedures, limitation periods, and the like vary from state to state and frequently from the FAA, and state courts may apply them to FAA-governed awards (provided doing so does not frustrate the purposes and objectives of the FAA). And Chapter 2 of the FAA provides some different rules that apply to the confirmation of domestic arbitration awards that fall under the Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "Convention"), and the enforcement of non-domestic arbitration awards falling under the Convention (i.e., awards made in territory of a country that is a signatory to the Convention.
But let's keep things simple, and take a brief look at the FAA's requirements for confirming arbitration awards, as applicable in federal court for domestic awards not falling under Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act in situations where there is no prior pending action related to the arbitration, and there are no issues concerning federal subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, sufficiency or service of process, venue (i.e., whether the suit should have been brought in a different federal judicial district), or the applicability of Chapter One of the FAA (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16). We'll also discuss how applications to confirm are supposed to be summary proceedings, why timing of an application is important, and how courts decide them.
What are the Requirements for Confirming Arbitration Awards under the Federal Arbitration Act?
Like most other issues arising under the FAA, whether a court should confirm an award depends on what the parties agreed. Section 9 of the FAA, which governs confirmation of awards, says—with bracketed lettering added, and in pertinent part: "[A] If the parties in their agreement have [B] agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon [C] the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and [D] shall specify the court, then [E] at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and [F] thereupon the court must grant such an order unless [G] the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title." 9 U.S.C. § 9. Items [A] through [D] above each concern party consent as evidenced by the parties' arbitration agreement.
The key substantive requirements for confirming arbitration awards are thus: Continue Reading »
California Appeals Court Says Clause Construction Award is not Final Award Subject to Confirmation or Vacatur
August 29th, 2018 Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, California State Courts, Class Action Arbitration, Clause Construction Award, Confirmation of Awards Comments Off on California Appeals Court Says Clause Construction Award is not Final Award Subject to Confirmation or Vacatur
Clause Construction Award 1
We have discussed (here) what constitutes a final award under the Federal Arbitration Act, an issue that is important for a host of reasons, but is particularly so to any business faced with an adverse clause construction award. A clause construction award is an interim or partial final arbitration ruling that determines the threshold issue of whether the parties consented to class arbitration.
But not all arbitrations – even class arbitrations – are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and even when they are, parties may agree to procedural rules that are different from those of the FAA. See Preston v. Ferrer, 128 S.Ct. 978, 987-89 (2008); Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 478-79 (1989). In Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick, ___ Cal. App.5th ___, slip op. (Cal. App., 1st Dist. August 21, 2018) (certified for publication), the parties agreed that "the arbitration would be conducted by JAMS under its rules and procedures; the arbitrator would apply California substantive law; the arbitrator had no 'power or authority to commit errors of law or legal reasoning'; and '[a]ny action to review the arbitration award for legal error or to have it confirmed, corrected or vacated' would be decided under California law by 'a California state court of competent jurisdiction.'" Slip op. at 2.
At issue in Maplebear was whether the California courts had jurisdiction to vacate a partial final Clause Construction Award, which concluded that the parties had consented to class arbitration. The California Appeals Court said "no," which means that—unless the California Supreme Court (or the U.S. Supreme Court) hears an appeal and says otherwise—the parties have to endure through an entire class arbitration procedure before there is any judicial review of the Clause Construction Award. (Whether or not review by the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court is even possible given the procedural posture of this case is outside the scope of this post.)
An Unfair Burden on the Clause Construction Award Challenger?
Consider the burden the decision imposes on the class-arbitration opponent. According to the majority opinion in Concepcion, then fairly current American Arbitration Association statistics showed that: (a) "[a]s of September 2009, the AAA had opened 283 class arbitrations[;]" (b) "[o]f those, 121 remained active, and 162 had been settled, withdrawn, or dismissed[;]" (c) "[n]ot a single one, however, had resulted in a final award on the merits[;]" and (d) "[f]or those cases that were no longer active, the median time from filing to settlement, withdrawal, or dismissal—not judgment on the merits—was 583 days, and the mean was 630 days." AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1751 (2011).
While we have not researched whether more recent statistics tell a different story, it seems quite likely that the Court's decision on finality means that the class arbitration opponent will have to spend an awful lot of time and money before the issue of class arbitration consent is reviewed by a court, assuming it is ever reviewed.


text:
Q: What's the difference between these two LSTM implementation in tensorflow,how to initialize 8 weight matrices of LSTM? I'm confused about how to define weight matrices for LSTM. As there are are 8 weight matrices for the LSTM, I don't know how to initialize those weight matrices for a LSTM in tensorflow.
But then I came across this implementation, which makes complete sense, as it has all the 8 weight matrices, but it doesn't use tensorflow implementation of LSTM. It is consistent with the LSTM equations. But in the tensorflow implementation of LSTM I don't know how to define all those 8 weight matrices as they are defined in the first above implementation.
Could you please help me out?

A: First thing first: If you take a close look, there aren't exactly 8 matrices but 14 in total. 4 * 3 matrices of W, U (parameter matrices) and b (bias vector) for Input Gate, Forget Gate, Cell State and Output State. In addition, there are two more matrices W and b for dense layer.
Now coming to actual question, I presume that you would like to know how these matrices are initialized in Tensorflow.
I am answering questions wrt Tensorflow v1.2.
Quick Answer: Use TF-api for LSTM which has a parameter called initializer to be used for initializing weight and projection matrices.

By default, bias vector is initialized to zero vector and kernel
  initializers are initialized randomly using uniform distribution.

Now to take a look at where W and b are used, you need to dig little deeper inside the code. I will provide few checkpoints for the same.

*

*Method call to evaluate the multiplications: https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/3686ef0d51047d2806df3e2ff6c1aac727456c1d/tensorflow/python/ops/rnn_cell_impl.py#L576
lstm_matrix = _linear([inputs, m_prev], 4 * self._num_units, bias=True)

*Actual computation: https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/3686ef0d51047d2806df3e2ff6c1aac727456c1d/tensorflow/python/ops/rnn_cell_impl.py#L1051
weights = vs.get_variable(
    _WEIGHTS_VARIABLE_NAME, [total_arg_size, output_size],
    dtype=dtype,
    initializer=kernel_initializer)
Here. instead of 4 separate multiplications, a single multiplication is performed and then the matrix is split into 4 parts.

So, in nutshell, Tensorflow does initialization automatically for you.
  In case if you don't want to go with default initializers, you have
  flexibility to provide other options.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


There is an eroding prehistoric settlement mound, which produced evidence from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Beaker, and Bronze Age periods. A little further along the shore, on the headland of Rubh' an Teampuill, are the ruins of a small late medieval chapel. A closer look indicates that next to the chapel are the footings of an Iron Age broch, which probably supplied the source of building stone for the chapel.
From the intervening periods are indications of defences, buildings and graves, and from an earlier period are groups of 'cup marks' on the outcropping rock between high and low tide marks.


Dr. Sudath Gunasekera has discussed the imposing statue by the Parakrama Samudra and raised questions about the grain going across the statue and its interpretation as a silver thread of the Brahaminic tradition given by some scholars. I have raised similar issues and also issues about the interpretation of the place name in some of my articles on the Pollonnaruwa statue some years ago, when I was compiling a list of place names in Sri Lanka.
In effect, while it is obvious to most people that the grain in the rock extends over the sculpture chiseled out of the rock, the grain has been claimed by some scholars as a"Puna-noola". The Puna-noola is a silver thread worn by Brahamins. Ignoring the most likely possibility that the statue is that of Parakramabahu himself, many scholars have tried to claim that the statue is of the Indian Muni-sage "Pulasthi" mentioned in the Rig Veda. Archeological Commissioner Raja de Silva has however speculated that the statue is that of the Indian Muni Agasthiya of South India. Another view has also been proposed, mainly by Siri Gunasinghe, whose thesis was that the statue is most likely to be that of a Lankan Rishi known as Kapila (Siri Gunasinghe, Statue in Polonnaruwa, Oct 26 Island 2011 midweek review ).
The evidence for these claims appears to be quite scanty. So, one may ask, how did this spiral of speculation begin? In reading through the works of these scholars, one comes to the inescapable conclusion (as least for me), that this line of thinking was triggered by the misinterpretation of the origin of the place name "Pollonnaruwa" by a number of scholars, including S. Paranavithana and Godakumbure who claimed that 'Pollonnaruva' is derived from 'Pulaththinagara', presumably giving emphasis to the name used in the Chulavamsa (13th century). Starting from that premise they went on to identify the statue as that of Pulasthi the Indian Muni.
Once a Brahamin Muni is hypothesized, now it becomes necessary to identify on him the customary priestly decorations - hence the need for the Puna-noola. On the other hand, instead of using the Chulavamsa, where the name could have got corrupted by re-copying it over the years by scribes, we can go to earlier sources as well. The Velakkaras were South Indian mercenaries used by King Vijayabahu to guard the Temple of the Tooth. The Vellakkara inscription (12thcentury or before) refers to a Temple of the Tooth built by Vijayabahu at Pulanari, which is most probably modern Polonnaruwa. Polonnaruwa is referred to in the 12th Century slab inscription from the reign of Vijayabahu I, where the names Polonnakara, Polonnakaru are used. On this basis I suggested that the Paranavithana -Godakumbure interpretation should be discarded, even though they are scholars of the highest distinction. The place-name 'Pollon-nakara' probably came from 'Poron-nagara', where 'porana' or 'Paerani' means old, or precedent, i.e., 'Pala(mu)'. Thus "Poron-nagara" is"Paerani Nagaraya". The Mahavamsa writer, a world-class scholar who should rank with Vyasa or Herodotus, used "Pollasthinagara" to mean "Poorva-shthaavira nagara --Pullatthinagara"; thus it is consistent with "Poronnagara"and the stone slab-inscriptions.
Hence a correct rendering of the Pali, and rendering it into English as "Polatthinagara", rather than "Pulasthinagar" clarifies its meaning and disconnects it from `Pulasthi'. It has nothing to do with "Pulasthi", the Indian Muni-Sage. Any details of the "old town" which gave rise to Polonnaruwa are unknown at present. This would require deeper excavations in the area. Furthermore, Prof. Siri Gunasinghe has stated that "it is important to find out, if at all possible, why Pulatthinagara was so named", and says that "The word Pulatthi,.. (are)... curious Pali adaptations of Sinhala place names by the chroniclers; in this case Polonnaruwa was turned into Pulatthi by Dhammakitti, ... Such phonetically unorthodox transformations of Sinhala place names are quite common in the chronicle, e.g. Sankhanayakatthali (Hatnagoda), Badalatthali (Batalagoda), Guttahala (Buttala), Bhimatittha (Bentota), Jambukola (Dambulla), Donivagga (Denavaka), Gangasiripura (Gampala), to name only a few. If Pulatthinagara is merely the distorted Pali form of Pollonnaruwa, as I suggest, and has no connection to the Indian sage Pulastya".
In our view, the authors of the Chronicles were excellent linguists, and they did NOT make any unorthodox transformations. It is the modern readers who have confused what the Mahawamsa writers have done, by wrong English transliterations, or by paying too much attention to Indian mythology, and being ever ready to plant them in Sri Lanka to the detriment of the country's own history. Today even "Seetha gangula" is claimed to have something to do with "Seethaa", the consort of Rama, while the clear meaning of "seetha" as "cold" is simply ignored. Many of the place names now attributed to"Seethaa" has, in my view, nothing to do with the "Seetha - Raama legend".
Inregard to the use of 'w' or 'v' in the English form for Polonnaruwa,we should note that the 'w' was used in the south for rendering the Sinhala "v" sound into English, while in the north the letter v, and not 'w' is used in English transliteration of Tamil place names. This is true for family names as well. Thus the Sinhalese write their family names with 'W' as in 'Martin Wickramasinghe'. But traditional Jaffna Tamils write their name as, e.g., Vignesvaran, while a Colombo Tamil would write the name as Wigneswaran following the Sinhalese usage. The Dutch 'v' is pronounced as an 'f', and led to this distinction in the south where names were Europeanized prior to those in the North. The Jaffna names were anglicized by the American missionaries who used "v"for the corresponding Tamil sound.


text:
Home/Entertainment/Jaideep Ahlawat on the Last Era of Stardom
Jaideep Ahlawat on the Last Era of Stardom
Hindi cinema has witnessed the rise of several superstars whose fanbase has transcended boundaries. While actors like Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, and Salman Khan enjoy global prominence, Jaideep Ahlawat believes that no new-age actor can replicate the stardom that Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan enjoy. While promoting his recently released film An Action Hero, Jaideep Ahlawat was asked if he thinks cinema is changing, and the stardom is fading out.
Speaking to ETimes, Jaideep Ahlawat said he thinks that things change every decade and that all types of films should be made. He also mentioned that this is the last era of stardom and adds that there could not be another Shah Rukh Khan or Salman Khan. "I think things change every ten years. I think all types of films should be made. There was a time when if a film runs for 25 weeks i.e. Silver Jubilee, it would be considered a success. Today, if a film runs for a week, it's considered a success. That's how life is now. I am sure this is the last era of stardom. I don't think anyone could be another Shah Rukh Khan or Salman Khan. Now you will be judged for every work. Now there will be very few faces that you will give leverage even if they do some bad films".
The actor also spoke about why Hindi films are not working at the box office. He said that it's a "phase" because everyone is "ignoring the fact that all of us have come out of a pandemic. Things haven't got normalised completely yet. People are still scared about going to crowded places."
When asked if the actor was happy with where he has reached, Jaideep revealed that the "desire for progress never stops." He added that he always wants to do something new, different, and big every day. The actor further stated, "After Raazi, I have been wanting to direct a film too. I want to grow not just as an actor but as a film student. The hunger of that film student in me is increasing".
Jaideep Ahlawat is currently seen in Anirudh Iyer's An Action Hero alongside Ayushmann Khurrana. The film was released on Friday, December 2, and has already been garnering heaps of praise from fans and critics. Meanwhile, the actor will next be seen in The Devotion of Suspect X alongside Kareena Kapoor Khan and Vijay Verma.
Bhool Bhulaoi | Bollywood Sequel Films: From 'Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2' to 'Drishyam 2', the craze for these sequel films was more than the first part
Forex Kitty Grows by $2.9 Billion to $550.14 Billion