This paper examines the relationship between biofuels and commodity food prices in the U.S. from a new perspective. While a large body of literature has tried to explain the linkages between sample means and volatilities associated with ethanol and agricultural price returns, little is known about their whole distributions. We focus on predictability in distribution by asking whether ethanol returns can be used to forecast different parts of field crops returns distribution, or vice versa. Density forecasts are constructed using Conditional Autoregressive Expectile models estimated with Asymmetric Least Squares. Forecast evaluation relies on quantile-weighed scoring rules, which identify regions of the distribution of interest to the analyst. Results show that both the centre and the left tail of the ethanol returns distribution can be predicted by using field crops returns. On the contrary, there is no evidence that ethanol can be used to forecast any region of the field crops distribution.


Heather is the creator and owner of Alabaster Ambition. She is a corporate leader by day who enjoys tackling the next challenge. In addition to being "mom" to two boys, she enjoys renovating her home, traveling, and remaining curious about life.


Black Moggie Graphics is a long established graphic design studio positined on the beautiful Central Coast of NSW and we are dedicated to giving you quality, creative, cost effective and on-time graphic design and print.
At Black Moggie Graphics we are here for you.
Complete your details below and your enquiry will be emailed directly to Black Moggie Graphics. Please check your contact details are correct to ensure the quickest possible reply.


Is this deliberate miss-information or just ignorant skeptics postulating/posturing?
I've seen several hexavalent chromium (aka chromium 6) comments online and personally feel that this is a good example of Vested Interest suppression.
but not necessarily hex chromium.
At the very least, a proper scientific test would start by testing the WATER used to make up the electrolytic solution, since most water in the USA is ALREADY contaminated by Hex Chromium.
Then test the electrolyte solution BEFORE it is introduced to the stainless steel electrodes, to eliminate the possibility of Hex Chromium being in the substance being used as the catalyst AND to see if the test is even valid for electrolyte solutions (high acid or alkaline). I would also think that most tests like this one would require a neutral pH to be accurate.
Next, any testing protocol that assumes that some other electrode material (like titanium) would NOT produce the indicated reaction should PROVE it by testing the solution from those electrodes too (to see that you don't get a positive for hex chromium)!
I have yet to see a proper test that truly indicates hex chromium presence.
Vested Interest is VERY good at starting rumors that prevent the public from taking advantage of technologies that would lose them billions of dollars.
In this case, they simply go on a few forums and mention that perhaps because stainless steel has chromium in it, that people should be concerned that there may be hexavalent chromium formed in the electrolyzers that use stainless steel for electrodes.
Or maybe some armchair skeptic just wondered if it'd be possible, and come up with weird theories and/or justifications of how it'd be possible, again with NO SCIENTIFIC testing… In this case, we again have an example of Vested Interest suppression by route of talking heads ignorant of actual facts.
Vested Interest has often gone to considerable lengths to miss-educate 'educated' people in public personas and these become the talking heads that the public believes.
Here's an example of the many lies propagated by Vested Interest miss-education, in this case for automobile mechanics (click).
and know that hexavalent chromium is very bad for health (click) (click) (click).
The Vested Interest knows that they don't need to prove the rumor false. The onus to prove the rumor false falls on the shoulders of 'fringe science' that is easy to discredit. I know this issue intimately because, as an inventor, I CONSTANTLY work on the fringe.
My point is that just because you've read or heard some theory (even from scientists) doesn't make it true.
Let's walk through some actual facts and my experiences/opinions.
1. I haven't seen any scientific proof that hexavalent chromium is formed in electrolyzers that use stainless steel plates.
Here is one article that might be relevant, except that (as it points out) the quantities would be minute; and would (as I point out below) stay in the electrolyzer and be buffered by the lye solution. For this to happen, even this minutely, the stainless steel would have to corrode, which does not happen in our electrolyzers (designed to last for decades).
2. Some people have attempted to test for hexavalent chromium but their tests were inconclusive because they really didn't know how to do the tests properly. Frankly, neither do I; but there are lots of independent labs that do know how and NONE of them have submitted reports of hex chromium in electrolyzer electrolytes that have been used since Michael Faraday 'invented' electrolysis ~ 1830.
3. Stainless steel is a 'food grade' material, used everywhere in industry and is totally compatible with fluids containing lye (NaOH). In fact, NaOH is RECOMMENDED as a solution to clean stainless steel in food grade applications.
4. Lye (NaOH) is used in many applications of the food industry and comes in a 'food grade'.
5. Lye solution is a common cleaning fluid for stainless steel pipes.
6. If simple association of lye with stainless steel would cause formation of hexavalent chromium, you can be quite certain we'd have heard about it long before now.
7. In all the OSHA and similar reports I've looked at, there is no reference to hexavalent chromium formation in any conditions similar to what exist in a Brown's Gas electrolyzer, examples: (click) (click) (click).
8. The chromium in stainless steel is NOT hexavalent.
9. It takes very high temperatures (like melting of the steel) to assist the stainless steel chromium to become hexavalent.
10. Stainless steel plates are 'neutral' and unreactive (they do NOT normally oxidize or degrade) during 'normal' electrolysis (with electrolytes like lye (NaOH).
The above statement is assuming people are not 'over-driving' the electrolysis by having a high amperage density on the electrodes. If amperage density causes the electrolysis cell to go above the electro-deposition voltage of the cell, then actual metal can be pulled from the positive electrode (oxidizing anode) and is then (usual electrolysis) deposited on the negative electrode (cathode).
Even so, I haven't seen any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that electro-deposition (essentially electroplating) causes hex chromium to form.
11. An 'oxide layer' on the anode is normal and is NOT considered to be 'oxidation' of the anode. Electrolysis of water NORMALLY creates oxygen on the anode so oxidation of some anode materials is inherent and the oxidized material usually stays 'attached' to the anode (does not go out into solution). Nickel and chromium do NOT usually oxidize during normal water electrolysis. Chromium would be an excellent anode material, if it wasn't so expensive!
12. High pH solutions acts as buffers to absorb and neutralize hexavalent chromium. 25% lye (NaOH) solution has a very high pH. This would automatically render most tests for hex chromium invalid, inadequate and inconclusive.
13. Even if hexavalent chromium is somehow formed, the pH of the electrolyte would act as a buffer to absorb it; thus neutralize/mitigate its health issues. Here are a sampling of the many reports on mitigating/neutralizing hexavalent chromium (click) (click) (click) (click) (click) (click). Reports like this are easy to find by anyone who actually looks.
14. Electrolyzers split water into hydrogen and oxygen (and in our case also make BG). Assuming you are using pure lye and pure water, those gasses are the only ones that form in and leave the electrolyzer. They are non-toxic.
Hex Chromium is NOT a gas and would not come out with the Brown's Gas, even if it were in the electrolyte.
15. I have several spectrographic analysis reports of Brown's Gas and NONE of them show anything that could even remotely be construed as hexavalent chromium.
16. Solids/impurities that were in the water or which are formed in the electrolyzer STAY in the electrolyzer. So even if some sort of poison was to form, it's very unlikely that any solid or liquid impurity in the electrolyzer would present a health risk.
17. Brown's Gas (aka BG or HHO) that is formed in an electrolyzer has (according to reports from my customers) been curing cancer (and many other maladies).
18. I'm thinking that if BG contained something that caused cancer that I wouldn't be hearing reports of CURED cancer.
19. I've been drinking BG bubbled water since June of 2005. I used to catch colds in the winter and now that only happens when I stop drinking the BG bubbled water.
I've been breathing BG gas directly (for up to an hour a day) since March of 2016 and have noted ONLY positive health effects.
20. ObamaCare, for example, is a program that uses government influence to set up a perfect money making environment for big Pharma and the medical establishment, who have a VESTED INTEREST in keeping you sick and suppressing any kind of actual cures for disease.
21. These Vested Interest WANT YOU SICK (click) because they make money when you are sick. The longer they can keep you sick, the more money they make. Our 'health-care' system has effectively been perverted into a 'sick-profit' system that is DESIGNED to mitigate symptoms instead of cure disease. Mitigating the symptoms causes people to think they are well, as the disease continues to progress until it kills them.
22. There are MANY inexpensive and effective cures for most diseases that are actively and often viciously suppressed by the medical community.
People are just becoming aware of the health benefits of BG (HHO) and we are now seeing the Vested Interest doing their suppression of this technology. The hex chromium myth is one of the rumors designed to cause people to shy away from BG(HHO).
23. Note that while Doctors are usually well intentioned people, they have a Vested Interest sponsored education, which trains them to be drug pushers. They are specifically NOT trained to cure disease and can actually lose their license to practice if they DO start curing diseases.
24. Lye solution (the electrolyzer's electrolyte) is totally environmentally compatible. Lye is made from wood ashes, which form during forest fires. When a rain comes after a forest fire, tons of lye are washed into streams and lakes. Nature absorbs and uses the lye to propagate itself.
25. Lye has also traditionally (for hundreds of years) been used as a household drain cleaner and to make soap. There is NO issue about pouring the lye solutions down the drain.
In conclusion: I believe the hexavalent chromium rumor to be a myth propagated in one way or another by the Vested Interest; now that BG (HHO) has become a potential threat to their billions of dollars in 'health' income.


Advanced technology increasingly relies on the precise control of atomic-scale heterogeneity to manipulate electrons, photons and phonons on ever smaller distances and faster times. A team of five researchers at Stanford University will push the scientific frontier of atomic-scale dynamical imaging by scaling the newly discovered phenomena of solid-state high-harmonic generation to nanoscale dimensions and high-repetition rates. Single emitters of coherent extreme ultraviolet radiation will be incorporated into near-field probes to provide sub-nanometer and sub-femtosecond resolution. This novel instrument will be used to visualize how an atomically sharp 1-D junction between two 2-D materials alters the energy—and therefore the transport—of electrons nearby. The spatial extent of the strong, yet widely-tunable many-body interactions in these materials determines the device's smallest size and fastest speed. Until now there has been no way to image the materials response on short enough length and time scales to view the formation length and evolution of electronic states across a single junction. The instrument could also be used to record other dynamical processes that require extreme spatial and temporal resolution, including nanoscale energy conversion, heterogeneous catalysis and quantum information storage and processing using single defects.


text:
UPDATING: Governor Announces Mask Mandate for Schools; More SHIELD Testing
August 12:
Illinois State Superintendent of Education Carmen Ayala, Ph.D., posted a letter to superintendents, stating in part, "Local boards of education, schools, and school districts do not have the authority to deny the Governor's Executive Order requiring universal indoor masking in schools."
August 6:
The Illinois State Board of Education has published its Revised Public Health Guidance for Schools, Part 5 — Supporting the Full Return to In-Person Learning for All Students.
On August 4, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker announced a mask mandate for all Illinois P-12 schools and daycares, effective immediately. The mandate is one of the actions announced to combat the delta variant of the coronavirus pandemic.
"I hoped it wouldn't be necessary, but it is," Pritzker said in his remarks.
The governor's announcement calls for universal masking inside school buildings for all individuals, regardless of vaccination status. It extends to indoor sports.
Many Illinois school districts had, in the weeks prior to the announcement, made decisions about students and school personnel wearing masks and other mitigation efforts. Pritzker cited an increase in COVID-19 cases since late June, mostly of the highly contagious delta variant which is infecting young adults and children in greater numbers than previous variants. Children under 12 are not eligible for the coronavirus vaccination.
Additionally on August 4, the Illinois Department of Public Health announced expanded access to free COVID-19 testing to all K-12 public schools across Illinois (except Chicago which received direct federal funding). Schools can choose to utilize the SHIELD Illinois saliva-based test developed by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The touring Australians are coming to Lord's cricket ground to take part in a one-off, five-match international series against England this June.
There's nowhere better than Lord's to spend a summer watching cricket!
As proud affiliate partners with Middlesex Cricket, Chestertons are able to offer you an exclusive offer of a 1 year Middlesex Cricket Membership for just £20 per month*, so that you can make Lord's your home for the whole of the 2018 season.
With this special introductory offer for new members you'll receive entry into every single Middlesex Cricket match at Lord's and all the club's outground venues to watch Middlesex play in four-day County Championship, Fifty over One-Day Cup and Twenty over Vitality Blast action. You can watch all Middlesex matches from within the famous Lord's Pavilion and Long Room, gain access to exclusive members' areas, receive priority access to tickets for the 2019 Lord's Ashes Test and all other internationals at the Home of Cricket, and receive a special new members tour of the ground once you've joined.
To join Middlesex Cricket now, simply click here and quote offer code CHESTER when joining.
*See terms and conditions for details. Minimum term of twelve months.


text:
Ammo & Gear Reviews
Choosing The Best Concealed Carry Caliber
Guns and Gear Contributor
By Dick Jones, Gun Digest
We know that no caliber chambered in a regular repeating handgun is capable of always stopping a perpetrator with a single shot. Obviously some calibers are much more effective than others, but there's always a trade-off in recoil, capacity and the size of the carry gun. It's a common belief among many that any caliber under .40 is ineffective, and those who carry smaller calibers are constantly bombarded with anecdotes relating to the dire consequences of carrying a pipsqueak caliber.
Statements about chocolate grips and filed-off front sights abound, but there's really little evidence to prove that bigger calibers are substantially more effective in stopping aggressors than smaller ones.
With so many excellent guns in so many good calibers, the choice can be daunting. Often the load chosen has as much effect on success as the caliber.
With the exception of hitting the brain stem or first few inches of the spinal column, handgun calibers incapacitate by causing blood loss. Larger, more powerful calibers are more likely to accomplish this given the same entry location and angle. Ideally, the projectile should penetrate to vital organs or major arteries even if they encounter bone structure. It's a given that the larger the wound channel, the greater chance that wound channel will intercept those large arteries and vital organs, so a combination of penetration and an enlarged wound channel is the criteria for best performance. It's better for the projectile to stay in the perpetrator's body, for two reasons: One, if the projectile doesn't exit, all the energy will be transmitted to the target. Second, since personal defense often happens in populated areas, a projectile that doesn't exit can't do damage to an innocent bystander.
Since the penetration to the spinal column is a major factor in incapacitating a target, and most defensive situations involve a frontal shot, it would be ideal to somehow push the projectile all the way through the perpetrator with it stopping just short of exiting. Unfortunately, such consistent performance isn't possible because bad guys come in different sizes and wear different kinds of clothing, which can be a factor in penetration, especially if the bad guy is wearing heavy winter clothing.
It's been generally accepted that .38 Special and 9mm are about the minimum in reliable stopping power. In recent years, the performance of .380 ACP has been improved with better bullet design and higher-performance defensive loads. Traditionally, there's always been a school of thought that the .45 ACP is a reliable one-shot stopper. As a young man, I heard stories from World War II veterans about enemy soldiers being hit in the shoulder with a .45 slug and the impact flipping them into a distant foxhole. While early TV shows depicted those who were shot simply freezing in place and dying, later TV shows and movies popularized the concept of bad guys being thrown over cars and across rooms. Neither scenario was realistic. People who are shot react differently, but violent movements come as a reaction from the person who's received a gunshot, not from tremendous energy being released against their body.
The energy of a handgun round is simple physics. If enough energy is released from the muzzle of the handgun to knock the aggressor down, the recoil from that shot will have a similar effect on the person who fires the gun. Even a .500 S&W only deflects my arms when I shoot it. It's quite easy for me to maintain my balance and stay on my feet. A 230-grain .45 ACP round only moves my arms slightly, with most of the movement being absorbed by my arms.
Most accomplished shooters can easily handle a full-size .45 or .40 with little adverse effect. That number is reduced, however, when the size and weight of the gun goes from a 39-ounce, full-size gun to a 20-ounce concealed carry pistol. My experience is that even individuals who consider themselves perfectly capable of handling a gun in a caliber that begins with "4" often flinch enough to cause shots below the targeted area, even at close range. Further, continued practice with a gun larger than you can handle often exacerbates the problem of flinch. A shot that hits below the sternum is unlikely to cause massive blood loss, even if it's a fatal shot. Massive blood loss is your best bet for making a determined aggressor cease to fight.
A while back, I had a conversation with the sheriff of a Georgia county who had recently switched his department from the Glock 22 in .40 to the Glock 17 in 9mm. His reason for the switch was that many of his officers were having trouble managing the additional recoil of the .40 S&W round. When the department made the switch, the qualification scores for the department went up substantially. He also made the point that the less expensive 9mm round allowed the department to purchase almost twice as much ammunition for practice at the same budgeting level.
Weight is another problem with large-caliber concealed carry guns. They tend to be heavy. The primary prerequisite to winning a gunfight is to have a gun. Of the guns in calibers that begin with "4," about the lightest models available weigh around 20 ounces empty. Most .38 Special five-shot revolvers weigh in between 11 and 14 ounces, so the average weight reduction is close to 40 percent, a substantial difference when you carry every day, all day.
Bigger guns are better stoppers, but they weigh more and are harder to carry comfortably. Every choice involving concealed carry is a compromise, but modern ammunition makes calibers that were once marginal much more effective. Or course, in many confrontations between citizens and aggressors, the aggressor doesn't have a gun, and in a large percentage of those cases, the simple presence of the gun is effective for stopping the aggressor, whether that gun is a .500 or a .22.
Even if the citizen has to shoot the aggressor, many bad guys decide to stop simply because they've been shot. While I've never been shot, I have talked to people who have, and they tell me it's not a pleasant experience. Of course, if the aggressor is pumped up with adrenalin, or drugs, or is experiencing a psychotic episode, he may not even feel a fatal shot that takes his life within seconds, and this type of aggressor is the only adversary the concealed carry citizen will face who's affected by caliber choice.
This determined attacker has to be physically incapacitated to end the aggression, where the attacker cannot continue due to the level of his injuries. Fortunately, the percentage of determined attackers who persist even though seriously wounded is relatively small. A higher percentage of people simply stop the aggression when they realize they've been shot. Their reaction might come from the level of pain or fear of death and realization that continuing might end their life. This is considered a psychological stop.
In a situation where the defender doesn't have to fire a shot or in the case of a psychological stop, the little .22 Long Rifle is as effective as a .44 S&W Magnum.
Caliber and effectiveness of the round most likely have little to do with what's required to produce a psychological stop. The sound of the gun associated with the pain and perhaps the presence of blood loss, all are likely to contribute to a cessation of aggression in a person predisposed to a psychological stop. In that scenario a .22 rimfire will probably work almost as well as a .44 Magnum.
Unfortunately, there are no in-depth studies that can give us exact information about what the optimum caliber for concealed carry might be. Even if there was, the constraints of each concealed carry citizen's lifestyle would likely be more of an issue than caliber selection. The closest thing to a definitive study is entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. Ellifritz compiled, over a 10-year period, statistics from 1,800 shootings with calibers beginning with .22 rimfire and .25 ACP and topping out with centerfire rifle and shotgun. The results were surprising in some ways and what you'd expect in others.
The criteria involved:
• The percentage of hits that were fatal.
• The average number of rounds before incapacitation.
• The percentage of people who weren't incapacitated.
• The percentage of one-shot stops.
• The percentage of aggressors incapacitated by one shot.
The most surprising statistics involved the number of one-shot stops. While rifle and shotgun stops were more successful by an appreciable amount, the one-shot stop rates for handgun calibers from .25 to .44 Magnum were remarkably similar, only varying by a few percentage points. The average number of rounds required to incapacitate aggressors — two shots — was also remarkably similar. This might indicate that caliber makes little difference in the ability to stop aggressors. However, the percentage of people who weren't incapacitated at all was much higher with the smaller calibers, but statistically almost the same for calibers from .38 Special on up to .44 Magnum.
Ellifritz concluded that, while it was true that the more powerful the round, the better the chance a determined aggressor could ultimately be stopped, the vast majority of aggressors give up when they know they've been shot. Click here to see the complete study.
The point of all this is that any reasonable caliber can stop an aggressor. At the same time, a determined aggressor can continue to fight, even if he's mortally wounded by the largest handgun commercially produced, and even when hit in recommended target areas. It's true that penetration is an important factor, as is the size of the wound channel, but these are issues that only count when the projectile is delivered to the right spot. The best advice is to carry the most powerful caliber and ammunition you — and the gun you commit to carry every day — can handle.
If you carry then check out Gun Digest Guide To Concealed Carry Handguns.
Gun Digest has a wide range of great downloads…Click here to check out the long list of Gun Digest Free Downloads.
Tags : 357 magnum 380 40 sw 45 acp 9mm
Guns and Gear


text:
The United Technologies Breakup: What You Need to Know
The key takeaways from the company's breakup announcement, and how investors should think about the stock.
Lee Samaha
(TMFSaintGermain)
Dec 13, 2018 at 7:31PM
Industrial sector focus. I write about electrical equipment, transportation, and multi-industry industrial stocks. Engineer, investment manager and property developer. I'm a firm believer that there is something noble about the industrial sector. Blue collar workers physically making a better world. Follow me on Twitter to receive quick and thorough analysis of your favorite stocks. Follow @LeeSamaha
Follow @@LeeSamaha
It's fair to say that the market wasn't exactly overwhelmed by the announcement that United Technologies (NYSE:UTX) will be separating into three companies. At the time of this writing, the stock is down nearly 6% since the announcement at the end of November versus a slight rise in the S&P 500 index, whereas its closest peer, Honeywell International, is slightly down. What's going on, and has management made a misstep? Let's look at what the announcement means.
Time to break up
Frankly, very few investors would have been surprised by the announcement: CEO Greg Hayes signaled an intent to do as much in the spring. As expected, the remaining United Technologies will comprise Pratt & Whitney (aircraft engines and aftermarket parts and services), UTC Aerospace Systems (original equipment and aftermarket parts), and the just-completed acquisition Rockwell Collins.
Meanwhile, Otis (elevators) and the current climate, controls, and security (CCS) business -- now known as Carrier -- will both be separated within the next 18 to 24 months. Investors who hold UTC stock at the time of the breakup will thereafter own stock in all three resulting companies.
Six reasons the breakup makes sense
If you compare each constituent part of the company to its immediate peers, it's clear that the overall valuation of United Technologies stands at a discount to all of them. The argument -- long put forward by leading hedge fund managers -- is that breaking up the company would lead to a positive re-rating for each company.
As Hayes argued, a breakup would create greater management focus and make it easier for each company to invest in mergers and acquisitions.
The increasingly disparate performance of the three United Technologies businesses in 2018 strengthens the case for running each business separately. In common with peers like Honeywell and General Electric, strong aerospace results have helped offset relatively weaker earnings elsewhere.
Splitting up the company will create far simpler investment options. You say you don't want Otis' exposure to China's construction market, or are worried about Carrier's relative underperformance to Ingersoll-Rand? Or maybe you're even concerned about the aerospace business's ability to hold margin as Boeing and Airbus muscle in on suppliers. All are reasons in themselves not to hold United Technologies stock. In the future, you will be able to avoid each specific exposure by being able to invest in the businesses separately.
As Hayes outlined in the announcement presentation, Pratt & Whitney is now coming out of a heavy period of investment in its geared turbofan engine -- it competes with the LEAP engine from CFM International (a joint venture between GE and Safran) on the Airbus A320neo. Just as with GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney will start to generate significant earnings and cash flow from its engines in the coming years -- meaning that the aerospace businesses don't need the support of cash flow from Otis and Carrier anymore.
Just as French aircraft-engine maker Safran bought plane-seat maker Zodiac Aerospace in order to create scale, generate synergies, and better compete in the aerospace sector, it's important for United Technologies to do a similar thing in order to respond to the Boeing and Airbus encroachment on aircraft suppliers.
If it all makes sense, then why is the stock down?
That's a good question, because there wasn't much in the announcement that should have surprised investors. For example, CFO Akhil Johri outlined that management expects the one-time costs to be in the range of $2.5 billion to $3 billion, but Hayes had already discussed this in September.
The only slight negative came from the estimate of additional overhead costs, where Johri said, "the placeholder we have there is $350 million to $400 million," versus the $350 million figure that Hayes gave in September.
Immediate attention focused on the reduction in earnings and cash flow guidance. Indeed, management did update its full-year guidance and downgrade full-year adjusted EPS guidance to a range of $7.10-$7.20, from $7.20-$7.30. And free cash flow guidance was revised down to $4.25 billion-$4.5 billion, from a previous range of $4.5 billion-$5 billion. But both changes are related to the acquisition of Rockwell Collins -- there wasn't a material change in United Technologies' underlying outlook.
On the contrary, management gave good outlooks for each new business' cash flow conversion. Johri said free cash flow conversion in the aerospace companies would "be at or above 100% of net income" in the coming years. With Otis and Carrier also seen as generating free cash flow in excess of net income, clearly management is not separating an ugly cash-flow duckling from the group.
Sell on the news?
All told, the stock's drop looks like a good old-fashioned case of "sell on the news." The breakup has been so well publicized that it could have hardly come as a surprise, and it's likely that many investors would have been looking for an opportunity to exit the stock after the announcement.
No matter: If you are bullish on the rationale for the breakup and the long-term prospects, then there wasn't much in the presentation to dissuade you from continuing to hold the stock. Ongoing investors will own three different companies that could all see a re-rating due to the separation -- and that would be good news.
Why Raytheon Stock Soared 43% in 2019
Here's Why United Technologies Rocketed Higher in 2019
20 Predictions for the Stock Market in 2020
The 4 Best Dividend Aristocrat Stocks to Buy
Why Raytheon (and United Technologies) Is a Good Value Stock for 2020
The United Technologies Breakup: What You Need to Know @themotleyfool #stocks $UTX Next Article


This video is just too sweet. It breaks my heart that the two pups checked Victoria's room to see if she was there.
"These two rescue dogs love their human sister, Victoria, more than anything. So when she left for college, they looked all over for her and waited in her bed every night."


text:
BSD port
Greg Lewis glewis at eyesbeyond.com
Fri Feb 15 00:03:53 PST 2008
Previous message: BSD port
Next message: BSD port
G'day Carla,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:37:34AM -0800, Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM wrote:
> Bringing the BSD port into the OpenJDK Community under the GPL license is
> something that Sun would very much like to see happen.
The BSD Java community would also very much like to see this happen, so
it seems like we're in complete agreement so far :).
> We believe that the work that's so far been done on the BSD port is based
> on code obtained under the Sun Community Source License (SCSL).  We need to
> understand if any of the work was done on code obtained under a different
> license, such as the Java Research License (JRL). The SCSL license does
> provide for code modifications to be given back to Sun with sufficient
> rights and does not require a Sun Contributor Agreement (SCA) in order to
> do so.  So we do need to make sure that we are getting the code back under
> SCSL.
Work on the part was done under the SCSL for the 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5
(initially) releases.  I mention the previous versions since many changes
would be forward ported from one version to the next.  Once the JRL update
releases commenced we started doing work based on them though, so those
changes would be under the JRL.
However, everyone who did work under the JRL has agreed to release there
changes under the GPL as well.  I need to check with the FreeBSD Foundation
though on work done for them under contract, but I believe they would be
happy for those changes to be released under the GPL too.
> In order to minimize the engineering effort for Sun, we need to work out a
> way for you to provide diffs to us that correspond to the latest OpenJDK
> code rather than the SCSL'd code with which you started, since the OpenJDK
> code has already been cleared for distribution under the GPL.  We would
> like to work with you on the best way to do this so that the code can be
> published in an OpenJDK project as soon as possible.
We can do that.  I see OpenJDK 6 has been released very recently, so we
haven't ported to that yet.  For OpenJDK 7 we already have a port based
on an earlier build and that is being updated to the current build.
If OpenJDK 6 is part of this discussion (it might just be OpenJDK 7 you're
talking about :) then, assuming its source base is similar to the JRL
source base, we should be able to port to it quickly given that we have
a working port based on the JRL source.
> It would also help us if someone that worked on this port could provide the
> name of the specific entity (or individuals) that signed the SCSL agreement
> where this work took place, as well as any other licenses the work was done
> under.
I can get together a list of names of the people who have contributed.
However, the SCSL was never "signed" as such.  One agreed to the license
by clicking on a button with something like "I Accept" on it when
downloading the SCSL based source releases.  So while I can provide a list
of names, I can't provide any paperwork.
> Thanks for your patience in waiting for this answer.  With various travels,
> the holidays, and other items on our legal list, this took longer than we'd
> all hoped.  We believe we now have a path to move forward and make this
> happen.
No worries about the wait, just happy to have the ball rolling :).
Greg Lewis                          Email   : glewis at eyesbeyond.com
Eyes Beyond                         Web     : http://www.eyesbeyond.com
Information Technology              FreeBSD : glewis at FreeBSD.org
More information about the porters-dev mailing list


Argued October 30, 1885. Decided November 16, 1885.
The State of Alabama loaned its credit to a railroad company by indorsing its bonds. The act authorizing this to be done provided that if fradulent indorsements of bonds should be obtained, or if the bonds should be sold for less than ninety cents on the dollar, then the railroad should be sold, and those stockholders who could not prove either ignorance of the fraud or opposition to it, should be individually liable for the payment of the bonds fraudulently indorsed, and for all other losses that might fall upon the State by reason of any other frauds committed by the company. The State brought suit at law in this court against certain persons alleged in the declaration to be "the majority and controlling incorporators, officers, directors, and stockholders as well as the actual managers and controllers" of the company. The declaration alleged that the defendants had (1) made fraudulent misrepresentations by reason of which the indorsement of an over-issue of bonds had been obtained; (2) made fraudulent misrepresentations by reason of which indorsements were obtained before the several sections of the road were fully finished, completed and equipped; and (3) that they had made unlawful and improper use of some of the bonds, or their proceeds, after they got into the hands of the company. On demurrer: Held, That the liability of the officers and stockholders to the State was statutory only, and that the facts stated in the declaration were not such as to bring the defendants within the liability clause in the statute; (1) because the suit was not brought to recover the payment of bonds the indorsement of which had been frauduently obtained; and (2) because the declaration did not show that the losses sued for were the immediate consequences of the frauds alleged. The legislature of Alabama, by a further act, authorized a further loan of its credit to the same company, with provisions that the bonds should not be sold under ninety cents on the dollar, and "that the directors or other officers and incorporators and stockholders" of the company who should violate the provisions of this act, or of the former act above referred to should "be held personally liable to the State for any loss incurred thereby." The declaration alleged that seven hundred and seventy-one of the bonds authorized by the later act were sold at less than ninety cents on the dollar, but it did not state in what respect the State was injured by such sales, nor did it state that the other injuries complained of in the bill and above referred to resulted from acts done after the passage of the last named act. On demurrer: Held, That the allegations were insufficient to charge the defendants under the last named act. It is not decided whether the remedy of the State to enforce the liability of the defendants under these statutes was exclusively in equity.
Mr. W. Hallett Phillips argued in support of the demurrer on behalf of defendants John C. Stanton, Daniel N. Stanton, and John DeMerritt.
Mr. H.G. Nichols and Mr. B.F. Brooks argued in like manner on behalf of defendant Burr.
The declaration is in case. There is no necessity for setting forth successive counts. It would be impossible and not in accordance with the facts, admitted by the demurrers to be true, so far as they are well pleaded, to have separate counts set forth the statutory provisions relied upon, and aver one particular trespass or one violation of the obligations imposed upon and accepted by the defendants, and conclude that such single trespass, or such particular act in violation of their obligations, caused the loss for which the State seeks redress. It appears from the declaration that it was the various acts (and not one particular act) of the defendants, as therein specified (and with all the particularity of specification at the command of the plaintiff), in violation of the obligations imposed upon and accepted by them, that caused the company to become bankrupt, its property and franchise to be sold, its inability to pay the $537,600 interest on the indorsed and State bonds, and the payment of that precise sum by the State. Bond v. Appleton, 8 Mass. 472. In that case the declaration was in case. By an act of the State of New Hampshire creating a banking corporation, it was provided that if the corporation should refuse or neglect to pay their bills on demand, the original stockholders, their successors, assigns and the members of the corporation in their private capacities, should be liable to the holder. Myers v. Gilbert, 18 Ala. 467.
Where, from a given state of facts, the law raises a legal obligation to do a particular act, and there is a breach of that obligation, and a consequential damage, an action on the case is the proper form of action, in which the plaintiff in his declaration states the facts out of which the legal obligation arises, the obligation itself, the breach of it, and the damage resulting from that breach; for that is the most accurate description of the real cause of action; and that form of action in which the real cause of action is most accurately described is the best adapted to every case. Burnett v. Lynch, 5 B. C. 589; 1 Saunders on Pl. Ev. 715; 1 Chit. Pl. 123; Dickson v. Clifton, 2 Wilson, 319; Bretherton v. Wood, 3 B. B. 54; Mast v. Goodson, 3 Wilson, 348; Ansell v. Waterhouse, 2 Chitty, 1.
"A breach of duty in the defendant, and a damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiffs, is a proper subject for an action on the case in tort." Littledale, J., in Burnett v. Lynch, above cited.
"SEC. 5. Be it further enacted, That the bonds before specified shall not be used by said company for any other purpose than the construction and equipment of said road; and the governor shall not indorse the same unless on the affidavit of the president of said company, and a resolution of a majority of its directory for the time being, that said bonds shall not be used for any other purpose than the construction and equipment of said road, or sold or disposed of for a less sum than ninety cents in the dollar; nor shall said bonds be indorsed until the president and chief engineer of said company shall, upon oath, show that the conditions of this act have been complied with in all respects.
"SEC. 6. Be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the governor, from time to time, when there shall be reliable information given to him that any railroad company shall have fraudulently obtained the indorsement of its bonds by the governor on the part of the State, or shall have obtained the indorsement contrary to the provisions of this act, or shall have sold or disposed of the bonds indorsed by the governor for a less sum than ninety cents in the dollar, he shall notify the attorney-general of the State, whose duty it shall be forthwith to institute, in the name of the State, a suit in the Circuit or Chancery Court of the county of the place of business of the company, setting forth the facts; and when the fact shall satisfactorily appear to the court that the indorsement of any of said bonds shall have been fraudulently obtained, or obtained contrary to the true intent, meaning and provisions of this act, or that said bonds shall have been sold or disposed of for a less sum than ninety cents in the dollar, then, and in such case, the court shall order, adjudge and decree that said road lying in the State, with all the property and assets of said company, or a sufficiency thereof, shall be sold, and the proceeds thereof shall be paid into the treasury of the State; and it shall be the duty of the comptroller immediately to invest the same in State bonds, or the bonds indorsed by the governor, under the provisions of this act creating a sinking fund as provided for in the eleventh section of this act; and said company shall forfeit all rights and privileges under the provisions of this act. And the stockholders thereof shall be individually liable for the payment of the bonds the indorsement of which was so fraudulently obtained by such company, or which were sold or disposed of for less than ninety cents in the dollar, and for all other losses that may fall upon the State in consequence of the commission of any other fraud by such company, excepting such stockholders as may show to the said court that they were ignorant of or opposed the perpetration of such fraud by the company."
By another statute, passed February 11, 1870, the governor was authorized to issue State bonds to the amount of $2,000,000, and exchange them with the same company for an equal amount of its own bonds, secured by a first mortgage on lands granted to the company by the United States, and certain other specified property, including, if the governor should deem it necessary, a second mortgage on the railroad. The bonds were only to be issued in such sums as it should be shown by sufficient evidence had been expended by the company in the construction and equipment of its road, "in addition to and besides the proceeds of the bonds indorsed by the State which the said railroad company shall have received under the laws of the said State now in force." The act also provided that these bonds should not be sold at less than ninety cents on the dollar, and "that the directors or other officers and incorporators and stockholders of said railroad company, who shall knowingly violate, or permit the violation without objection, of any provision of this act, or of the act under which said company is now receiving the indorsement of the State upon its bonds, of $16,000 per mile, shall be held personally liable to the State for any loss incurred thereby."
The declaration, after setting forth the various statutes relied on, proceeded as follows: "The defendants were at the time last mentioned, and from thence continuously, until, and at and after the time of the occurrence of the several and respective wrongs and injuries and losses to the plaintiff hereinafter stated, the majority and controlling incorporators, officers, directors, and stockholders, as well as the actual managers and controllers of the said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company;" and, after stating that the company issued twelve hundred and fifty thousand of its first mortgage bonds in excess of that authorized by the statutes, avers that such over-issue was made "with the intent fraudulently to procure the indorsement of each of its said bonds by the governor of plaintiff as if the indorsement of each of them by said governor was authorized by said acts, and with intent to deceive the governor of the plaintiff, and to defraud the plaintiff to the extent of an amount equal to so many of said bonds and indorsements thereof as were not authorized by said acts to be indorsed by the governor of plaintiff; and said last-named company, with such fraudulent intent, did, by false and fraudulent representations and pretences, some of which were to the effect that said company was presenting to the governor of plaintiff, for indorsement by him, only so many of its bonds as said acts authorized him to indorse, and was claiming of him indorsement of only so many of its bonds as said acts authorized him to indorse, fraudulently procure from said governor his indorsement of each and all of its bonds issued as aforesaid, and the redelivery to that company of all its said bonds indorsed as aforesaid. In procuring said indorsement by said governor of Alabama of each and of all the said bonds of said last-mentioned company, that company made to said governor the following, among other, false and fraudulent pretences: That this last-mentioned company, at the time it applied for and procured said indorsements, had twenty continuous miles of its railroad finished, equipped, and completed, outside of the State of Alabama, and in the State of Mississippi, and extending in a northeasterly direction towards Alabama; that said last-mentioned company, at the time it applied for and procured said indorsements, had twenty continuous miles of its railroad finished, equipped, and completed from Chattanooga, in the State of Tennessee, in a southwesterly direction towards Alabama, but outside of Alabama.
"The governor of plaintiff was induced to make said indorsements by believing and acting upon said several false and fraudulent representations and pretences; and otherwise would not have made any of said indorsements.
"First. That said twenty miles of road situate in the State of Mississippi, for which the first indorsement was procured, had not been finished and completed by said company, but was an old road purchased by said company, and which had been built several years prior to the passage of said acts by the said Northeast and Southwest Railroad Company.
"Second. That said road was not equipped.
"Third. That said company had not finished, completed, and equipped twenty continuous miles of said road from said city of Chattanooga, extending towards the State of Alabama, for which it procured the indorsement, by the said State, of the second batch of three hundred and twenty of said bonds, but, on the contrary, said company estimated, as a part of said twenty miles, a part, to wit, five miles of the road of another corporation situated in the State of Tennessee, which was used by it for the running of its train, under an agreement with said other corporation, and which said road has been continuously ever since and is still the property of said other corporation, and for the use of which the said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company was then paying, and continued to pay so long as it controlled and managed its own road, a large rental, amounting to many thousand dollars, which was paid out of the proceeds of the sale of said indorsed bonds.
"Fourth. That said twenty miles of road claimed to have been finished and completed by said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company, from said city of Chattanooga, as aforesaid, at the time it procured said indorsements, had not at that time been equipped."
It was then averred that the $2,000,000 of State bonds were issued to the company under the act of 1870, and that, after this was done, and on or about September 15, 1871, a petition in bankruptcy was filed, under which the company was declared a bankrupt, November 6, 1871, and that, on the 22d of April, 1872, its railroad and property were sold by its assignees to the State, subject to the mortgage given the State to secure the indorsed bonds. Afterwards, the mortgage to the State was foreclosed, and the mortgaged property sold at public auction on the 22d of January, 1877, to a purchaser other than the State.
"The plaintiff says that in the indorsement and delivery to the said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company of the said bonds of that corporation and the coupons thereunto attached as aforesaid, and in the issuance and delivery to that corporation of the said two thousand bonds of the plaintiff and the coupons thereunto attached as aforesaid, the plaintiff relied on the truthfulness of the several aforesaid false pretences and statements of said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company, as well as on all the provisions of all the said acts of her general assembly, and especially on all the said provisions of said acts relating to the obligation and liability to the plaintiff of the directors, officers, incorporators, and stockholders of said corporation, for any loss that should be incurred by the plaintiff by reason of the directors, officers, incorporators, and stockholders of said corporation knowingly violating, or permitting the violation of, without objection, any provision of the said act approved February 11, 1870, under and by virtue of which the said two thousand bonds of the plaintiff and the coupons thereunto attached were issued and delivered to said corporation as aforesaid, or of the said acts under which the plaintiff indorsed and delivered to the said corporation the said bonds of the said corporation as aforesaid."
It was then averred that, in May, 1869, the company "knowingly, wrongfully, illegally, and fraudulently appropriated to the defendants, and their accomplices in the wrong and fraud," $160,000 of the money accruing from the sale of the indorsed bonds, and that this sum "was not used or applied in any way for the benefit of said corporation, or of plaintiff, or for the purpose of constructing or equipping its said railroad, or for any honest or lawful purpose." Also, that the company, in or about the month of May, 1869, "wrongfully, illegally, fraudulently, and without any valuable consideration, appropriated and issued to the defendants, and their accomplices in the fraud and wrong, shares of the capital stock of the said corporation of the aggregate par value of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which the defendants thereafter pretended to sell to said corporation, and in payment therefor the said corporation fraudulently and illegally paid to the defendants, and the defendants did wrongfully, fraudulently and illegally receive from the said corporation a large sum, to wit, the sum of forty-five thousand dollars, which said sum had accrued to, and been received by, the said corporation from the sales of a portion of said bonds, indorsed by the plaintiff, and delivered to the said corporation as aforesaid, and which said sum, received by the defendants as aforesaid, they, the defendants, knowingly, wrongfully, illegally, and fraudulently appropriated to their own use and benefit, and which was not used or applied in any way for the benefit of said corporation, or for the purpose of constructing or equipping its said railroad."
Also, that in the months of November and December, 1869, the company "wrongfully, illegally, fraudulently and knowingly permitted the defendants to appropriate to their own use and to the use of their accomplices" certain sums amounting in the aggregate to one hundred and eighteen thousand dollars, "which sums had accrued to, and been received by, the said corporation from sales of a portion of said bonds indorsed by the plaintiff and delivered to said corporation as aforesaid, and which were not used or applied in any way for the benefit of said corporation, or for the purpose of constructing or equipping its said road." Also, that in the months of January and February, 1870, the company "knowingly, wrongfully, illegally and fraudulently permitted the defendants to misapply, misappropriate and convert to improper uses a further large sum, to wit, four hundred thousand dollars, which had accrued to and been received from the sales of a portion of said indorsed bonds, . . . and which was never used or applied in any way for the benefit of said . . . corporation, or for the purpose of constructing, equipping, or finishing its said railroad, or for any other purpose authorized by said acts of the legislature."
Also, that the company, "with the knowledge and participation of the defendants, during the years 1869 and 1870, wrongfully and illegally sold and disposed of" eight hundred and twelve thousand dollars of the indorsed bonds, and seven hundred and seventy-one thousand dollars of the State bonds, at less than ninety cents on the dollar; and that five hundred and eighty thousand dollars of the indorsed bonds were disposed of by the company, with the knowledge and permission of the defendants, by placing them as collateral security for the debts of the company which debts were much less than ninety per cent. of the amount of the bonds.
It was then alleged that the company, with the permission of the defendants, during the years 1869 and 1870, "allowed large amounts of said indorsed bonds, to wit, two hundred thousand dollars, as well as large sums of the proceeds of said indorsed bonds, to wit, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to be unlawfully paid or given to various persons who were not entitled to any part of said bonds or the proceeds thereof, and were at the time of such payments or gifts known by said last named corporation, as well as by said defendants, not to be entitled to any part of said bonds or the proceeds thereof; . . . and the indorsed bonds and proceeds of said indorsed bonds which were so unlawfully paid or given by said . . . corporation were never used or applied in any way for the benefit of that corporation, or for the construction or equipment of its said railroad, or for any honest and lawful purpose, but were lost to that corporation."
It was then alleged that the company, during the years 1869 and 1870, permitted the defendants to use two hundred thousand of the indorsed bonds in purchasing for themselves stock in the Roane Iron Company and in the Vicksburg and Meridian Railroad Company, and in opening and working a coal mine, and that these bonds were wholly lost to the company and to the plaintiff, and were never applied in any way to its benefit, or to the construction or equipment of its road.
As an excuse for not making the "allegations as to said wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of said company more full, certain or definite," it was stated that the company, with the participation and concurrence of the defendants, "fraudulently concealed from plaintiff all knowledge or information touching each of the aforesaid wrongful or fraudulent acts of said company and of said defendants, and wilfully kept the plaintiff ignorant of each of said wrongful and illegal acts."
The declaration concluded as follows: "And the plaintiff says that by reason of the aforesaid wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of the said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company, permitted and participated in by the defendants, who were the actual managers and controllers of said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company as aforesaid, the said corporation last named became a bankrupt in the year 1871, and was rendered wholly unable to pay its indebtedness existing on and prior to the first day of September, 1871, and especially the interest on said indorsed bonds," which became due on the first days of January and July A.D. 1871, and that on the State bonds, which became due on the first days of March and September in the same year, amounting in the aggregate to five hundred and thirty-seven thousand six hundred dollars, all of which "the plaintiff was compelled to pay and did pay to the holders of said bonds, which she would not have been compelled to pay but for the wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of the said defendants and said corporation as aforesaid, no part of which sum of five hundred and thirty-seven thousand and six hundred dollars has ever been repaid to the plaintiff; and by reason of the aforesaid wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of the said Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company and of the said defendants as aforesaid, the said plaintiff has been further damnified and injured to the additional extent of one million of dollars in settling her liability created and evidenced by her aforesaid indorsement of said indorsed bonds, no part of any of which loss or damage has ever been paid to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff says that she had no notice, information or knowledge of the wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of the said defendants and said corporation as aforesaid, until within the twelve months now last past. Whereby, and by force of the said acts of the general assembly of the plaintiff, approved February 19, 1867, September 22, 1868, November 17, 1868, February 11, 1870, respectively, an action hath accrued to the plaintiff to recover against the said defendants full compensation for the aforesaid respective losses and damages to plaintiff sustained as aforesaid, yet the said defendants, although requested so to do, have not, nor hath either or any of them, at any time hitherto, yielded any compensation, or made any satisfaction or amends, to the plaintiff for the said loss so by the plaintiff sustained as aforesaid, but to do this the said defendants have hitherto altogether neglected and refused, and still do refuse, to the damage of the plaintiff, the sum of three million dollars."
To this declaration the defendants demurred generally.
The demurrer presents the question whether the facts stated in the declaration are sufficient to support the action. The liability of the officers and stockholders of the company to the State is statutory only, and there can be no recovery unless the facts stated in the declaration are such as to bring the defendants within the operation of the liability clause in one or the other of the statutes.
1. As to the act of 1867.
Under this act, guilty stockholders are made liable, 1, for the payment of all bonds, the indorsement of which was fraudulently obtained by the company, or which were sold at less than ninety cents on the dollar; and, 2, for all other losses that fell on the State in consequence of any other fraud of the company. For frauds in obtaining indorsements the obligation is to pay the bonds indorsed; for all other frauds, to pay the losses of the State in consequence thereof.
This suit is not brought to enforce a liability of the defendants for the payment of the bonds. That was conceded in argument. With the alleged frauds in obtaining indorsements, therefore, we have nothing to do, because the liability of stockholders for the payment of losses depends entirely on other frauds than these.
The office of a declaration is, to state the essential facts on which the liability of the defendant in the action depends. In this case, it must show, 1, the particular fraud of which the company has been guilty; and, 2, that the loss which has fallen on the State resulted directly therefrom. The frauds alleged are, 1, misrepresentations, by reason of which the indorsement of an over-issue of bonds was obtained; 2, misrepresentations, by reason of which indorsements were obtained before the several sections of the road were fully "finished, completed and equipped;" and, 3, the unlawful and improper use of some of the bonds, or their proceeds, after they got into the hands of the company.
As to the first and second of these classes of allegations, it is sufficient to say that they relate only to the manner in which the indorsements were obtained, and for frauds of that character the liability is, as has been seen, only for the payment of the bonds the indorsement of which was got in that way. The other allegations are in effect that, at different times, the company used indorsed bonds, or their proceeds, for dishonest purposes, and paid them out without consideration and in fraud of the rights of innocent stockholders. In some instances, they were given to the defendants without consideration, or for an unauthorized purpose, and in others to other persons who were not entitled to them. If the averments are true, they show gross frauds by the company and the defendants, as its officers and agents, upon innocent stockholders, but they fail entirely to connect the losses which have since fallen on the State with what was thus wrongfully done. Upon such allegations, if proven, the company might, perhaps, recover from the defendants and others the bonds and moneys they had fraudulently obtained, but it by no means follows that the State has, also, a right of action against the defendants on the same grounds.
The declaration does indeed allege that, "by reason of the aforesaid wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of the said . . . company, permitted and participated in by the defendants," the corporation became bankrupt and was rendered wholly unable to pay its debts, and especially the interest on its bonds; and that the State had been compelled to make certain payments on that account "which she would not have been compelled to pay but for the wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of the defendants and said corporation;" and that, "by reason of the aforesaid wrongful, illegal and fraudulent acts of the said . . . company and of the defendants, the said plaintiff has been further damnified and injured to the additional extent of one million of dollars in settling her liability created and evidenced by her aforesaid indorsement of said indorsed bonds;" but this is not enough, unless the facts from which this conclusion is drawn are such as to show that the loss was both the natural and immediate consequence of the wrongful and fraudulent acts referred to. Pleadings must state facts, and not conclusions of law merely, and the allegation in this case that the loss arose from the fraud is only a conclusion of law. If the facts from which the conclusion is drawn are not sufficient to show that in law the loss was attributable to the fraud, the declaration is bad.
The facts are, that the State was to indorse certain bonds of the company upon certain security. It made the indorsement and got the security. The obligation of the company to use the bonds to build and equip the road was satisfied, if the road was actually completed and equipped in accordance with the requirements of the statute at a bona fide cost to the company of more than the amount of the bonds. The object of this requirement was to insure the creation of the security which the State was entitled to have. If the security was actually perfected, all claim of the State upon the indorsed bonds was satisfied. There is no pretence that the road cost less than the value of the bonds. Consequently, if the bonds were not used to build the road, other funds belonging to the company must have been, and it was proper to treat the bonds as a substitute for the other funds in the treasury of the company. This being so, it was not a fraud on the State for the company to do with the bonds as it might have done with the other funds, if they had not been used in building the road. As the State had no direct lien on the bonds for its security, a fraudulent use of the bonds was not a fraudulent diversion of the State's securities.
The loss of the State is directly attributable to the deficiency in the value of its original security, and the fraudulent use of the bonds had no effect on that. The company, if the allegations are true, has wasted its property and made itself insolvent, but it has not in this way increased its obligations to, or changed its relations with, the State. Both the debt to and the security held by the State were the same after the frauds as before. The injury to innocent stockholders by the wrongful acts of the company and the defendants was direct and immediate, because their property was taken and fraudulently converted to the use of the defendants or the other wrongdoers. To the State, however, the injury, if any, was both indirect and remote, because the State had no direct claim upon, or interest in, the property which was misappropriated. The law will not imply that, if the company had kept the bonds, the same loss would not have fallen on the State. There was no imperative obligation on the company to use the bonds to pay the debts for which the State was liable rather than others, and, consequently, it cannot be said that, as a matter of law, if the misappropriations had not been made, the State would have suffered no loss. To our minds it is clear, therefore, that, upon the facts as they are set forth in the declaration, there is no liability on the part of the defendants for the alleged frauds of the company, other than those connected with over-issues, or sales of the bonds at less than ninety cents on the dollar, and for these the suit is not brought.
2. As to the act of 1870.
Under this act all officers and stockholders who knowingly violate or permit without objection the violation of any of its provisions, or the provisions of the act of 1867, are made personally liable to the State for any loss incurred thereby. There is also a prohibition against a sale of the State bonds, the issue of which to the company was authorized, at less than ninety cents on the dollar; but there is no provision for the liability of the stockholders for the payment of the bonds, in case they are so sold, as there is in the act of 1867. The only liability under this act, for such a violation of its provisions, is for the losses which the State sustains on that account. The declaration alleges that seven hundred and seventy-one of these bonds were sold at less than ninety cents on the dollar, but it fails entirely to show how the State was injured thereby. Stockholders are liable under this act for violations of the act of 1867, only when such violations occur after this act took effect, which was February 11, 1870, and it nowhere affirmatively appears that any of the wrongs complained of were committed after that date, except in the sale of the State bonds at less than ninety cents on the dollar. It is also as much incumbent on the State to show, under this act, that the losses for which it seeks to recover were the direct and immediate consequence of the wrongful conduct complained of, as it was under the act of 1867. What has been said, therefore, as to the insufficiency of the allegations to charge the defendants under that act, is equally applicable to this.


MARKS & SPENCER is planning to enter the mortgage market early next year, with products aimed at first-time buyers as well as home-movers.
M&S Bank said that, subject to regulatory approval, it plans to launch its first mortgage early in 2018, bringing an "M&S-standard service" to those seeking a home loan.
It said it plans to offer mortgage products for first-time buyers, as well as home-movers, "with competitive rates across a range of terms".
It has not yet given details of the rates it plans to offer or how big a deposit borrowers will need. M&S Bank said further details will be available in the new year.
The announcement marks the fifth anniversary of the launch of the M&S Bank brand in 2012.
The provider has previously launched into the current account market in recent years, as well as offering other products including credit cards and personal loans. Its bank opening times mirror the opening hours of its stores - including weekends.
M&S Bank mortgages will be available directly from M&S Bank and through the broker channel.
Sue Fox, the chief executive of M&S Bank, said: "We're incredibly excited to be able to bring this M&S-standard service to customers purchasing a home, whether they're making their first or final step on the property ladder, and for every move in between."
Several mortgage price wars have broken out in recent years as lenders have battled for borrowers' business.
But in the past few weeks there have been signs of lenders' rates edging up as well as some ultra-low mortgage deals being pulled altogether.
Rachel Springall, a finance expert at Moneyfacts.co.uk, said: "It's exciting to see M&S Bank eyeing up the mortgage market, particularly as they have been hugely competitive in the personal finance arena.
"Loyal M&S customers may find it an enticing prospect to have the choice to have all their finance deals with the one brand.
"It will be interesting to find out what kind of perks M&S Bank may add on to any mortgage deal, or any extras for existing customers."
Martin Lewis Money Saving Expert: Fixed rate or tracker mortgage?


text:
Q: Embedded Jetty with Maven example fails to restart: Address already in use When trying to repeatedly run the Embedded Jetty with Maven example in NetBeans, I unfortunately get the error:

cd /Users/afarber/src/JettyMavenHelloWorld; JAVA_HOME=/Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_45.jdk/Contents/Home "/Applications/NetBeans/NetBeans 8.1.app/Contents/Resources/NetBeans/java/maven/bin/mvn" "-Dexec.args=-classpath %classpath org.example.HelloWorld" -Dexec.executable=/Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_45.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java org.codehaus.mojo:exec-maven-plugin:1.2.1:exec
Running NetBeans Compile On Save execution. Phase execution is skipped and output directories of dependency projects (with Compile on Save turned on) will be used instead of their jar artifacts.
Scanning for projects...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Jetty HelloWorld 0.1-SNAPSHOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- exec-maven-plugin:1.2.1:exec (default-cli) @ hello-world ---
2016-05-24 19:01:26.748:INFO:oejs.Server:main: jetty-9.0.2.v20130417
2016-05-24 19:01:26.817:WARN:oejuc.AbstractLifeCycle:main: FAILED ServerConnector@7591083d{HTTP/1.1}{0.0.0.0:8080}: java.net.BindException: Address already in use
java.net.BindException: Address already in use
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind0(Native Method)
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:437)
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:429)
    at sun.nio.ch.ServerSocketChannelImpl.bind(ServerSocketChannelImpl.java:223)
    at sun.nio.ch.ServerSocketAdaptor.bind(ServerSocketAdaptor.java:74)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.ServerConnector.open(ServerConnector.java:227)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.AbstractNetworkConnector.doStart(AbstractNetworkConnector.java:80)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.doStart(Server.java:309)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
    at org.example.HelloWorld.main(HelloWorld.java:29)
2016-05-24 19:01:26.818:WARN:oejuc.AbstractLifeCycle:main: FAILED org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server@77a567e1: java.net.BindException: Address already in use
java.net.BindException: Address already in use
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind0(Native Method)
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:437)
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:429)
    at sun.nio.ch.ServerSocketChannelImpl.bind(ServerSocketChannelImpl.java:223)
    at sun.nio.ch.ServerSocketAdaptor.bind(ServerSocketAdaptor.java:74)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.ServerConnector.open(ServerConnector.java:227)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.AbstractNetworkConnector.doStart(AbstractNetworkConnector.java:80)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.doStart(Server.java:309)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
    at org.example.HelloWorld.main(HelloWorld.java:29)
Exception in thread "main" java.net.BindException: Address already in use
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind0(Native Method)
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:437)
    at sun.nio.ch.Net.bind(Net.java:429)
    at sun.nio.ch.ServerSocketChannelImpl.bind(ServerSocketChannelImpl.java:223)
    at sun.nio.ch.ServerSocketAdaptor.bind(ServerSocketAdaptor.java:74)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.ServerConnector.open(ServerConnector.java:227)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.AbstractNetworkConnector.doStart(AbstractNetworkConnector.java:80)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.doStart(Server.java:309)
    at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
    at org.example.HelloWorld.main(HelloWorld.java:29)

If the root cause for this is the SO_REUSEADDR limitation when binding listening sockets - then probably ServerSocket.setReuseAddress(true) would help.
But how and where to call it in the HelloWorld.java?
package org.example;

import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest;
import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse;
import javax.servlet.ServletException;
import java.io.IOException;
import org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server;
import org.eclipse.jetty.server.Request;
import org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.AbstractHandler;

public class HelloWorld extends AbstractHandler
{
    public void handle(String target,
                       Request baseRequest,
                       HttpServletRequest request,
                       HttpServletResponse response)
        throws IOException, ServletException
    {
        response.setContentType("text/html;charset=utf-8");
        response.setStatus(HttpServletResponse.SC_OK);
        baseRequest.setHandled(true);
        response.getWriter().println("
Hello World
");
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
    {
        Server server = new Server(8080);
        server.setHandler(new HelloWorld());
        server.start();
        server.join();
    }
}

I am using the following pom.xml:
<project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0"
         xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
         xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd">

  <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
  <groupId>org.example</groupId>
  <artifactId>hello-world</artifactId>
  <version>0.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
  <packaging>jar</packaging>
  <name>Jetty HelloWorld</name>

  <properties>
      <jettyVersion>9.3.9.v20160517</jettyVersion>
  </properties>

  <dependencies>
    <dependency>
      <groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId>
      <artifactId>jetty-server</artifactId>
      <version>${jettyVersion}</version>
    </dependency>
  </dependencies>

  <build>
    <plugins>
      <plugin>
        <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
        <artifactId>exec-maven-plugin</artifactId>
        <version>1.1</version>
        <executions>
          <execution><goals><goal>java</goal></goals></execution>
        </executions>
        <configuration>
          <mainClass>org.example.HelloWorld</mainClass>
        </configuration>
      </plugin>
    </plugins>
  </build>
</project>

UPDATE:
Lars Gendner is correct and I do have HelloWorld processes still running at my Macbook:
# ps -ef | grep HelloWorld
  501   944     1   0  6:58pm ??         0:04.20 /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_45.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -classpath /Users/afarber/src/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/classes:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-server/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-server-9.0.2.v20130417.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/orbit/javax.servlet/3.0.0.v201112011016/javax.servlet-3.0.0.v201112011016.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-http/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-http-9.0.2.v20130417.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-util/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-util-9.0.2.v20130417.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-io/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-io-9.0.2.v20130417.jar org.example.HelloWorld
  501   948     1   0  6:58pm ??         0:03.89 /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_45.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -classpath /Users/afarber/src/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/classes:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-server/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-server-9.0.2.v20130417.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/orbit/javax.servlet/3.0.0.v201112011016/javax.servlet-3.0.0.v201112011016.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-http/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-http-9.0.2.v20130417.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-util/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-util-9.0.2.v20130417.jar:/Users/afarber/.m2/repository/org/eclipse/jetty/jetty-io/9.0.2.v20130417/jetty-io-9.0.2.v20130417.jar org.example.HelloWorld

And the port 8080 is in use:
# netstat -an | grep -w 8080
tcp46      0      0  *.8080                 *.*                    LISTEN

But of course I do not want to change port number again and again (and spawn more processes).
Instead (being NetBeans and Jetty newbie) I wonder how to properly stop embedded Jetty in NetBeans? (besides of awk /HelloWorld/ '{print $2}'| xargs kill workaround)
UPDATE 2:
Adding jetty-maven-plugin to the pom.xml and runningmvn jetty:run does start a web server at port 8080, but it only displays the red text:
Directory: /

Here is the full Maven output:
# mvn jetty:run
[INFO] Scanning for projects...
[INFO]
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building Jetty HelloWorld 0.1-SNAPSHOT
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO]
[INFO] >>> jetty-maven-plugin:9.3.9.v20160517:run (default-cli) > test-compile @ hello-world >>>
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:resources (default-resources) @ hello-world ---
[WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered resources, i.e. build is platform dependent!
[INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/src/main/resources
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:compile (default-compile) @ hello-world ---
[INFO] Changes detected - recompiling the module!
[WARNING] File encoding has not been set, using platform encoding UTF-8, i.e. build is platform dependent!
[INFO] Compiling 1 source file to /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/classes
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.6:testResources (default-testResources) @ hello-world ---
[WARNING] Using platform encoding (UTF-8 actually) to copy filtered resources, i.e. build is platform dependent!
[INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/src/test/resources
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:testCompile (default-testCompile) @ hello-world ---
[INFO] No sources to compile
[INFO]
[INFO] <<< jetty-maven-plugin:9.3.9.v20160517:run (default-cli) < test-compile @ hello-world <<<
[INFO]
[INFO] --- jetty-maven-plugin:9.3.9.v20160517:run (default-cli) @ hello-world ---
[INFO] Configuring Jetty for project: Jetty HelloWorld
[INFO] webAppSourceDirectory not set. Trying src/main/webapp
[INFO] webAppSourceDirectory /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/src/main/webapp does not exist. Trying /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/webapp-tmp
[INFO] Reload Mechanic: automatic
[INFO] Classes = /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/classes
[INFO] Logging initialized @3610ms
[INFO] Context path = /
[INFO] Tmp directory = /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/tmp
[INFO] Web defaults = org/eclipse/jetty/webapp/webdefault.xml
[INFO] Web overrides =  none
[INFO] web.xml file = null
[INFO] Webapp directory = /Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/webapp-tmp
[INFO] jetty-9.3.9.v20160517
[INFO] Started o.e.j.m.p.JettyWebAppContext@58a63629{/,file:///Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/webapp-tmp/,AVAILABLE}{file:///Users/afarber/src/jetty-newbie/JettyMavenHelloWorld/target/webapp-tmp/}
[INFO] Started ServerConnector@75a118e6{HTTP/1.1,[http/1.1]}{0.0.0.0:8080}
[INFO] Started @4608ms
[INFO] Started Jetty Server
[INFO] Using Non-Native Java sun.nio.fs.PollingWatchService
[WARNING] Quiet Time is too low for non-native WatchService [sun.nio.fs.PollingWatchService]: 1000 < 5000 ms (defaulting to 5000 ms)

A: I am pretty sure that you already have a process running on port 8080. If you track down that process and end it (maybe you are trying to start Jetty twice instead of ending an already running Jetty instance properly?), your process should start just fine.
You can also try and use some other port instead of 8080 (e.g. 8090).

A: You should add jetty-maven-plugin to your pom and try stopping the server. The jetty stop goal looks for the plugin configuration. Please refer this jetty doc Jetty Stop goal

The stop goal stops a running instance of jetty. To use it, you need
  to configure the plugin with a special port number and key. That same
  port number and key will also be used by the other goals that start
  jetty.

Here's the plugin configuration for jetty-stop,
<plugin>
  <groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId>
  <artifactId>jetty-maven-plugin</artifactId>
  <version>@project.version@</version>
  <configuration>
    <stopPort>9966</stopPort>
    <stopKey>foo</stopKey>
    <stopWait>10</stopWait>
  </configuration>
</plugin>

And after jetty is started, issue the following command,
mvn jetty:stopmvn jetty:stop

or simply try the
mvn jetty:stop

And mvn jetty:run command would start the server. For other goals/configurations please refer to Configuring Jetty Maven plugin

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Stawell Medical Centre has been providing quality medical care to the people of Stawell and District for over 50 years. Our goal is to provide easy access to services that meets the medical needs of our patients.
Stawell Regional Health Urgent Care Centre.
There are a wide range of times available for appointments, please phone the Stawell Medical Centre Reception to book a suitable time.
If you need a longer appointment please request this at the time of booking.
Calls to your doctor will be returned as soon as possible, often at the end of the day.
The Stawell Medical Centre is an AGPAL accredited and computerised general practice. It has well-equipped consulting rooms and treatment rooms where services such as lesion removal, INRs, ECGs and spirometry and other minor procedures are performed.
Doctors are well supported by a Practice Manager, Practice Nurses and an administrative team.
The Centre is proud to be an RACGP accredited teaching practice and continues to contribute to the medical workforce providing supervision and training to medical and clinical staff through formal and informal training opportunities.
Doctors from the practice have Visiting Medical Officer admitting rights to the acute services of Stawell Hospital with a long history of collaboration in providing quality health care to the community.
Stawell Medical Centre provides after hours services through the Urgent Care Centre at the Stawell Hospital. An experienced Registered Nurse will triage a patient who presents to the Urgent Care Centre and, when required, will telephone the doctor on call for advice or to request the doctor attend in person to assess the patient.
This service is not government funded. To partially cover the costs of this excellent service, there is an out of pocket fee of $50 which needs to be paid by everyone who sees a doctor.


Matthew is a Partner in our Client Development Team. Matthew joined IQbusiness in 2016. His current role is to oversee the IQbusiness key accounts team operating in the Banking sector, as well as manage the executive relationship with Absa Group.
Matthew has over 20 years of experience in management consulting and information technology, working in the financial services and telecommunication industries. He has experience in general management, business consulting, business development and business process and technology outsourcing. He has worked in South Africa, the Middle East, the US, and the UK.
Matthew has a Bachelor of Commerce Degree majoring in Accounting from the University of the Witwatersrand.


text:
Bradburn, Jamie. "Toronto Feature: Scarborough Museum". The Canadian Encyclopedia, 02 July 2015, Historica Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/toronto-feature-scarborough-museum. Accessed 20 January 2021.
Bradburn, J., Toronto Feature: Scarborough Museum (2015). In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/toronto-feature-scarborough-museum
Bradburn, Jamie, "Toronto Feature: Scarborough Museum". In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Article published February 03, 2013; Last Edited July 02, 2015. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/toronto-feature-scarborough-museum
Bradburn, Jamie. The Canadian Encyclopedia, s.v. "Toronto Feature: Scarborough Museum", Last Edited July 02, 2015, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/toronto-feature-scarborough-museum
Toronto Feature: Scarborough Museum
Article by Jamie Bradburn
Last Edited July 2, 2015
This text is from the free Toronto in Time app, which was created by The Canadian Encyclopedia and is available from the App Store and the Google Play store. Visit its companion website, which is linked below, to explore all the features of the app online.
This content is from a series created in partnership with Museum Services of the City of Toronto and Heritage Toronto. We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
A Snapshot of 19th-Century Town Life in Scarborough
As rural townships gave way to modern suburbs following the Second World War, homes and businesses that stood in the way of progress were often demolished. Such appeared to be the fate of Cornell House on Markham Road north of Eglinton Avenue in the Township of Scarborough. Built by Charles Cornell as a farmhouse about 1858, it housed a piano works when Scarborough threatened to tear it down in 1961 to make way for a railway overpass.
As people began to realize the value of preserving heritage structures for future generations, volunteers and the local Lions Club raised funds to move Cornell House to Brimley Road, where it became the foundation of the Scarborough Museum. Situated within Thomson Memorial Park, the museum sits on land that once belonged to Scottish stonemason David Thomson and his wife Mary, the first Europeans to settle in Scarborough sometime around 1799. Surrounding Cornell House are kitchen and herb gardens, which offer a portrait of the plant life common to early Scarborough, and floral gardens that follow Victorian-era principles of design with a variety of annuals and perennials.
Over the next two decades, two more structures were moved to the museum, as well as a recreation of the Hough Carriage Works, which had stood for many years at Birchmount Road and Eglinton Avenue.
Download Toronto in Time
Museum Policy
Old Log Church Museum


text:
Hamilton International Airport issues RFP for design of Air Cargo Logistics Facility
February 20, 2014	By Staff Report
John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport has issued a Request for Proposal for Professional Design Service of its new Air Cargo Logistics Facility.
The $12-million Air Cargo Logistics Facility, slated to open in 2015, is being funded through a joint partnership between the federal and Ontario governments and TradePort International Corporation, with support from Hamilton's municipal government.
As depicted in renderings, the Air Cargo Logistics Facility will be built with direct airside access on a redeveloped parcel of land. Equipped with multiple trucking docks and specialized handling environments, the Air Cargo Logistics Facility will cater to niche product markets such as pharmaceutical and biomedical industries, automobile manufacturing and perishable goods.
The Airport is seeking an engineering and design firm to undertake the project, past experience with similar airport or logistics projects is an asset. Any interested parties are encouraged to review the Request for Proposal which can be found on the Airport's site: flyhamilton.ca/business.
A mandatory site meeting will be held for interested parties on February 26, 2014; instructions are included in the RFP document posted on the Airport's website.
Hamilton airport seeks construction manager to build cargo facility
Feds backing construction of new cargo warehouse at Winnipeg airport with $30.4M in funding
Runway, taxiway upgrades to begin at Hamilton, Ont. airport as feds chip in to help fund $38.9M project
Montreal's Mirabel cargo airport to get $107M to fund expansion, add new warehouse space
Construction hiring begins as K2 Wind Power project moves forward
Deadline approaching to register for Holcim's sustainable construction awards


text:
Races for All
8KM Race
#ExploreBClater
Hotel Specials
RUN4HOPE
Official Charities
Charity Runners
Event Records
Race Store
Edit Reg & FAQs
Destination BC
Please enjoy our stunning images as inspiration for future travel when the time is right! We look forward to welcoming visitors again when travel and mass participation events are permitted again.
Please note all non-essential travel to and within BC should be avoided due to the COVID-19 global pandemic as directed by health authorities. Please stay local and support local. Thank you in advance for cooperating and considering our Virtual Race this year.
By order of the Provincial Health Officer, all mass participation events are currently suspended in an attempt to reduce COVID-19 transmissions related to social interactions and travel. You may learn more about our Province-wide restrictions on the BC Government website.
In the future, you're encouraged to extend your stay pre and post-race to enjoy beautiful British Columbia. Find even more inspiration and share your #exploreBClater photos @hellobc
Explore BC
Stunning all year round, Stanley Park truly comes alive in the warmer months.
Perhaps Vancouver's most iconic attraction, Stanley Park is the jade crown of Vancouver's downtown peninsula. Home to swathes of old-growth rainforest, the immense 400-hectare (1,000-acre) park can be explored on bike, foot, or even by horse-drawn carriage. Learn more
Take in breathtaking city views and discover art and culture at Vancouver's top tourist attractions.
From the Vancouver Lookout to the Sea to Sky Gondola in Squamish, there is no shortage to stunning views. Discover innovation and art at Science World and the Vancouver Art Gallery, and explore Vancouver's many urban parks. See featured attractions
Hiking trails in British Columbia are world-renowned, from well-marked nature walks to physically demanding and remote multi-day hiking trips.
The landscapes are as varied as the trails, and virtually all of BC's national and provincial parks have trail networks. Some of Vancouver's most iconic hikes include the Stawamus Chief, Grouse Grind and Baden-Powell Trail. Learn more
The Pacific Ocean laps the length of the British Columbia, and there are miles of coast to explore for beachcombing, swimming, or just relaxing.
Rain or shine, Vancouver's nine beaches are the perfect places to soak up incredible scenery and get away from it all without going too far away from urban life. Local favourites include Kitsilano Beach and Spanish Banks. Learn more
Crackling bonfires, lake dips, fishing, and wildlife viewing await when camping in British Columbia.
Camping options in British Columbia include a vast network of provincial and national parks, privately operated campgrounds, RV parks. You're encouraged to reserve your site early as camp sites and hotel can fill up quickly. Learn more
Catch a wave and venture into British Columbia's cool, clear waters to be rewarded with amazing surf breaks.
A great excuse to take a ferry across to Vancouver Island, Tofino is British Columbia's surfing epicentre, with 35 kilometres of beaches and an exposed coast for year-round surfing. Surf shops offer lessons and rentals. Learn more
The Vancouver Art Gallery is the city's premier destination for innovative contemporary art displays and significant pieces of historical art. Discover a diverse collection of Indigenous artwork at the Bill Reid Gallery of Northwest Coast Art or at the totem poles site in Stanley Park.
Find diverse museums whether your interests be about history, space, Aboriginal culture, and more. Discover world-class collections at the Museum of Vancouver (includes the HR MacMillan Space Centre and the Vancouver Maritime Museum) and the Museum of Anthropology.
Vancouver, BC —
Virtual Race —
PARTNERED WITH THE BEST
RUNVAN®
3B – 5279 Still Creek Ave
V5C 5V1 Canada
RUN4HOPE Program
Race Policies