Powerful Auckland winger made his Test debut against France in 2001 after representing Samoa in the 2000 World Cup. Meli was a try-scorer against Australia in the 28-10 Test loss in Wellington at the end of 2001. The following year Meli took his place in the Warriors grand final team that lost to the Roosters 20-8. In 2002 he scored a finals record five tries in the club's 48-22 quarter-final win over the Bulldogs. Despite the Warriors' poor form in 2004, Meli's Test career continued against Australia and in England in the Tri Nations competition.


text:
St. Peter's Parish
Mailing Address: 140 Dundas St. West, Trenton, Ontario K8V 3P5
Parish Centre: 125 Queen St., Trenton, Ontario K8V 4Y2
Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 9 am - 12 pm and 1 pm to 4 pm
E-mail: stpeters-trenton@cogeco.ca
Website: www.stpeters-trenton.org
Archdiocese: www.romancatholic.kingston.on.ca
Mount Calvary Cemetery: Don O'Neill 613-392-2361 or 613-849-4339 (Cell)
Contact us by by mail, phone, fax or e-mail. Or drop by – the Parish Centre is open every weekday and Mass celebrated Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday 4:30 pm; Thursday 9:00 am.
Location: Offices are located in the Parish Centre which is located in front of the Church, 125 Queen Street in Trenton, one block west of downtown Trenton.
The parish centre is the white building facing Queen Street next to St. Peter's School and houses the parish's offices and meeting rooms. Office hours are 9 am till noon and 1 pm to 4:15 pm, Monday through Friday. The phone number is 392-3767. Unless attending a meeting downstairs, you should enter the parish centre through the door across from the church; this door leads directly into the reception area.
(Note during July & August offices hours are Monday to Friday 9 am to 12 noon.)
Canadian Post:
Trenton, Ontario
Canada K8V 3P5
Deliveries:
125 Queen St.
Canada K8V 4Y2
Contribute to the site:
By sending e-mail to stpeters-trenton@cogeco.ca or by dropping material off at the parish centre during regular office hours.
Our Clergy & Staff
Fr. Timothy Harrison
Fr. Oliver Wekesa
Reverend Mr. Bob Fencott
Lori Lynch
Secretary Receptionist
Collise

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation
Benjamin S. Halpern, Carissa J. Klein, Christopher J. Brown, Maria Beger, Hedley S. Grantham, Sangeeta Mangubhai, Mary Ruckelshaus, Vivitskaia J. Tulloch, Matt Watts, Crow White, and Hugh P. Possingham
PNAS April 9, 2013 110 (15) 6229-6234; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217689110
Benjamin S. Halpern
aNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA 93101;bCenter for Marine Assessment and Planning, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106;
For correspondence: halpern@nceas.ucsb.edu c.klein@uq.edu.au
Carissa J. Klein
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, and
Christopher J. Brown
dGlobal Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
Maria Beger
Hedley S. Grantham
cAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, andeScience and Knowledge, Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202;
Sangeeta Mangubhai
fIndonesia Marine Program, The Nature Conservancy, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia;
Mary Ruckelshaus
gNatural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; and
Vivitskaia J. Tulloch
Matt Watts
Crow White
hBren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Hugh P. Possingham
Edited by Richard M. Cowling, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, and approved January 7, 2013 (received for review October 11, 2012)
Triple–bottom-line outcomes from resource management and conservation, where conservation goals and equity in social outcomes are maximized while overall costs are minimized, remain a highly sought-after ideal. However, despite widespread recognition of the importance that equitable distribution of benefits or costs across society can play in conservation success, little formal theory exists for how to explicitly incorporate equity into conservation planning and prioritization. Here, we develop that theory and implement it for three very different case studies in California (United States), Raja Ampat (Indonesia), and the wider Coral Triangle region (Southeast Asia). We show that equity tends to trade off nonlinearly with the potential to achieve conservation objectives, such that similar conservation outcomes can be possible with greater equity, to a point. However, these case studies also produce a range of trade-off typologies between equity and conservation, depending on how one defines and measures social equity, including direct (linear) and no trade-off. Important gaps remain in our understanding, most notably how equity influences probability of conservation success, in turn affecting the actual ability to achieve conservation objectives. Results here provide an important foundation for moving the science and practice of conservation planning—and broader spatial planning in general—toward more consistently achieving efficient, equitable, and effective outcomes.
marine protected areas
marine spatial planning
social-ecological systems
Conservation and resource management require decisions about where, when, and how to allocate limited financial, human, social, and/or political capital resources (1). Whether designing protected areas, prioritizing restoration activities and locations, or limiting, promoting, or allocating certain uses of the landscape or seascape, the spatial and temporal distribution of management actions requires decisions about who may benefit and who may pay costs (2, 3). A large body of literature on conservation and spatial planning has been developed to help guide management strategies and decisions to be as efficient as possible at meeting stated goals (e.g., refs. 4⇓⇓–7). However, the goal of equitable distribution of costs or benefits across individuals or communities from use restrictions is rarely explicitly assessed in the planning process (8).
A fundamental tenet of conservation planning is that identifying optimal allocations of actions in space and time requires formulating the problem with explicit objective(s), constraints, potential actions, and system models that translate those actions into outcomes (1, 9). Objectives can take different forms, but the ultimate aim is to find the feasible set of actions that maximizes the value of those objectives (e.g., maximum gain in value, minimum area needed to achieve the objective). In most biodiversity conservation optimization problems, objectives are biological and framed as quantities, such as species viability or habitat representation, that are usually traded off against, or constrained by, economic outcomes. In the context of spatial planning and ecosystem-based management, objectives focus on particular services, but otherwise the problem formulation remains the same. In either case, economic outcomes are typically total cost (e.g., dollars spent) or opportunity cost (i.e., the monetary gains expected in the absence of conservation actions). Trade-offs can place in conflict those who prioritize economic versus biodiversity (or service) value (10); but in other cases, biodiversity conservation and economic value positively covary (e.g., ref. 6), such that strategic planning can deliver win–win solutions.
In many planning processes, there is awareness of social equity issues, where equity may be a function of, for example, equality of engagement in the planning process or reallocation of benefits or costs accrued under a management decision. In fact, achieving equity along with economic and environmental benefits—the "triple bottom line"—is commonly seen as the ideal outcome of conservation (11). However, rarely is equity incorporated into decision making in a formal way. Formalizing equity as a quantifiable and high-priority goal for conservation planning is feasible, as we discuss and demonstrate below. However, explicitly including this additional objective could compromise biodiversity conservation, or in other words create another potential trade-off among planning objectives (12).
Equity relates to how a person or group perceives the proportional availability of goods and services (e.g., is a given pool of resources evenly distributed and/or available?) or the relative deprivation compared with others (e.g., do others have more than I do?) (13). Despite the stated importance of equity in management and decision-making processes (e.g., ref. 14), there is no formal theory for addressing it in the conservation or spatial planning literature. Furthermore, perceived or real inequity can turn interested and cooperative participants into vocal opponents (15), leading to noncompliance or destructive actions (16, 17). Thus, equity can be a critical component of management and conservation success. Here, we explore the nature of potential trade-offs between equity and conservation objectives, test this theory in three case studies from around the world, and outline potential modifications to the theory that future empirical work could explore. Although our focus is on conservation planning, results are equally relevant to broader questions addressed within spatial planning contexts. Our work suggests that triple–bottom-line solutions to conservation are possible, but that such solutions depend on the form of equity being pursued. Importantly, including equity as an explicit planning objective leads to clearer delineation of trade-offs among multiple objectives.
Equity and Its Trade-Offs
Equity can manifest itself in a number of ways, with important implications for how it gets incorporated into conservation planning and the potential impacts it has on achieving conservation targets. There are two key dimensions to measuring equity: (i) what is measured, which can include monetary loss or gain, access to resources gained or lost, and level of participation in a process (18), and (ii) how it is measured, either in absolute or relative terms. The former defines the metric(s) used to assess equity; the latter determines how groups are compared with each other. The metrics used essentially link to three classes of problems in conservation prioritization: economic benefits such as money or rights to use resources are being distributed among a suite of political entities (e.g., countries, states, regions, nongovernment organizations, or local governments) (19); conservation actions, such as reserves or restrictions on uses, are being put in place that are believed to impact or benefit a variety of communities or industries (20); and voice or opportunity is given to different groups in a deliberate process (e.g., stakeholder involvement or gender equity) (e.g., refs. 21, 22). Here, we empirically explore the first two problem types, but acknowledge that participatory equity may be more important for achieving desired outcomes than the other types of equity in some cases.
Once the type of equity to be measured is defined, the target objective for equity can be set in a number of ways. To date, most policy has focused on avoiding extreme cases of inequity, in particular those producing unethical conditions, within a framework of environmental justice (e.g., refs. 23, 24). More recently, attention has also focused on optimizing social equity through instances where all stakeholders are included in the planning process (18) or are affected equally by actions (12, 25, 26), and to a lesser extent through consideration of intergenerational equity (27, 28). It is typically assumed that increased equity comes at the cost of financially optimal conservation solutions, but the nature and shape of that trade-off is generally unknown (29). In theory, the trade-off could take any potential shape (Fig. S1), as is seen with trade-offs among ecosystem services (10, 30). Through three case study assessments, we evaluate the shape of these trade-off curves and explore the implications of such trade-offs for achieving conservation objectives.
Our three case studies include the following: (i) the central coast of California (United States), where a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) was recently created with consideration of impacts on local fisheries, (ii) an MPA in the southern Raja Ampat region of Indonesia where proposed no-take zones may differentially impact villages' fishing access; and (iii) the Coral Triangle region where international aid money is being distributed among six countries to mitigate threats to their marine resources. As such, these cases evaluate two different metrics of equity—dollars and access—and for the Coral Triangle example in particular we explore implications of considering absolute versus relative (i.e., proportional) changes in equity.
California Marine Protected Areas.
California recently completed an extensive, 8-y planning process to design and implement a network of MPAs in its state waters, initiated by the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (31). Synthesis of existing information and development of new analytical frameworks provided a vast array of information on the potential trade-offs between conservation and fisheries values under different MPA network designs (32, 33). We focus here on the central California region within the MLPA process (Fig. S2A), because data for the area are published and available (26). Previous analyses for this region focused on the trade-off between how well conservation objectives were met within a given MPA network and the potential total costs to fisheries (7). Here, we focus on implementing marine reserves only (the MLPA process included less restrictive MPAs as well) and define equity as cost in dollars to eight separate commercial fisheries, and measure equity using the Gini coefficient [defined as the dissimilarity in costs or benefits among different entities (Materials and Methods)]. We explore how different overall budget constraints on the combined value lost by fisheries interact with equity to influence the nature of the trade-off between conservation goals and equitable fisheries impact.
Given budgets set to 3–20% of total fisheries value, equity traded off nonlinearly (concavely) with the degree to which conservation goals could be achieved for all budgets (Fig. 1A). Greater levels of both equity and conservation goals could be achieved with higher total budgets (Fig. 1A). The points in Fig. 1 approximate the "efficiency frontier" where optimal solutions lie, and represent different importance (weight) given to conservation versus equity goals under each budget scenario. The absence of solutions with equity less than 0.6 suggests that it is possible to avoid highly uneven impacts on fisheries under any budget scenario; given the budgets considered here (≤20% of the total value of fisheries), any reserve network solution still leaves substantial area open to each fishery. The nonlinear shape in the trade-off curves shows that substantial increases in achieving conservation goals can be achieved with minimal cost to equity, and vice versa, especially for higher budgets. The result that higher total budget increases equity emerges from the increased flexibility to "impact" higher value fisheries (with a small total budget, total impact is less, but one or a few fisheries experience the brunt of it). As expected, greater total budget allows for greater conservation outcomes for a given level of equity (7).
Trade-offs between achieving conservation goals and equity, measured under the following budget scenarios: (A) monetary impact to the fishing industry in central California with different budget constraints in place or (B) loss of fishing grounds in the Misool region of Raja Ampat, Indonesia. In both cases, the plots represent absolute measures of conservation objectives. The outer edge of the points is drawn to approximate the efficiency frontier; points interior to this frontier resulted from simulations but are suboptimal.
We also found that when conservation goals were prioritized at a low level relative to equity (i.e., weighted less than ∼10% in the objective equation in Materials and Methods), solutions all converged on perfect equity plans without marine reserves (i.e., no conservation gain but also no cost to any fishery; result not shown in Fig. 1). Solutions exist with modest conservation and high equity outcomes (Fig. S3), but the trade-off with equity (when equity is weighted highly, >90%) makes these solutions too costly, because much greater overall value of combined objectives can be achieved with the no-reserve solution. Using smaller (i.e., higher resolution) planning units could resolve this issue by creating more planning options and thus greater flexibility. However, our results here are realistic because our resolution mirrors what was used in the actual planning process and is practical for most situations.
Southeast Misool Marine Protected Area.
There is an ongoing process to zone a network of multiuse MPAs in Raja Ampat in eastern Indonesia to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable fisheries (12). We focus here on Southeast Misool MPA (Fig. S2B). Thirty villages have customary marine tenure and rights to the MPA, which governs where each village can fish. The tenure system in eastern Indonesia is complex, such that declaring a no-take marine reserve within the larger MPA affects different individuals, families, clans, or villages. We simulated different no-take reserve network designs and assessed their performance in representatively protecting different types of coral reef habitat (and mitigating stressors to locations) and affecting equity across villages in lost fishing grounds. We varied a constraint on the maximum area in no-take reserves as a proxy for different conservation budgets for the creation of marine reserves.
Trade-offs were direct (close to linear) when total (area) budgets were small (<10% of total area within the MPA placed in marine reserves; Fig. 1B) and became weaker (concave) with larger budgets. The concave shape suggests that initial gains in conservation objectives or equity can be achieved with minimal cost to the equity objective. When assessed as proportional rather than absolute differences in how well conservation objectives were achieved, most trade-off curves were nonlinear (Fig. S4).
Interestingly, the point at which equity overrides conservation objectives, forcing solutions to the zero-reserve outcome, is when equity is prioritized only slightly more than conservation (i.e., weighted >60–75%), rather than 90% as in the California example (Fig. S5). This difference emerges because solutions with reserves had lower equity scores in Southeast Misool than California, due to the fact that about one-half of the coral reef habitat features in the Misool MPA occurred in fewer than 20% of the fishing grounds. These sites are critical to achieving overall conservation objectives, causing greater inequity to villages that fish those sites. This uneven distribution of key habitats therefore requires higher weighting on conservation versus equity objectives to overcome this effect. As with the California example, higher resolution planning units would likely allow for solutions with higher equity targets, but such small planning units are generally not feasible for implementation or enforcement. Habitats restricted to a few fishing grounds also cause a much larger range of equity values for conservation solutions on the frontier in the Indonesia example than is seen in the California example.
Coral Triangle.
The Coral Triangle is composed of six countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Timor Leste, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea), divided into 16 ecoregions (Fig. S2C), whose waters contain the highest global coral biodiversity, but also some of the most threatened systems (34). The multilateral Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (formalized in May 2009) is the focus of significant global conservation attention with financial commitments of at least US$400 million (www.coraltriangleinitiative.org).
Previous work explored the costs and benefits of investing in land versus marine conservation to help guide the distribution of financial resources (35). Here, we expand this analysis and explore two types of equity, the distribution of funds (total and per capita) to each ecoregion and the costs from restricted access due to MPA creation per ecoregion. We evaluated how the type of equity affects conservation outcomes for the Coral Triangle, measured as the reduction in total fishing impact to reefs across the Coral Triangle region. As such, this case study allows exploration of two metrics of equity (access and money) and both methods of assessment (absolute and proportional). Furthermore, we explore how decisions about whether to initially allocate portions of the total budget (or area set aside in marine reserves) equitably versus cost effectively influences outcomes. The difference reflects that budgets can be split between different objectives (e.g., budget allocated each to equity and cost effectiveness objectives), with the order in which this is done potentially affecting results. Such decisions are likely common to almost any planning process.
For the two scenarios that allocate low-to-moderate amounts of money to ecoregions (US$80 and US$160 million), there is a nearly direct trade-off between equitable distribution and the ability to achieve conservation objectives (i.e., mitigate fishing impacts; Fig. 2A). For very high total budgets, the trade-off curve becomes concave. This nonlinearity emerges because when more than ∼60% of funding is allocated equitably, entire ecoregions receive sufficient funding to fully meet conservation objectives before the total budget is spent for that region (and it is not reallocated to other regions). Thus, this nonlinearity is due in part to the coarse scale of planning units; nonlinearity in the California example instead emerged from underlying biophysical properties of the system. Nearly identical results emerge when measuring equity as per-capita allocation of funds (Fig. 2B). A notable exception is the unexpected results for equitable-first allocations at 75% and 80%—these two solutions have lower equity than solutions that allocated less equitably first (65% and 70%) because the smallest, least populated ecoregion contains relatively cost-effective sites and, when resources are allocated at least 30% cost effectively, the entire region receives protection. Once that proportion drops to 25%, resources are freed for allocation to other ecoregions, increasing inequity across ecoregions. These solutions are far inside the efficiency frontier and so should never be selected, i.e., one could achieve the same amount of equity but much higher conservation outcome with lower amounts of funds allocated first equitably (Fig. 2B).
Trade-off between measures of conservation impact (mitigated fishing pressure) and the equity of distribution of that impact across ecoregions in the Coral Triangle region for (A) total budget, (B) regional per-capita budget, and (C) total area protected. The open symbols represent allocations that were done first cost effectively, and then equitably; the closed symbols are the reverse. Each point represent 5% additional amount distributed cost effectively or equitably first, respectively. In A and B, total budget is US$80 million, US$160 million, and US$650 million. In C, total area set aside is 2,801 million, 5,602 million, or 22,408 million km2, representing 5%, 10%, and 40% of the total region, respectively. The outer edge of the points is drawn to approximate the efficiency frontier; points interior to this frontier resulted from simulations but are suboptimal.
Surprisingly, there is no trade-off when equity is instead measured as area within marine reserves (i.e., reduced access) for low and medium amounts of total area protected, such that one should always strive for perfect equity in these cases because one can achieve the same conservation outcome at all levels of equity (Fig. 2C). This result emerges because when equity in area across ecoregions is ignored, the most cost-effective sites are selected for protection, resulting in several ecoregions receiving almost no protected areas (Table S1). Instead, when emphasis is placed on achieving equity, a portion of each ecoregion must be protected. In some cases, these protected places mitigate more threat than in the more cost-effective scenarios, even though they are not cost effective, i.e., considerably more expensive to mitigate equivalent amounts of threat. In this particular example, the trade-off between cost effectiveness and equity led to nearly identical conservation outcomes; it seems unlikely that this would hold in other cases.
Two additional key results emerge from this case study. First, for low and moderate budgets, there is essentially no difference if one first allocates funds (or area) equitably and then selects locations that cost effectively meet conservation objectives, or vice versa. This result does not imply that no trade-off exists between objectives—higher equity comes at the direct, linear cost to conservation—but it does mean that for any given level of equity, one can allocate funds equitably first and still achieve the same conservation outcomes.
Second, for very large budgets, the trade-off becomes nonlinear, as noted above, but in ways that differ for approaches that allocate resources first equitably versus cost effectively. "Cost-effective–first" solutions mitigate less threat than "equitable-first" solutions. This result emerges because equitable-first solutions require area within each ecoregion to be protected, even if those areas are not the most cost effective over the entire region; they reduce more threat, but at higher cost. We do not see this result for lower total budgets because no ecoregion is receiving sufficient funds to protect the whole area under these budgets, so both equitable-first and cost-effective–first solutions select similar, cost-effective sites for protection. Furthermore, for the highest total area budget (Fig. 2C), the equitable-first approach produces the typical concave trade-off curve, whereas the cost-effective–first approach produces a split curve, with the initial half showing the typical concave trade-off, whereas the second half shows a strong positive relationship. These solutions interior to the frontier are inferior and should not be chosen, such that one would always favor the full-equity solution in this latter region of the curve and the low-equity, high-conservation solutions in the early region of the curve (Fig. 2C). This split-curve result emerges because cost-effective–first approaches will select the best sites across the whole region first, leading to all sites within small ecoregions being selected once equity reaches about 0.75; as equity increases beyond this, more expensive high-value sites in other regions get selected, causing the conservation outcome to increase. The relative size of each region and the distribution of conservation targets within those regions should have a strong influence on the presence and shape of this split curve. The split curve is not seen when allocation is done equitably first because the priority is to have protected areas spread among regions, making it less likely that entire ecoregions will be protected under any given budget.
These stark differences in the nature and shape of the trade-off between equity and conservation objectives when using different metrics (monetary cost versus access to areas) and methods (absolute versus per capita) highlight the critical importance of defining which metrics of equity and methods for assessing it matter most to people engaged in, or affected by, a planning process. The set of optimal solutions will vary greatly under these different approaches to incorporating equity, and management focus on an inappropriate metric could significantly decrease the probability of success of a proposed solution.
Equity and the Probability of Success
The above analyses and discussion do not address an important aspect of equity that may allow for combination of the two currencies into a single measure of triple–bottom-line outcomes. Highly inequitable solutions are more likely to fail because those who are disenfranchised from the benefits or outcomes of the process often feel little motivation to adhere to the agreement (15). Increases in equity are typically believed to improve the probability of success by increasing likelihood of self-enforcement of new regulations because people perceive the regulations as fair (36, 37), yet it is equally likely that management will fail if the needs or desires of particularly vocal or powerful minorities are not met. Most of these assumptions remain untested.
Here, we simulate the consequences to conservation prioritization of considering both social equity and its impact on the probability that a plan is enacted or upheld. Empirical assessment of these interactions would require a large sample of conservation actions where equity and conservation effectiveness are measured, information that currently does not exist and a field of research that merits significant attention. For now, we assume probability of success increases asymptotically with increasing equity, and that extremely inequitable solutions have near-zero probability of success and that the best case scenario has very high but not guaranteed chance of success (Materials and Methods). If instead probability of success peaked at midlevels of equity, for example if powerful stakeholders influence the outcome, then our results would be even more pronounced.
We assume that expected conservation success is the product of the probability of success and the biodiversity outcome given particular levels of equity. Simulations using simple assumptions about the relationship between social equity and probability of success show a clear peak in achieving conservation objectives with modest levels of equity (Fig. 3). This result is striking in that it highlights how final conservation outcomes could be made much more durable with even modest consideration of equity effects, by avoiding inequitable outcomes that have little probability of success, but also better achieve desired outcomes by avoiding high-equity solutions that excessively compromise conservation objectives. In other words, the low probability of success when equity is low erases nearly all potential conservation benefit, whereas the cost to conservation objectives with very high equity offsets the value added from increased probability of success (Fig. 3). These results may seem intuitive, but the framework developed here provides a tool for quantifying these interactions and helping to optimize decision-making outcomes. Effort early in the planning process to engage and elicit stakeholder preferences for different dimensions of equity would significantly improve our understanding of what the probability of success curve actually looks like. In fact, research has shown that participatory processes that do not engage those with significant stakes in the outcome of the decision (but often little voice) are less likely to address equity issues (e.g., ref. 21).
The relationship between equity and biodiversity, and how probability of success given different levels of equity modifies the ability to achieve biodiversity conservation targets. the solid black line shows the trade-off between conservation objectives and equity. The dashed gray lines show two hypothetical shapes for the relationship between equity and probability of success, and the solid gray lines are the resulting consequences of these probability curves on the degree to which conservation objectives are met.
The spatial patterns of underlying mechanisms that produce conservation objectives (species distributions, spatial patterns of threat, and costs to mitigate those threats, etc.) generally require inequitable distribution of resources to achieve optimal conservation outcomes. However, few planning processes focus solely on achieving conservation objectives, given stakeholder interest in minimizing negative impact to specific groups or maximizing economic gain. This tension among values sits at the heart of perceived and real trade-offs among conservation objectives, total economic gains (or losses), and social equity. To date, the issue of equity has largely been addressed indirectly, through implicit assumptions about spreading costs or benefits, or as a secondary concern, as with post hoc comparisons of the equity of outcomes (36). We have shown here that explicit assessment of how equity influences the ability to achieve conservation outcomes produces a more nuanced and realistic picture of the effects of any given conservation objective on different groups, and may indicate under what conditions significant trade-offs are likely to occur. Hopefully, applying this framework will lead to solutions unrecognized without direct consideration of equity.
The solutions that lie along the "frontier" in the case studies are triple–bottom-line solutions, where one can optimize conservation goals and equity while minimizing costs. Solutions interior to these frontier solutions (most of which are not plotted) are all possible and represent the many ways decision making can miss the mark on the triple bottom line. As in other trade-off assessments (5, 6, 30), finding the frontier does not then prescribe a single correct solution but instead presents the range of options, all optimal, that represent the trade-off between stated goals. As the case studies show, there is almost always a trade-off between biodiversity conservation and equity, but the extent of this trade-off varies depending on the context and the exact formulation of the objective function. Ignoring issues of equity in conservation planning will likely produce suboptimal outcomes and risks failure in prioritization efforts and durability of implemented actions.
We have focused here on a few types of equity, namely the distribution of costs and access to resources. Although these two types are likely the most common to conservation planning exercises, many other types clearly exist, most notably gender (16, 17), intergenerational (22, 23), and geographic equity [such as with global trade and its displacement of environmental impacts, and the corollary, climate change impacts (38)]. These different kinds of social and economic equity likely constrain conservation prioritization and planning in different ways, yet to be explored formally.
Two key assumptions affect our results and suggest important areas for further research. First, we measured biodiversity objectives by tracking how much threat was abated in a given location. This is a proxy at best for true changes in conservation values and outcomes, and so the actual shape of the trade-off between equity and conservation objectives may differ from what we found here. Perhaps more importantly, threat abatement can be achieved more quickly than ultimate conservation goals, such as number of species recovered to stable population sizes. Because the consequences of social equity play out relatively quickly whereas conservation goals tend to take time to achieve, full treatment of equity issues in conservation planning need to address the temporal as well as spatial components. Second, the shape of equity-probability curves characterizing how equity affects the likelihood of success of a plan remains largely unknown. Empirical research focused on determining the shape of this curve would provide the key to combining the two currencies into a single metric, allowing for more accurate identification of triple–bottom-line solutions.
Conservation planning, whether in the ocean or on land, strives to find optimal solutions in the face of inherent constraints. Triple–bottom-line outcomes remain highly prized, but they cannot be achieved regularly without formal approaches to considering equity alongside the more traditional focus on minimizing costs and maximizing conservation objectives. Incorporating equity can produce nonintuitive results, as with the California and Raja Ampat case studies where strong emphasis on equity leads to zero-MPA solutions. More importantly, it produces realistic results, and that realism will go a long way toward building stakeholder acceptance of management plans and outcomes.
We have focused here on marine conservation planning problems, but the approach and implications of the results are relevant to a broader spatial planning context, where planning objectives can include ecosystem services other than biodiversity conservation. Social and economic equity is almost always on the minds of stakeholders involved in these processes; the framework and theory we have developed here provides a means to make such concerns explicit and quantitative.
In each case study, we implemented marine reserves (i.e., no-take areas) and assumed that their implementation eliminates fishing from the reserve region and that the fishing is not redistributed. The conservation benefit of reserves varied across case studies, described below and in SI Text. Although the type of equity measured in each case study was different, we use the same metric to evaluate equity, the widely recognized and used Gini coefficient (39). In our context here, the Gini coefficient measures the dissimilarity in costs or profits among different entities. It indicates the difference between a perfectly equitable distribution and the actual distribution of a resource. Although the Gini coefficient is commonly used as a measure of inequality of wealth (40), it has also been applied to describe other types of inequalities (41⇓⇓–44). We adapt the Gini coefficient to measure equality rather than inequality by using its inverse (1 − Gini, henceforth referred to as "equity"), where a value of 1 represents perfect equality and a value of zero represents maximal inequality (Eq. S1). Details for data used in each case study are provided in SI Text.
California and Raja Ampat Case Studies.
For the California and Raja Ampat case studies, we examined the trade-off between conservation and equity goals constrained by a fixed budget. The budget was defined as the total monetary cost to fisheries and the total area lost within fishing grounds, respectively. For California, we present trade-off curves with the budget ranging from 3% to 20% of the combined value of fisheries. Optimal solutions on the trade-off frontier were searched for using the objective function Obj = max [αE1μ + (1 − α)E2], subject to the budget constraint Σ(Ck) ≤ B, where α is the conservation weighting, E1 is the equity in habitat representation in reserves, E2 is the equity in fishery impacts of reserves, and μ is the minimum representation of a habitat in reserves (Eq. S1; see Table S2 for parameters used to calculate E). Thus, a reserve plan with either low representation equity or low representation of a single habitat would have a low conservation score. Ck is the costs to each fishery of the reserves and B is the total budget (e.g., see ref. 45). Varying the conservation weighting 0–1 gives the optimal solution for different points on the trade-off frontier. The set of possible reserves is too large to explore exhaustively (23610 possibilities in CA and 2670 in RA), so we used simulated annealing to find near-optimal solutions (46, 47). For all annealing simulations, we compared the objective function value for the near-optimal solution to its value with no marine reserves, setting μ = 0 and E2 = 1. Although true optimal solutions cannot be found without an exhaustive search, the performance of the optimization algorithm was checked by comparing its results to outcomes from 1 million randomly sampled marine reserve plans for each case study. The frontier found using simulated annealing was considerably better than random.
Coral Triangle Case Study.
We used the Coral Triangle boundaries and ecoregions (n = 16) defined by Veron et al. (48) on the basis of coral diversity and endemism. We used the global coral reef atlas (49) to determine the presence/absence of coral reefs for each 1-km2 cell in each ecoregion. The objective of this case study was to minimize fishing impacts on coral reefs through investment in marine reserves, given a fixed budget that could be used to compensate for changes in economic opportunity arising from given actions, such as for lost fishing opportunity. To determine the priority of an area for designation as a marine protected area, we calculated return on investment of protecting each 1-km2 reef unit, where return was measured as reduction of fishing and investment as cost of reducing each threat. Using this information, we allocated resources using two different methods: (i) "cost-effective" allocation, where resources are allocated to coral reefs with the highest return on investment; (ii) "equitable" allocation, where resources are divided equitably between each of the 16 ecoregions, and then allocated cost effectively within each ecoregion and visa versa. We analyzed the trade-off between conservation (i.e., reduction of fishing pressure) and equity (i.e., distribution of resources to ecoregions) for scenarios that range from spending 100% of the budget cost effectively for conservation to 100% equitably for the community. We implemented different types of budget constraints: (i) financial budget of $80 million, $160 million, and $650 million; (ii) financial budget per capita, such that, when allocated equitably, is split equally among people; and (iii) area budget of protecting 2,801, 5,602, and 22,408 km2 of coral reef (5%, 10%, and 40% of the total region, respectively). Financial budget constraints were based on a value that, when distributed equitably, was insufficient to protect any ecoregion entirely (US$160 million), and one-half and four times that amount (for illustrative purposes). Area budget constraints were based on a 10% target (5,602 km2), a common target for protection, and equivalent one-half and four times changes as with the monetary budget.
We thank Santiago Bucaram and Megan Saunders for helpful discussions and two anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved the manuscript. Support was provided by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant and Postdoctoral Fellowship (Project DP110102153) (to C.J.K.) and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions.
↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: halpern{at}nceas.ucsb.edu or c.klein{at}uq.edu.au.
Author contributions: B.S.H., C.J.K., C.J.B., M.B., H.S.G., M.R., V.J.T., C.W., and H.P.P. designed research; B.S.H., C.J.K., and C.J.B. performed research; B.S.H., C.J.K., C.J.B., and M.W. analyzed data; and B.S.H., C.J.K., C.J.B., M.B., H.S.G., S.M., M.R., V.J.T., C.W., and H.P.P. wrote the paper.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1217689110/-/DCSupplemental.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
Ferson S,
Burgman M
Possingham HP,
Ball IR,
Andelman S
(2000) in Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology, eds Ferson S, Burgman M (Springer, New York), pp 291–305.
de Groot R
(2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75(3–4):175–186.
Adams VM,
Pressey RL,
Naidoo R
(2010) Opportunity costs: Who really pays for conservation? Biol Conserv 143(2):439–448.
Lester S,
(2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: A global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384:33–46.
White C,
Halpern BS,
Kappel CV
(2012) Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(12):4696–4701.
Nelson E,
(2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11.
Klein CJ,
(2008) Striking a balance between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability in the design of marine protected areas. Conserv Biol 22(3):691–700.
Tallis, H, Polasky S, Lozano JS, Wolny S (2012) Inclusive wealth accounting for regulating ecosystem services. Inclusive Wealth Report 2012. Measuring progress toward sustainability (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
Margules CR,
Nicholls AO,
Pressey RL
(1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity. Biol Conserv 43(1):63–76.
Cardinale BJ,
(2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401):59–67.
Ehrlich PR,
Kareiva PM,
Daily GC
(2012) Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization. Nature 486(7401):68–73.
Grantham HS, et al. (July 23, 2013) A comparison of zoning analyses to inform the planning of a marine protected area network in Raja Ampat, Indonesia. Mar Policy 38:184–194.
Loomis DK,
Ditton RB
(1993) Distributive justice in fisheries management. Fisheries (Bethesda, Md.) 18:14–18.
Borrini-Feyerabend G
Jodha N,
Russell D
(1997) in Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation, ed Borrini-Feyerabend G (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland).
Miller BW,
Caplow SC,
Leslie PW
(2012) Feedbacks between conservation and social-ecological systems. Conserv Biol 26(2):218–227.
Fernandez PR
(2007) Understanding relational politics in MPA governance in Northeastern Iloilo, Philippines. J Coast Res SI 50:38–42.
Beger M,
Harborne AR,
Dacles TP,
Solandt J-L,
Ledesma GL
(2004) A framework of lessons learned from the community-based marine reserves and its effectiveness in guiding a new coastal management initiative in the Philippines. Environ Manage 34(6):786–801.
Layzer JA
(2002) Citizen participation and government choice in local environmental controversies. Policy Stud J 30(2):193–207.
James AN,
Gaston KJ,
Balmford A
(1999) Balancing the world's accounts. Nature 401(6751):323–324.
West PC,
Igoe J,
Brockington D
(2006) Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annu Rev Anthropol 35:251–277.
Badola R,
Hussain SA
(2003) Conflict in paradise: Women and protected areas in the Indian Himalaya. Mt Res Dev 23:234–237.
Foale S, et al. (2013) Food security and the Coral Triangle Initiative. Mar Policy 38:174–183.
Adger WN,
Paavola J,
Huq S,
Mace MJ
(2006) Fairness in adaptation to climate change (MIT, Cambridge, MA).
Low N,
Gleeson B
(1998) Justice, Society and Nature (Routledge, London).
Lester SE,
Costello C,
Gaines SD
(2011) Using portfolio theory to assess tradeoffs between return from natural capital and social equity across space. Biol Conserv 144(5):1499–1507.
Steinback C,
Watts ME,
Scholz AJ,
Possingham HP
(2010) Spatial marine zoning for fisheries and conservation. Front Ecol Environ 8(7):349–353.
Portney PR,
Weyant JP
(1999) Discounting and Intergenerational Equity (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore, MD).
Lauwers L
(2012) Intergenerational equity, efficiency, and constructibility. Econ Theory 49(2):227–242.
Pascual U,
Muradian R,
Rodriguez LC,
Duraiappah A
(2010) Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecol Econ 69(6):1237–1244.
(2013) Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 38:80–89.
California Department of Fish and Game
(2008) California Marine Life Protection Act: Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas, revised draft January 2008 (California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA).
Airame S,
(2003) Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: A case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecol Appl 13(1):S170–S184.
Gleason M,
(2012) Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from north central California. Ocean Coast Manage 53(2):52–68.
Burke L,
Reytar K,
Spalding M,
(2012) Reefs at Risk Revisited (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC).
(2010) Prioritizing land and sea conservation investments to protect coral reefs. PLoS One 5(8):e12431.
Kendall BE,
Brown CJ
(2012) The value of coordinated management of interacting ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 15(6):509–519.
Hoel AH
(1998) Political uncertainty in international fisheries management. Fish Res 37(1–3):239–250.
Rayner S,
Malone EL
(2001) Climate change, poverty, and intergenerational equity: The national level. Int J Glob Environ Issues 1(2):175–202.
Gini C
(1921) Measurement of inequality and incomes. Econ J 31:124–126.
Allison P
(1978) Measures of inequality. Am Soc Rev 43(6):865–880.
Barr LM,
(2011) A new way to measure the world's protected area coverage. PLoS One 6(9):e24707.
Brown MC
(1994) Using Gini-style indices to evaluate the spatial patterns of health practitioners: Theoretical considerations and an application based on Alberta data. Soc Sci Med 38(9):1243–1256.
Damgaard C,
Weiner J
(2000) Describing inequality in plant size or fecundity. Ecology 81(4):1139–1142.
Bradford JB,
D'Amato AW
(2012) Recognizing trade-offs in multi-objective land management. Front Ecol Environ 10(4):210–216.
Game ET,
Wooldridge S,
(2008) Planning for persistence in marine reserves: A question of catastrophic importance. Ecol Appl 18(3):670–680.
Moilanen A,
Willson KA,
Ball I,
Watts ME
(2009) in Spatial Conservation Prioritisation: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools, eds Moilanen A, Willson KA, Possingham HP (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
Cocks KD, Baird IA (1983) Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: An example from the Eyre Penninsula, South Australia. Biol Conserv 49(3):113–130.
Veron JEN,
deVantier L,
Turak E,
Green A,
Kinnimonth S
(2009) Delineating the Coral Triangle. Galaxea 11:91–100.
Spalding MD,
Ravilious C,
Green EP
(2001) World Atlas of Coral Reefs (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
You are going to email the following Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation
Trade-offs and triple–bottom-line solutions
Benjamin S. Halpern, Carissa J. Klein, Christopher J. Brown, Maria Beger, Hedley S. Grantham, Sangeeta Mangubhai, Mary Ruckelshaus, Vivitskaia J. Tulloch, Matt Watts, Crow White, Hugh P. Possingham
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2013, 110 (15) 6229-6234; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1217689110
Article Classifications


text:
Алексий Аристин (, ум. след 1166 г.) е византийски канонист от XII в., автор на тълкувания (схолии) и допълнения на каноническия сборник "Синопсис" на епископ Стефан Ефески. Заемал висши църковни и светски длъжности при управлението на Йоан II Комнин и Мануил I Комнин.

Историческите сведения за живота на Алексий Аристин са изключително оскъдни. От едно запазено послание, написано до него от Теодор Продром, става ясно, че на младини Аристин е получил блестящо образование в Гърция, където изучавал граматиката, реториката, юриспруденцията и философията, и вече заемал висока светска длъжност, според някои съдия (критий), когато бил повикан от императора в Константинопол. В столицата Аристин бил ръкоположен за дякон и изпълнявал последователно няколко висши светски и църковни длъжности – бил е номофилакс, протекдикт, орфанотроф, дикайодот и накрая иконом на Великата патриаршеска църква. Към тези длъжности някои изследователи прибавят и длъжността императорски хартофилакс – секретар. Тази е причината Аристин да се намира в непрекъснати контакти с двореца и сената. Освен това като велик иконом Аристин продължил да изпълнява и някои от предишните си длъжности, което се потвърждава от посланието на Продром, който се обръща към Аристин като към великия иконом и номофилакс.

Според сведения от Теодор Валсамон през 1157 г. патриаршеският синод дори настоял Аристин да се въздържа от изпълнението на задълженията си на светски съдия, тъй като съвместяването на светски и църковни длъжности от едно лице не било разрешено от каноните на Православната църква.

Към многобройните задължения на Аристин като велик иконом, около 1130 г. император Йоан II Комнин прибавил и задачата, за изпълнението на която Алексий трябвало да се опре на богатите си познания и дългогодишния си опит, а именно да състави кратко тълкувание и коментар на църковните канони, изложени в Синопсиса на епископ Стефан Ефески, потребността от което вероятно е била почувствана и от самия Аристин в ежедневната му работа с каноническите текстове и тяхното съкратено изложение – Синопсиса, не винаги ясни и понятни. Задачата е приета от Алексий с ентусиазъм, а трудът му го нарежда на едно от първите места между канонистите на Източната църква.

За точната година на смъртта на Аристин няма исторически сведения. Известно е, че е бил жив към 1166 г., когато е присъствал сред официалните лица на Константинополския събор като велик иконом на патриаршеската църква и дори отправил обвинение срещу йерусалимския патриарх Никифор II, позовавайки се на правило 37 на Трулския събор за епископите, принудени да отсъстват от своите епархии.

Източници

Византийски канонисти
Византийски съдии

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Home Music Coi Leray Fires Back At Haters Calling Her A TikTok Artist
Coi Leray Fires Back At Haters Calling Her A TikTok Artist
November 2, 2021 | Shifa Jahan
Coi Leray may or may not be the upcoming rap Queen but she does know how to shut down her haters. Considered as a "rookie" rapper on the internet, she also happens to be industry elite Benzino's daughter.
The 'No More Parties' rapper is known to step up to anyone who aims at criticizing her. People try to diminish her work by claiming her music is only suitable for TikTok although many of her tracks reached Billboard top-40.
Earlier this month Leray said: "TikTok artist goes straight to Billboard every time so call me a Billboard artist whenever you wanna throw TikTok in there," she tweeted. She also shared a screenshot of the top tracks on TikTok in the U.S., with her recent song "Twinnem" reaching No. 1 on the chart.
This time around, the 24 year old Boston Native went all in and gave everyone a final warning. She also threw shade on other artists who use Tik-Tok to make their songs go viral.
Everyone has their own taste in music and their own way to discover new music. TikTok may not be the go-to place to discover music for the older generation but it sure is playing the part for young people.
What's your take on this freestyle rap? Sound off in the comments!
Shifa Jahan
Shifa Jahan is a freelance writer with a passion for pop culture and entertainment news. With a background in copywriting and academic writing, she brings a unique perspective to her work. Currently pursuing her Masters in Comparative Literature, Shifa also has a love for theatre, teaching, and exploring different cultures and languages.
Next Families Of Victims In Kobe Bryant Helicopter Tragedy Reach Settlement »
Previous « Netflix Escape The Undertaker Director Talks Toning Down The Fighting


text:
Photography by Harry Potthead
A woman so astronomically gifted, her name is Deniece Marz
by Ponahalo Mojapelo
Features 4 months ago 2019-10-02 11:58:10
If this isn't a name you've seen before on, at least, a dozen lineups for some of the most prestigious music events in South Africa, then you'll be grateful we've brought her to your attention now. One of the most prolific live mix DJs in the Johannesburg events scene began her career four years ago after a nudge of encouragement from her music producer brother, Daev Martian and in the present day, her career is on a rapid-fire rocket to Mars itself. With immeasurable successes behind her, one can only imagine how much more enthralling the Deniece Marz journey will become.
At only 22 years-old, the beauteous disc jockey has played at events like WeHeartBeat, Sneakerness, Oppikoppi and Afropunk, two times in a row. Yes, twice. She's equally visible in dedicating her craft to local clubs and events that are still on the rise, organised by other respected creatives. She's popular for her ambient music selections in house, head-bobbing hip hop classics and lo-fi but by no means is Deniece a genre-specific musician, as heard on her Mixcloud profile. Another noteworthy Deniece Marz moment was her commission to play the closing set for UK rapper, Skepta in his visit to South Africa. "I was definitely proud of these milestones. They are proof that I'm not stagnant and I'm continuously growing and getting closer to greater achievements."
According to a fan on Twitter the DJ is "getting more bookings than Black Coffee". Apart from being the sister to one of the best electronic music producers in the country, Deniece says she comes from an all-round musical family who've always exposed her to a range of music styles. The Johannesburg-born and -bred musician is the daughter to a jazz bassist father which seems to have had an impact on Deniece's more soulful song compilations. She's still heavily influenced by her early exposure to her uncle's wide range of hip hop music and that, she most certainly lets shine through. A Deniece Marz set has the feel of a full-roast cup of coffee, with a selection of songs one can tell were meticulously sourced, accompanied by her smooth and flawless mixing skills, she blends those with timeless and nostalgic hits. Her impeccable mixing ability covers most genres – she can mix a trap set, lounge music or drum & bass, making each live set a pleasant surprise, unique to the accompanying live experience.
Photography by Ofentse Serobatse
Also a Fashion Design graduate, Deniece went on to pursue a career in styling. She says her decision to get into styling comes from her preference for working with finished products as opposed to being in the sketching and sewing process. "So far, my biggest milestones in styling are getting to work with my friend, great photographer and film director, Mahaneela. Another, would be styling my first magazine cover [featuring Sho Madjozi] and John Cena reposting it, which was super random." It's Deniece's wise nature, her yearning to learn more and being receptive to variety that has awarded her this multi-careerist success. Her own style is a comfortable, ever-glowing, big city chic but she's careful not to project it onto the subjects of her work but rather, to bring to the fore and accentuate the style of the subjects themselves. "I try not to always let my personal style infiltrate my styling too much right now, since I'm still figuring out my own style as an artist. I feel like while I'm still learning the ropes, it's great to be really open-minded and open to learning new styles."
On the tune of learning more, Deniece Marz is now a music producer and will be sharing more of her personal music production as time goes. Her resume also includes titles like curator and creative director. It's clear that this artist is well within her niche and, at 22, is already considered a prized possession of the Johannesburg creative industry. "My advice would be to make sure you're open to learning, making mistakes, failing etc. It's all part of the process. And staying consistent; it's so difficult and I've failed at it so many times but it's very important." Not only is she talented with a level head and a natural-presenting discipline, Deniece is more than destined to go as far as Mars in her respective grinds.
Zara Julius on her global experience in vinyl selecting
'The Rave Princess' of the future: River Moon on her rise to becoming the electro music superstar of the galaxy
A Blueprint to Lunga Ntila
'Not African Enough' // A Quest to Shifting Aesthetics and the Narrative of African Fashion
Aj Cullinan // The Art of Blending Sound


After a long search in the darkness, we finally found it!
A classic design, with modern technology, just like we want it! LED-light with lots of light and little power consumption. Runs on a battery.
The light can be attached to the handle bar or to the reflex mount that comes with every Stålhästen.


View this Zinc mnemonic and other USMLE mnemonics in the Vitamins playlist.
Zinc is an essential trace element that is required for the function of a wide variety of enzymes and transcription factors. One such enzyme requiring zinc is collagenase III, an enzyme involved in wound healing. Notably, a coordinated zinc icon is also required for zinc fingers, which are important DNA-binding structural motifs.
Since zinc plays such an important biological role, Zinc Deficiency leads to a number of characteristic signs and symptoms. Given its role in collagenase III, zinc deficiency therefore presents with delayed wound healing. Furthermore, zinc deficiency is characterized by decreased adult hair, notably in the axillary, facial, and pubic regions. It also leads to a number of sensory problems, such as anosmia (loss of smell) and dysgeusia (loss of taste). Zinc deficiency can also lead to liver problems, as it predisposes patients to alcoholic cirrhosis. Another notable characteristic is hypogonadism.
Finally, acrodermatitis enteropathica is a metabolic disorder that affects zinc uptake through the bowel mucous membrane. It is most notably characterized by a perioral, perianal, and perianal rash.
Find Zinc among our Vitamins playlist in Pixorize's visual mnemonics for the USMLE Step 1 and NBME shelf exams.


* Are you working in a humanitarian crisis or refugee setting?
* Do your beneficiaries include infants 0-24 months and pregnant women?
* Do you want to learn effective simple ways to help meet their needs to ensure they thrive within the emergency context?
* Do you want to start integrating IYCF sensitive or friendly programming but don't know how?
Remote access: Please register by Friday, 28th September, to TechRRT2@internationalmedicalcorps.org to receive the link to our online platform. Online access is limited to the first 50 respondents.
This webinar is made possible by the generous support of the American people through USAID!


text:
Ghulam Rasool Birhamani (1970?–1980? – 9/10 May 2010), a native of the Sindh province, Pakistan, was working as a reporter for the Daily Sindhu Hyderabad in Wahi Pandhi (Gorakh Hill), Dadu on a controversial story involving child marriage when his body was found the morning after he went missing on 9 May 2010.

Death
Birhamani, between the ages of 30 and 40, was kidnapped on 9 May 2010. His body was found the next day outside Wahi Pandhi in the Sindh province of Pakistan, and was reported to have been badly scarred and showed signs of torture.

At the time of his death Birhamani was working on a story about a 12-year-old girl who was forced to marry Najma Lashari, who was ten years her senior. This marriage was among members of the Lashari tribe, who were not very happy with Birhamani's report about child marriage. Birhamani allegedly received several threats from members of the tribe before he went missing.

According to a physician at the Johi Taluka hospital, Birhamani died of a head injury.

Context
Birhamani spent most of his career focusing on ethnic violence and tribal politics. His family believes that had a great deal to do with his death, not just his more recent interactions with the Lashari tribe. According to CPJ, 90 percent of all journalists killed worldwide are local reporters.

Impact
In the past decade thirteen other journalists have been murdered in Pakistan. The authorities have won convictions in only one of those cases, and that was for Daniel Pearl, a US reporter, in 2002. Impunity was the issue that journalists' groups focused on.

A seven-day mourning period in the Dadu district was announced for all press clubs and journalist organisations, and a procession was held by Birhamani's colleagues to protest his murder and call for the punishment of his killers. Political parties like the Pakistan People's Party also participated. Afterward, two Lasharis were arrested for Birhamani's murder.

Reactions
A march was held to protest Birhamani's murder, and hundreds of journalists participated. The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, the Pakistan Press Foundation, and the Committee to Protect Journalists joined together to demand an investigation into the murder.

Bob Dietz, program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said: "We call for a swift and through investigation into the killing of Ghulam Rasool Birhamani. Pakistan has an abysmal record in prosecuting the killers of journalists. It is time for the authorities to solve at least one case to show that these murders will not be tolerated."

Reporters Without Borders issued the following statement: "It is deeply shocking that a journalist could be killed like this because he dared to criticise certain customs and to expose tribal or family rivalries. We support the various local organizations for the defense of journalists who have expressed their grief and solidarity after this vile murder and we call for a rigorous investigation to quickly find those responsible."

Irina Bokova, who is the director-general of UNESCO, said: "I condemn the murder of Ghulam Rasool Birhamani. No society can allow violence to muzzle journalists while aspiring to uphold human rights and liberties, democracy and rule of law. Journalists are committed to report the truth as they see it. No effort must be spared to bring to justice those who seek to deprive us of our right to know what journalists have to say, and to agree or disagree with it."

Career
Birhamani worked for over two decades for various Sindhi-language dailies, according to the journalists union. Before his death he was a reporter for the Daily Sindhu Hyderabad in Pakistan. He had previously reported on the conversion of minority Hindu girls to Islam, but his most recent scoop had been a story about child marriage.

Personal
Birhamani is survived by a wife, two sons, and a daughter.

His name has been added to the Journalists Memorial, which is part of the Newseum, Washington, D.C.

References

External links
 World Press Freedom Day 2011

1970s births
2010 deaths
Assassinated Pakistani journalists
Year of birth uncertain
Sindhi people
People from Dadu District


Arguably Modest Mouse's most successful album, The Lonesome Crowded West was an independent release that garnered national attention following the hit single "Polar Opposites". It was perhaps the final throes of the 1990's "Seattle Scene". Sure, bands like Death Cab for Cutie, Fleet Foxes and to a lesser extent Tacocat have broken through since then, but in 1997, it seemed like Modest Mouse had the biggest hit of the fall/winter radio stations. Astonishingly, though this band ranked high on several best of decade lists, Lonesome Crowded West has apparently only sold about 60,000 copies.
When Lonesome Crowded West was released, it came with two slightly different track listings, one for CD and one for the vinyl release. With one exception, I'm going to be discussing the CD release, as that's the one with which I am most familiar.
The album starts with the song "Teeth Like God's Shoeshine", nearly seven minutes or fast/slow tempo rapid fire lyrics that are coated in disapproval of the falsities of consumerism. The title references these falsehoods by insinuating that the teeth are unnaturally clean, but throughout the songs are lines such as "buy some new friends" and "let's all have another Orange Julius". You can listen to this song and get the sense that singer Isaac Brock is sick of the world at large, or you can listen to it and understand that he's trying to find his way in the jungle of the American way of life. Either way, the song totally works.
And already we are at the one track that is included on the vinyl release and not the cd release, edited for run time. That track is the exquisite "Baby Blue Sedan", a track which i did not know about until I began seriously collecting vinyl. It's like discovering a secret track in the pre-gap of your favorite album. There are great examples of contradictory lines packed into this song, such as "dancing like a wooden Indian" and eunuchs shouting "please stud us out as fast as you can". Both portray a sense of futility, as does the pairing "and i'm lonesome when you're around/and i miss you when you're around". The song is so simple, yet says so much. god how I love it.
Alright back to CD track listing. Track five, "Jesus Christ Was an Only Child" posits that, had Jesus come to the planet in the 1990s, there would have been more concern against the people making millions on the internet while contributing nothing to society. Later in the same verse, he states that "you should hide your kids while the dogs run wild", referring to keeping the chaos out of view of your children and comparing people to a panicky animal.
Track seven, "Cowboy Dan" tells a fictitious story of an angry old cowboy who is so mad at the world that he wants to start a war. The chorus compares Cowboy Dan's desires to that of somebody who, try as they might, can't get their car to start. By the time we get to the bridge, he's "standing in the tall grass/doing nothing". Cowboy Dan comes to the realization that doing anything in the world is ultimately futile, as nature will outlast humans.
Finally, we get to the reason Modest Mouse went from an independent band on Seattle's Up Records to signing to Epic Records for their next album. The reason was "Polar Opposites", a song that was popular among so many different cliques as to become ubiquitous. Modest Mouse were heroes on the independent and alternative radio, but this song broke into the Top 40 stations, reaching the ears of football players and other "popular" people. Alt/Indie people heard in it the disdain aimed at people who spend their days tinkering rather than producing, "popular" people heard in it a validation of their stereotypical love of muscle cars, when the exact opposite is the point that was attempting to be portrayed.
Modest Mouse have kept their independent and "weird" band vibe, with Epic Records allowing them to create without the bigwigs messing up the process. As such, their 2000 album, The Moon & Antarctica saw their dense and personal lyrics reach a much wider audience. Their singles now reach national "alternative" stations, rather than just those of the Pacific Northwest.
Bikini Kill reunited for one song, "For Tammy Rae" last night at The Kitchen in NYC for an event celebrating the release of a 33 1/3 series book about the first album by The Raincoats.
To date, this is the only footage I can find, but even at that, I'm super excited. Bring on the new music, tour, anything you all want!
I used to watch Last Week Tonight, but was unable to keep up on weekly viewing so gave it up with the start of this season. If only I had known sooner about this Polka Diplomacy!


Portrait of Jerry Wilson Perry, or Jerry Perry (usually called J. W. Perry), president of the Commerce Trust Company in Kansas City. Perry was born in Nodaway County, Missouri in 1870 and became a school principal in Maitland, Missouri and Saint Louis before coming to Kansas City in 1909. Source: Kansas City Museum (George Fuller Green Collection).


text:
#include "TwoViewReconstruction.h"

namespace Saiga
{
TwoViewReconstruction::TwoViewReconstruction()
{
    IntrinsicsPinholed intr;
    scene.intrinsics.push_back(intr);
    scene.images.resize(2);

    scene.images[0].intr = 0;
    scene.images[1].intr = 0;

    scene.images[0].constant = true;

    int maxPoints = 2000;
    scene.worldPoints.reserve(maxPoints);
    scene.images[0].stereoPoints.reserve(maxPoints);
    scene.images[1].stereoPoints.reserve(maxPoints);

    op_options = defaultBAOptimizationOptions();
}

void TwoViewReconstruction::init(const RansacParameters& fivePointParams)
{
    fpr.init(fivePointParams);
    tmpArray.reserve(fivePointParams.reserveN);
}

void TwoViewReconstruction::compute(ArrayView<const Vec2> points1, ArrayView<const Vec2> points2)
{
    N = points1.size();
    inliers.clear();
    inliers.reserve(N);
    inlierMask.resize(N);

    pose1() = SE3();

    scene.worldPoints.clear();
    scene.images[0].stereoPoints.resize(N);
    scene.images[1].stereoPoints.resize(N);
    scene.worldPoints.resize(N);

    int threads = fpr.Params().threads;

#pragma omp parallel num_threads(threads)
    {
        int num_inliers;

        {
            num_inliers = fpr.solve(points1, points2, E, pose2(), inliers, inlierMask);
        }
#pragma omp single
        {
            inlierCount = num_inliers;
        }

#pragma omp for
        for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
        {
            auto&& wp  = scene.worldPoints[i];
            auto&& ip1 = scene.images[0].stereoPoints[i];
            auto&& ip2 = scene.images[1].stereoPoints[i];
            if (!inlierMask[i])
            {
                // outlier
                wp.valid = false;
                ip1.wp   = -1;
                ip2.wp   = -1;
                continue;
            }

            // inlier
            wp.p     = TriangulateHomogeneous<double, true>(pose1(), pose2(), points1[i], points2[i]);
            wp.valid = true;

            ip1.wp    = i;
            ip1.point = points1[i];

            ip2.wp    = i;
            ip2.point = points2[i];
        }
    }
    scene.fixWorldPointReferences();

    //    SAIGA_ASSERT(scene);
}

double TwoViewReconstruction::medianAngle()
{
    tmpArray.clear();
    auto c1 = pose1().inverse().translation();
    auto c2 = pose2().inverse().translation();

    for (auto& wp2 : scene.worldPoints)
    {
        if (!wp2.valid) continue;
        auto A = TriangulationAngle(c1, c2, wp2.p);
        tmpArray.push_back(A);
    }
    if (tmpArray.empty())
    {
        return 0;
    }
    std::sort(tmpArray.begin(), tmpArray.end());
    return tmpArray[tmpArray.size() / 2];
}

double TwoViewReconstruction::medianAngleByDepth()
{
    double medianDepthKF2 = getMedianDepth();
    auto c1               = pose1().inverse().translation();
    auto c2               = pose2().inverse().translation();
    double baseline       = (c1 - c2).norm();
    return atan2(baseline / 2.0, medianDepthKF2);
}

int TwoViewReconstruction::NumPointWithAngleAboveThreshold(double angle)
{
    int count = 0;
    auto c1   = pose1().inverse().translation();
    auto c2   = pose2().inverse().translation();

    for (auto& wp2 : scene.worldPoints)
    {
        if (!wp2.valid) continue;
        auto A = TriangulationAngle(c1, c2, wp2.p);
        if (A > angle)
        {
            count++;
        }
    }
    return count;
}

double TwoViewReconstruction::getMedianDepth()
{
    tmpArray.clear();
    for (auto& wp2 : scene.worldPoints)
    {
        if (!wp2.valid) continue;
        auto wp = wp2.p;
        tmpArray.push_back(wp.z());
    }
    if (tmpArray.empty())
    {
        return 0;
    }
    std::sort(tmpArray.begin(), tmpArray.end());
    return tmpArray[tmpArray.size() / 2];
}

int TwoViewReconstruction::optimize(int its, float thresholdChi1)
{
    scene.rel_pose_constraints.clear();
    if (rel_pose_weight_rotation > 0 || rel_pose_weight_translation > 0)
    {
        RelPoseConstraint rpc;
        rpc.img1               = 0;
        rpc.img2               = 1;
        rpc.rel_pose           = rel_pose_prediction;
        rpc.weight_rotation    = rel_pose_weight_rotation;
        rpc.weight_translation = rel_pose_weight_translation;
        scene.rel_pose_constraints.push_back(rpc);
    }

    ba_options.huberMono     = thresholdChi1;
    op_options.debugOutput   = false;
    op_options.minChi2Delta  = 1e-10;
    op_options.maxIterations = its;
    auto threshold2          = thresholdChi1 * thresholdChi1;

    ba.optimizationOptions = op_options;
    ba.baOptions           = ba_options;
    ba.create(scene);
    ba.initAndSolve();

    // recompute inliers
    inlierCount        = 0;
    int removed_points = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
    {
        if (!inlierMask[i]) continue;
        auto e1 = scene.residual2(scene.images[0], scene.images[0].stereoPoints[i]).squaredNorm();
        auto e2 = scene.residual2(scene.images[1], scene.images[1].stereoPoints[i]).squaredNorm();

        if (std::max(e1, e2) < threshold2)
        {
            inlierCount++;
        }
        else
        {
            inlierMask[i] = false;
            removed_points++;
        }
    }
    return inlierCount;
}

void TwoViewReconstruction::clear()
{
    inliers.clear();
    inlierMask.clear();
    tmpArray.clear();
    scene.worldPoints.clear();
    scene.images[0].stereoPoints.clear();
    scene.images[1].stereoPoints.clear();
    N           = 0;
    inlierCount = 0;
}

void TwoViewReconstruction::setMedianDepth(double d)
{
    auto md     = getMedianDepth();
    auto factor = d / md;
    scene.rescale(factor);
}

void TwoViewReconstructionEightPoint::init(const RansacParameters& ransac_params, IntrinsicsPinholed K)
{
    if (solve_normalized)
    {
        auto cpy = ransac_params;
        cpy.residualThreshold /= (K.fx * K.fx);
        epr.init(cpy);
    }
    else
    {
        epr.init(ransac_params);
    }
    tmpArray.reserve(ransac_params.reserveN);
    scene.intrinsics.front() = K;
}

void TwoViewReconstructionEightPoint::compute(ArrayView<const Vec2> points1, ArrayView<const Vec2> points2,
                                              ArrayView<const Vec2> normalized_points1,
                                              ArrayView<const Vec2> normalized_points2)
{
    N = points1.size();
    inliers.clear();
    inliers.reserve(N);
    inlierMask.resize(N);

    pose1() = SE3();

    scene.worldPoints.clear();
    scene.images[0].stereoPoints.resize(N);
    scene.images[1].stereoPoints.resize(N);
    scene.worldPoints.resize(N);

    IntrinsicsPinholed& K = scene.intrinsics.front();

    int threads = epr.Params().threads;

#pragma omp parallel num_threads(threads)
    {
        if (solve_normalized)
        {
            inlierCount = epr.solve(normalized_points1, normalized_points2, F, inliers, inlierMask);
        }
        else
        {
            inlierCount = epr.solve(points1, points2, F, inliers, inlierMask);
        }
    }

    {
        if (solve_normalized)
        {
            // Transform back to unnormalized space
            F = K.inverse().matrix().transpose() * F * K.inverse().matrix();
        }

        E                    = EssentialMatrix(F, K, K);
        auto [rel, relcount] = getValidTransformationFromE(E, normalized_points1.data(), normalized_points2.data(),
                                                           inlierMask, normalized_points1.size(), threads);

        pose1() = SE3();
        pose2() = rel;
    }

#pragma omp parallel num_threads(threads)
    {
#pragma omp for
        for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
        {
            auto&& wp  = scene.worldPoints[i];
            auto&& ip1 = scene.images[0].stereoPoints[i];
            auto&& ip2 = scene.images[1].stereoPoints[i];
            if (!inlierMask[i])
            {
                // outlier
                wp.valid = false;
                ip1.wp   = -1;
                ip2.wp   = -1;
                continue;
            }

            // inlier
            wp.p = TriangulateHomogeneous<double, true>(pose1(), pose2(), normalized_points1[i], normalized_points2[i]);
            wp.valid = true;

            ip1.wp    = i;
            ip1.point = points1[i];

            ip2.wp    = i;
            ip2.point = points2[i];
        }
    }
    scene.fixWorldPointReferences();
}

}  // namespace Saiga

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Q: Calculating the similarity between two vectors I did LDA over a corpus of documents with topic_number=5. As a result, I have five vectors of words, each word associates with a weight or degree of importance, like this:
Topic_A = {(word_A1,weight_A1), (word_A2, weight_A2), ... ,(word_Ak, weight_Ak)}
Topic_B = {(word_B1,weight_B1), (word_B2, weight_B2), ... ,(word_Bk, weight_Bk)}
.
.
Topic_E = {(word_E1,weight_E1), (word_E2, weight_E2), ... ,(word_Ek, weight_Ek)}

Some of the words are common between documents. Now, I want to know, how I can calculate the similarity between these vectors. I can calculate cosine similarity (and other similarity measures) by programming from scratch, but I was thinking, there might be an easier way to do it. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance for spending time on this.

*

*I am programming with Python 3.6 and gensim library (but I am open to any other library)

*I know someone else has asked similar question (Cosine Similarity and LDA topics) but becasue he didn't get the answer, I ask it again

A: After LDA you have topics characterized as distributions on words. If you plan to compare these probability vectors (weight vectors if you prefer), you can simply use any cosine similarity implemented for Python, sklearn for instance.
However, this approach will only tell you which topics have in general similar probabilities put in the same words.
If you want to measure similarities based on semantic information instead of word occurrences, you may want to use word vectors (as those learned by Word2Vec, GloVe or FastText).
They learned vectors for representing the words as low dimensional vectors, encoding certain semantic information. They're easy to use in Gensim, and the typical approach is loading a pre-trained model, learned in Wikipedia articles or News.
If you have topics defined by words, you can represent these words as vectors and obtain an average of the cosine similarities between the words in two topics (we did it for a workshop). There are some sources using these Word Vectors (also called Word Embeddings) to represent somehow topics or documents. For instance, this one.
There are some recent publications combining Topic Models and Word Embeddings, you can look for them if you're interested.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


A proposal that an authorised fund should be involved in a scheme of arrangement is subject to written notice to and approval by the FCA under section 251 of the Act (Alteration of schemes and changes of manager or trustee), section 261Q of the Act (Alteration of contractual schemes and changes of operator or depositary)2 or regulation 21 of the OEIC Regulations (The Authority's approval for certain changes in respect of a company). Effect cannot be given to such a change except in accordance with that section or regulation.
COLL 7.6.2 R(Scheme of arrangement: requirements).
If a scheme of arrangement is entered into in relation to an authorised fund ("transferor fund") or a sub-fund of a scheme which is an umbrella ("transferor sub-fund"), an authorised fund manager must ensure that the unitholders of the transferor fund or sub-fund do not become unitholders of units in a collective investment scheme other than a regulated collective investment scheme.
For a UCITS scheme or a sub-fund of a UCITS scheme, (1) applies as if the reference to a regulated collective investment scheme also excludes any recognised scheme other than a scheme recognised under section 264 of the Act (Schemes constituted in other EEA States).
Where, for the purpose of a scheme of arrangement, it is proposed that scheme property of an authorised fund should become the property of another regulated collective investment scheme or sub-fund of a regulated collective investment scheme, the proposal must not be implemented without the sanction of an extraordinary resolution of the unitholders in the authorised fund, unless (4) applies.
(unless implementation of the scheme of arrangement is not likely to result in any material prejudice to the interests of the unitholders in any other sub-fund of that umbrella) an extraordinary resolution of the unitholders of units in that umbrella.
If it is proposed that an authorised fund or sub-fund of an umbrella should receive property (other than its first property) as a result of a scheme of arrangement (or an arrangement equivalent to a scheme of arrangement) which is entered into by some other collective investment scheme or sub-fund, or by a body corporate, the proposal must not be implemented without the sanction of an extraordinary resolution of the unitholders in the authorised fund or (as the case may be) of the class or classes of units related to the sub-fund unless (6) applies.
could be effected without any breach of a rule in COLL 5(Investment and borrowing powers).


Discussion in 'Sirius Portables' started by cybersp78, Nov 13, 2008.
I am wondering if other people are experiencing this same problem. While listening to my wifi on my Stiletto 100, none of the new XM channels are showing up. For example, there is no Channel 9,39, etc. to select to listen. I tried leaving it on the wifi for over two hours last night hoping it would update but nothing happened. Is anyone else experiencing this problem?
No it has to be updated on the backend via Zing's servers, then they will serve it to the Stiletto. They should then be able to add the graphics and backgrounds, though that would take an update for it to fix it via the sat mode side.


* Support for mappers 2 (best of the best karate, paperboy II (no more grey screen)) and 138 (Crimebusters).  Thanks to XTecuterX73.
- Get the blarrg NTSC filter going?
A gazillion changes, read the Latest-NES.txt file.
A gazillion changes carried over from Atarixlbox.  Read the Latest-NES.txt file.


Michelle Malkin | » Does this mean Hillary has to put Bill in the 'basket of deplorables'?
Does this mean Hillary has to put Bill in the 'basket of deplorables'?
Former President Bill Clinton stumps for his wife in Orlando, FL. He says that Donald Trump's promise to "Make America Great Again" is a racist codeword. "If you're a white southerner, you know exactly what it means," Clinton said.
"Make America great again" is a racist dog whistle? Got it!
The problem is, Clinton himself has used the same phrase several times in the past.
Bill's agreed to get into the "basket of deplorables" as long as there's also room for the woman he loves. The problem is, Hillary will be there too.


DOBBS FERRY, N.Y. – The Queens College baseball team won the season series against East Coast Conference (ECC) opponent Mercy College with a 4-2 road win over the Mavericks on Sunday afternoon. Queens (13-18, 7-12 ECC) took the five-game series, three games to two, over Mercy (10-22, 4-12 ECC).
After being shut out in their last game against the Mavericks, the Knights piled up 11 hits this time around. Queens tallied four runs over the first five innings to go on top, and freshman pitcher Rob Backus held the Mercy offense in check, picking up his fourth win of the season.
Mercy got on the board first with a run in the opening inning, with John Mooradian scoring on an RBI groundout hit by Anthony Murphy. In the very next inning, Queens answered with a run of its own, as junior Karl Klesin scored on an RBI groundout hit by classmate Joseph Pidoto.
The Mavericks added another run on an RBI single by Anthony Murphy in the bottom of the third, but again the Knights responded, this time with two runs in the top of the fourth. Sophomore Andrew Navarez singled to left and stole second to put a man in scoring range with two outs. Then Pidoto ripped an RBI double to left to score Navarez to tie the score at 2-2. In the next at-bat, freshman Louis Antos gave Queens the lead on a single to right center, scoring Pidoto for the 3-2 advantage.
Queens added another run in the fifth when Klesin reached on an error, allowing senior Joe Morris to trot home to give the Knights a 4-2 lead. Mercy threatened in the bottom of the sixth with men on the corners and no outs, but with the help of his defense, Backus got Randal Mendez to hit into a 4-3-2 triple play to end the inning.
Meanwhile, Backus (4-0) had it going on the bump, allowing just two runs on six hits with six strikeouts over eight innings of work. Fellow freshman James McGee then took the ball in the ninth with two men on and no outs for Mercy. McGee was up to the challenge, getting the final three outs to end it and pick up his first career save.
Pidoto went 1-for-4 with two RBI and a run scored to lead the Knights' offense. Three Knights posted multi-hit games in Klesin, Navarez and Antos.
Next up for Queens will be another ECC road contest on Tuesday, April 25, against St. Thomas Aquinas College at 3:30 p.m.


IRELAND look to have all but given up hope of bringing England to the Aviva Stadium after the friendly with Holland at Wembley on February 29 was inked in.
Laudably, the FA will again be selling £60 family tickets, but are less keen on helping out the neighbours with another friendly in Dublin in May.
"The England game is looking less likely for May," said FAI chief executive John Delaney.


How Do I Uninstall Internet Explorer 8?
IE8 is part of Windows 7, disabling or removing access to IE8 means you will not have a browser anymore. Make sure to download or install an alternative browser before removing IE8. If IE8 has been removed, you will need another computer to download your new browser or any software installer that is bundled to install or download another browser. Example: Avast anti-virus and Ad-Aware anti-malware is offering Google Chrome browser free.
Removing IE8 in Vista and earlier operating systems means you are reverting back to the prior version – IE7 or IE6.
Method 1: Locate Windows Internet Explorer 8 in the Add or Remove Programs utility. Click remove and continue with the uninstall wizard. Restart the computer when finished.
Press enter to proceed removing and restart the PC when finished.
Note: If Windows Internet Explorer 8 is not listed in Add/Remove Programs or if the second method will not work, you may have installed IE8 before installing XP Service Pack 3. You will need to remove XP SP3 before you can proceed to remove IE8 using the Add/Remove Programs utility.
Method 1: Open Control Panel > Click Uninstall a Program under Programs category > Select View installed updates > Double-click Windows Internet Explorer 8 > Click Yes in the Uninstall an update dialog box > Enter your administrator password when prompted or proceed to restart the computer after uninstalling IE8.
FORFILES /P %WINDIR%\servicing\Packages /M Microsoft-Windows-InternetExplorer-8*.mum /c "cmd /c echo Uninstalling package @fname && start /w pkgmgr /up:@fname /norestart"
Restart the PC when finished.
Open Control Panel > click Uninstall a program under Programs > Turn Windows features on or off > clear the check box next to Internet Explorer 8 > select Yes in the warning dialog box. The system will restart after the installation.
Final note: When you're done with uninstalling IE8, remember to visit the Microsoft Update website to grab the available updates for IE7 or IE6 to take advantage of security and program fixes.


There are only a few things in life more personal than your finances. That's why at Florida Capital Bank, our customers are about more than just dollars and decimals. Banking is about relationships, customer service and great financial solutions that fit your specific needs.
We're proud to offer banking options with a personal touch. When you open an account with us you get a one-on-one experience with a banking professional who knows you by name.
Speak with a Business Relationship Banker to Get Started Today!
Competitive market rates and Multiple terms available to meet your needs!
Whether you're a first-time homebuyer, upgrading to a larger home, refinancing or buying an additional property, Florida Capital Bank offers a variety of mortgage loan options.


text:
Mad Men creator says criticism of Romney was based on facts
CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper
(CNN) - "Mad Men" creator Matthew Weiner says the George Romney criticism early in the fifth season is based on actual events. One of the show's characters, Henry Francis, is a political operative working for New York City Mayor John Lindsay.
In a phone call, Francis vetoes the idea of Lindsay traveling to Michigan, "because Romney is a clown and I don't want him standing next to him."
Filed under: Mitt Romney
Rick McDaniel
Wouldn't know how true that is........but we ALL know that Hollywood is Dem socialists trying to turn America into their personal playground, allowing them free rein to control everything Americans see, hear, or do.
They would be dictators, and indeed they are trying their best to make that happen.
April 4, 2013 02:56 pm at 2:56 pm |
Like father, like son. In a word – – clown.
Rick, the.most accurate desciption of dictatorship is what the republican party is doing, control, control, control. ican twll you right now, your party is in serious trouble come next election, they push ideaology and policies favored by a minority, and that will get you voted out pronto. we will see how effecient their gerrymandering efforts were you can only rule from a minority platform for so long before you are banished from power
How can they just keep lying about everything, this has no benefit to woman, yet, there it is, just like right to work, complete bullshirt
Marie MD
Yes, rickie mc, becaue your god reagan and the terminator were not actors plucke right smack from the bowels of Hollywood.
You rethugs really an truly can't win can you? LOL
Rudy NYC
Rick McDaniel wrote:
Contol. AH! You must mean Rupert Murdoch. He's a conservative fighting for his rights to control his own company.
Got your fox news fix today i see rick, you really should get out more, that channel is toxic
Malory Archer
LOL Rick McDaniel – I needed a good laugh on this dreary Thursday afternoon! Thanks for that!
Mitt, lost the very instant he opened his mouth. Once the trap was opened he couldn't keep it shut. He said what he felt in his heart about the American people. And yet some believe he was a victim of yellow journalism. What's it take to open the eyes of so many, that refuse to actually see?
Crazy talk. The GOP does nothing that doesn't benefit the 1%- the people who own 90% of the weath of our nation and you stupidly talk about "personal playgrounds" and dictators". Projection, is what that is called.
just more of the lefties re-writing history... pretty soon they'll have us all believing that joseph stalin and fidel castro were liberators and never hurt or imprisoned a single person. it was all just right wing propaganda.
It is a "not meant to be factually correct" drama show. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to trun off the TV for a year or two.
@just sayin, once again your watching faux news and listening to the fat boy are getting in the way of clear thinking. Your boy, shoot them in the face cheney, was the one who said that in Iraq we would be welcomed as liberators. It's on record. Really. I am not kidding. That IS the truth.
right.... which is why he is using the names of real people and then put lies into their mouths so that people think it is factual. it is an old tried and true trick of the left. blurrying and perverting history to fool the weak minded and further their lies.
Jeff Brown in Jersey
I rarely, if ever agree with Rick McDaniel, but I respect that he has the courage to put his name on his posts, unlike most of the right wing nutjobs on here.
hi sniffit, where r u?
Trump's legal team to deliver extensive and aggressive impeachment response, sources say January 18, 2020 10:02 pm


NREL's workforce development analysis—part of our broader effort supporting manufacturing analysis—is geared toward specific workforce skills, training, and experience that will enable continued large-scale deployment of wind and solar technologies.
The greatest near-term solar and wind workforce needs include technicians and tradesmen with hands-on solar- and wind-specific experience; experienced electrical, mechanical, and solar engineers; and project managers.
Standardized education and training at all levels—primary school through post-graduate, as well as industry-based training and certification and apprenticeships—are required to develop a skilled workforce to support the future expansion of wind and solar industries.
One-half of surveyed firms reported difficulties in finding qualified entry-level candidates with appropriate training and education.
59% of firms reported significant difficulty finding qualified applicants with adequate skills and work experience.
In 2011, NREL published a similar assessment of wind industry workforce needs, Wind Energy Workforce Development: A Roadmap to a Wind Energy Educational Infrastructure.