text:
Bruce A Moyer
For his leadership in separations science and technology; for improving nuclear fuel recycling and waste removal; and for leading the development process that was instrumental in the cleanup of waste at the Savannah River Site.
Budhendra L Bhaduri
For his role in conceiving, designing, and implementing novel geocomputational methods to help solve a wide variety of national and global problems in energy, the environment, and national security.
Sheng Dai
For pioneering studies of the functionality of mesoporous oxides and carbons for real-world applications, ionic liquids for chemical separation and materials synthesis, and catalysis by nanomaterials.
Robert N Compton
For experimental studies in atomic and molecular physics, particularly developments in the field of nonlinear laser spectroscopy and the physics of negative ions
Herbert A. Mook
Mook has conducted neutron scattering research on a broad spectrum of materials. He is best known for his pioneering research on the magnetic excitations of transition metal ferromagnets and the observation of itinerant electron effects in these materials.
G Malcolm Stocks
For his internationally recognized work in the theory of alloys and his pioneering applications of massively parallel computing to first-principles calculations of the properties of materials.
L. G. Christophorou
For innovative and fundamental contributions to the understanding of the interactions and transport of electrons in gases and liquids, negative ion processes, the interfacing of the gaseous and condensed phases of matter, and the use of fundamental knowledge in the development of gaseous dielectrics, radiation detectors, and pulsed power
(-) Senior Corporate Fellow (6)


Actor Sanjay Dutt who has completed one and a half month schedule shooting in Jaipur for his upcoming Historical period drama PANIPAT is not only hitting the gym for a desired physique of the King Ahmad Shah Durrani but the actor is making sure he perfects his art in carrying the heavy Armour. Actor Sanjay Dutt is wearing one of the heaviest armours till date. The protective shield that Dutt is wearing weighs around 25 kgs.
Earlier, last year when the actor went for a hair, make-up and costume trials, the armour was specially designed according to Dutt's personality. While shooting in Jaipur, the actor would hit the gym in between shoots or right before wearing the heavy armour so that he can perform effectively and give his best. The armours worn by the kings during that era inspire the armour.
Not only this, the actor also followed a strict diet while he was shooting in Jaipur. He would consume food such as salads rich in proteins, chicken with no fat and fish. To slip into the character of an Afghan King, Sanjay Dutt had completely cut down foods, which contained fats and carbs. Sanjay Dutt had one more gym at the place he lived. So that he could workout anytime while he is free. Since Sanjay Dutt has to maintain a certain physique the actor worked out in between shots and post pack-up depending on the availability of time.


A few days ago Microsoft released a new build for Windows 10 and I wanted to give it a try. However, I didn't want to resize my partitions or overwrite my Windows 8.1 partition.
Well, then install it in a VM!
Then I wouldn't have access to all of my RAM and CPU, so that wasn't a solution either. However, I found the ideal solution.
Create a new VHD-file and remember the path to it. You can use Disk Management (run diskmgmt.msc) and click Action and Create VHD. I made it about 70 GB big with a dynamic size.
Boot into the Windows installation (use Rufus or something similar to create a bootable USB stick).
Select Custom: Install Windows only (Advanced), not an Upgrade.
Now you have to select the partition on which you want to install Windows. Press SHIFT+F10 to open a command prompt instead.
Enter diskpart to open the DiskPart utility.
In DiskPart enter select vdisk file=C:\Windows10.vhd with the correct path to your VHD to select the VHD.
Now enter attach vdisk and close the command prompt.
If you now press Refresh you will see unallocated space on a newly added disk station, that is your virtual hard drive. Select it.
You can now continue installing Windows as usual.
I was surprised to find out about this possibility. This way you can try the new Windows in full without compromising your production environment.


text:
Aesthetica Art Prize Call For Entries: Longlisted Artist, Val Wecerka
Rather than one single working style, Wecerka's practice covers an entire spectrum of topics and forms, from figurative to abstract and ornamental, holding a keen interest in experimenting with different materials to express ideas. In (un)written letters, the question is that of human communication. Making use of helixes and snail-like forms like the infinity sign as symbols of human empowerment, such characters and symbols structure the area of images.
The long way is also a part of this cycle, where from rows of arranged archaic or primary acronyms, like letters or a foreign script, the composition emerges. Sigmund Freud said: "The art is almost harmless and beneficent, art wants nothing that to be an illusion."
The Aesthetica Art Prize 2016 is now open for entries, accepting submissions across a range of media including photography, sculpture, installation, painting and artists' film. Prizes include up to £5,000 courtesy of Hiscox, group exhibition, publication in 100 contemporary artists, £250 art supplies vouchers courtesy of Winsor & Newton and art books courtesy of Prestel. Selected artists are also showcased on Aesthetica's online channels.
For more information and to enter, visit www.aestheticamagazine.com/artprize
1. Val Wecerka, The long way, (2015). Courtesy of the artist.
Posted on 20 April 2016
The Aesthetica Art Prize looks into themes from digital worlds. Peter Davis's shortlisted paintings assess people's relationship with technology.
Future Now: While in York
Aesthetica lists 5 Top Restaurants to visit after a long day of thought-provoking sessions at Future Now, soaking up the rich heritage and buzzing culture of York.
Engineered Narratives
Holden Luntz Gallery's Constructed Space exhibition features the work of Aesthetica Art Prize alumnus André Lichtenberg.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Notes for AUD #1: First surfaced in March 2001 and in February 2012 the master tape was retransferred and circulated. The opening bass jam, 'Dive', 'Been A Son' and 'Blew" cuts in. Has some cuts between songs. 'About A Girl' is missing due to tape flip.
Notes for SBD #1: Surfaced in November 2001. Features 'About A Girl' and the 'Johnny B. Goode' jam which are not present on the AUD sources. However, this version is missing the bass jam introduction, 'Been A Son' and 'Stain', which are all present on the AUD sources. 'School', 'Floyd The Barber' and 'About A Girl' cuts in slightly. Also, unlike on the AUD source 'Breed' is cut, being no more than the opening few seconds of the song and 'Negative Creep' cuts in. This source can also be found on the bootleg 'Krist Jamming'. The bootleg was sourced from the trading circle version and thus should be avoided; see Live Nirvana's Bootography Guide To Nirvana Bootlegs for more information on commercial releases of this show.
Notes for AMT #1a: Amateur video, shot from Kurt's side of the stage. More complete and of higher quality than AMT #1b but has digital errors in 'Love Buzz' and 'Dive'. Includes all of what is circulating from the soundcheck.
Notes for AMT #1b: Amateur video. Feature 'Love Buzz' and 'Dive' only. Released by the venue on their website as two MOV files. Less complete and of lower quality than AMT #1a.


Compassion Sunday will be an exciting morning at Grace! The whole morning will be focused on what God is doing in and through the church we are partnering with Compassion International to plant in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
Both before and after the services this morning, you and your family will have an opportunity to look through packets and pick out a child to sponsor. This is the most personal way that you can be involved in this church plant!
For the child in poverty, sponsorship will mean access to food, clean water, medical care, educational opportunities, age-appropriate Bible teaching and you.
When you choose a child and commit to his or her care and support, you have the power to change everything for that child. Just as God has chosen us, you can choose a child to love and disciple!
Please be praying about participating in what God is doing in Bolivia by signing up to sponsor a child on Sunday, April 22.


text:
Developer secures $15 million loan for Somerville rental project, Meridian says
A rendering of The Davenport at 21 Davenport St. in Somerville — Courtesy: Meridian Capital Group
Meridian Capital Group has brokered $15 million in financing for the development of a new 60-unit luxury rental property in downtown Somerville.
Working on behalf of the developer, Robert Weiss of Weiss Properties, Meridian sourced the construction loan through a regional balance sheet lender. The funds will support the midrise property known as The Davenport, located at 21 Davenport St., which includes four stories of apartments atop a 68-story parking garage.
Meridian Managing Director Shaya Ackerman and Senior Vice President Shaya Sonnenschein negotiated the financing for the transaction, according to a news release. The 30-month construction loan features a prime-based floating rate.
The same Meridian team, which is based in the firm's New York City headquarters, also recently arranged $46 million in construction and permanent financing for The Avery, a 450-unit apartment community in Willingboro developed by Weiss Properties.
"Shaya Ackerman and Shaya Sonnenschein are both professional and have a tremendous grasp of the financial market," said Weiss, president of the New Brunswick-based firm. "I am glad we were able to continue our relationship with the financing of The Davenport."
In Somerville, Meridian touted the borough's direct access to major highways, nearby rail service and a busy collection of downtown shops and restaurants. Plans for The Davenport call for a recreational area, fitness center, storage lockers and a common-area lounge.
Tags 21 Davenport St. Meridian Capital Group Somerville The Davenport Weiss properties
Advance welcomes H Mart to Paramus retail center (SLIDESHOW)
Developers grapple with scarce opportunities, soaring prices while riding N.J. industrial wave
Gold Coast condo building more than 75 percent sold


Large-sized three sided pyramide with 24 holes for climbing holds on each side. Its tip and its edges can be used as a sloper. It has two flat-peak sisters: Roraima and Table mountain. It is compatible with all 90-edge volumes.


Dog Owners | Got Barking?
Have you been contacted by a neighbor, or received an anonymous letter regarding your dogs barking? Click Here for more information.
Pet ownership is a huge responsibility. Only you can control what your dog does. Controlling the amount of noise that your dog makes will not only make your home more enjoyable, but your neighbor's will really appreciate it.
Are you aware that "Nuisance Dog Barking" is against the law in most areas? Are you aware of your local dog barking laws? Visit Animal Control page for more information.
There are several steps that you can take to reduce or eliminate your dog's excessive barking. The first step is understanding why your dog barks so much, and then deciding what type of corrective action to take.
A protective dog will bark to alert their owner of any potential danger or threat. But many dogs bark due to boredom, loneliness, alarm, fear, and/or separation anxiety.
Determining why your dog is barking will allow you to take the necessary steps, to not only eliminate nuisance barking, but to stop or reduce the cause of the barking.
Obedience training is by far the best and most humane way to reduce or eliminate nuisance barking. It will take time, effort and dedication, but you can "Bark Train" your dog.
Two basic methods to bark train your dog include putting several pennies in a can and shaking the can when the dog is barking. The other is to spray water in the dogs face using a spray bottle. The key to these techniques working is consistency, dedication and rewarding your dog when the barking stops.
There are many resources available online, including books, videos and dog training manuals that will help you understand how to "Bark Train" your dog. Contact a local dog trainer or obedience school if you need assistance.
Visit our Video Page to view bark-training videos.
If you do not have the time or patience to "Bark Train" your dog, bark control collars can reduce or eliminate nuisance barking. There are three main types of bark control collar: citronella spray, shock and ultrasonic. In studies, citronella spray collars have proven more effective than shock collars.
There are many devices on the market that emit either an ultrasonic noise and/or an audible noise when your dog barks. The different types of ultrasonic devices range from units that you mount on a wall or post that are triggered by your dog's barking, to hand-held units that you activate when your dog barks.
Being aware of your dog's barking, understanding why your dog is barking and then taking the necessary steps to reduce or eliminate nuisance barking is the most effective way to solve your barking problem. Below are a few pointers and tips to help you reduce the amount of noise that your dog makes.
Provide your dog with plenty of daily exercise.
Provide chew toys that dispense food such as peanut butter or dog treats.
Do not reward your dog when barking.
Do not leave a barking dog outside for extended periods of time, especially at night.
Owning a dog has many rewards such as companionship and protection. Most dogs are considered a part of the family. Along with these rewards comes great responsibility in providing for the health and well-being of the animal. But a greater responsibility is in ensuring that your dog does not disrupt the health and well-being of your neighbors. "Nuisance Dog Barking" is against the law in most areas for this very reason.
Barking dogs are one of the most common complaints between neighbors. Be a responsible pet owner and good neighbor, be aware of how much your dog barks, and remedy the situation if there is a problem. If you are not sure if your dog barks when you are away or at night, approach your neighbors and ask them if your dog barks excessively. Let them know that you're going to address the problem if there is one.


text:
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says "Putin never imagined" such Ukrainian support
Placeholder while loading article actions
RAMSTEEN AIR BASE, GERMANY – Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told a gathering of military leaders in Germany that "the Ukrainian resistance has inspired the free world and greater resolve for NATO" – and that Russian President Vladimir Putin "never imagined that the world would gather behind Ukraine so quickly and with confidence."
Austin made the remarks, as he opened a US-organized gathering of more than 40 countries to discuss Ukraine's defense needs to fight against Russia, the US announced. More military aid Planning to reopen its embassy in the Ukrainian capital, Poland said it will send tanks, and Germany plans to send anti-aircraft armored vehicles.
"We are all for you," Austin told Ukraine, in comments following his trip to Kyiv.
The meeting was attended by senior defense officials from NATO and non-NATO countries, which is part of the new Ukraine Defense Advisory Group. Some countries, such as Israel and Qatar, had representatives at the table, although they were not included in the official list of attendees. The inclusion of non-NATO countries such as Kenya, Tunisia, and Japan was part of an effort to expand substantive and symbolic support for Ukraine beyond Europe and the Alliance.
In separate statements to the group, General Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a stark picture of the next phase of the war, as Russia attempts to gain full control of southeastern and southern Ukraine. "Time is not on Ukraine's side," Milley said in closed comments provided to reporters traveling with him. "The outcome of this battle, here, today, depends on the people in this room."
See also US Coast Guard cutter denied port access in Solomon Islands
Live updates: US general says "time is not on Ukraine's side"; Putin meets the Secretary-General of the United Nations
World leaders are pressing Putin to stop the war, now in its third month. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who is in Moscow for Meets Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called for a ceasefire on Tuesday and said everything must be done "to end the war as soon as possible".
Meanwhile, Lavrov sounded alarm bells when he told state television that the risk of escalating the conflict into nuclear war was "serious, it's real" – but added that Moscow's position was that nuclear war was unacceptable. Lavrov accused NATO of waging a proxy war by donating arms to Kyiv and said the flow of arms from allies to Ukraine would be seen as a "legitimate target" of the Russian military.
US goals from the gathering were to share what Pentagon spokesman John Kirby called a "common understanding" of the current battlefield and Ukraine's defense capabilities and requirements, as well as the capacity of national industrial bases.
Austin says the US wants to "weaken" the Russian military from invading Ukraine
Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov led a delegation from Kyiv, which visited Austin and Foreign Minister Anthony Blinken Sunday.
"That visit only confirmed my sense of urgency, the urgency of something I know we all share," Austin said at the meeting. "I would like this whole group to leave today with a common and transparent understanding of Ukraine's near-term security requirements because we will continue to move in heaven and earth until we can meet them," he stressed.
See also The death of a French nun at the age of 118
Last week, President Biden announced an additional $800 million in weapons assistance to Ukraine, including heavy artillery and high-tech attack drones aimed at the new battlefield in the south and southeast. American military officials estimated that the Russians, who withdrew to those areas after failing to capture Kyiv, would attempt to encircle the Ukrainian forces there in a major ground battle.
In his opening statement, Austin said, "My trip to Kyiv reinforced my admiration for the way the Ukrainian Armed Forces deploy" the assistance they are receiving. Ukraine clearly thinks it can win. So does everyone here."
Mielle was less decisive after the reporters left the room. "The next two, three or four weeks will be the overall outcome of this battle," he said.
The IAEA chief says the radiation levels at Chernobyl are extraordinary. There is no increase in Romania
Starfield's music will be your companion in Bethesda's new space RPG


text:
Frank C. CARLUCCI, Secretary of Defense, et al., Petitioners v. John DOE.
488 U.S. 93 (109 S.Ct. 407, 102 L.Ed.2d 395)
No. 87-751.
Argued: Oct. 11, 1988.
Decided: Dec. 6, 1988.
opinion, WHITE [HTML]
After respondent, a cryptographic material control technician at the National Security Agency (NSA), disclosed to NSA officials that he had engaged in homosexual relationships with foreign nationals, his employment was terminated pursuant to NSA personnel regulations setting forth procedures for removal "for cause," which were promulgated under provisions of the National Security Agency Act of 1959 (1959 NSA Act) empowering the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, to appoint NSA employees. Claiming that the 1959 NSA Act does not authorize removals and that he could only be discharged under 5 U.S.C. 7532—which provides that, "notwithstanding other statutes," the head of an agency "may" suspend and then remove employees "in the interests of national security," so long as they have been given, inter alia, a preremoval hearing by the agency head or his designee—respondent requested a hearing before the Secretary. That request was denied on the ground that respondent had been removed under the NSA regulations, which do not include the right to such a hearing, and not pursuant to the Secretary's § 7532 summary authority. Granting summary judgment for petitioners, the Secretary and the NSA Director, in respondent's suit challenging his removal, the District Court held that, although NSA could have elected to proceed under either § 7532 or 50 U.S.C. 833—which is part of the NSA Personnel Security Procedures Act, and which provides that the Secretary "may" remove an NSA employee upon determining that the termination procedures set forth in other statutes "cannot be invoked consistently with national security"—NSA could also proceed under the authority provided by the 1959 NSA Act. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the optional application of § 7532 and vacated the remainder of the District Court's decision, holding that removals for national security reasons must occur under either § 7532 or § 833, and that, because NSA disclaimed reliance on § 833, resort to § 7532 rather than NSA's for cause removal regulations was mandatory.
Held: Neither § 833 nor § 7532 barred NSA from invoking its for-cause removal mechanism adopted by regulation pursuant to the 1959 NSA Act. 99-104.
(a) Although the 1959 NSA Act expressly confers only appointment power upon the Secretary and does not refer to termination, nevertheless, as a matter of statutory construction, the power of removal from office is incident to the power of appointment, absent a specific provision to the contrary. Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 20 S.Ct. 574, 44 L.Ed. 774. There has been no showing that Congress expressly or impliedly indicated a contrary purpose in the 1959 NSA Act or its subsequent amendments. 99.
(b) That §§ 833 and 7532 are not the exclusive means to remove NSA employees for national security reasons, but instead contemplate alternative recourse to NSA's ordinary removal mechanisms pursuant to the 1959 NSA Act, is established by the express language of those sections. Thus, since § 833 provides that the Secretary "may" terminate an employee if other statutory removal procedures cannot be invoked consistently with national security, it follows that recourse may, even must, be had to those other removal procedures where those procedures do not jeopardize national security. Similarly, § 7532 also is not mandatory since, in providing that an agency head "may" suspend or remove an employee "notwithstanding other statutes," that section, in effect, declares that even though other statutes might not permit it, the Secretary may authorize removals pursuant to § 7532 procedures, rather than those governing terminations under other laws. This discretionary aspect of § 7532 is manifest in the section's legislative history. Congress could not have intended that § 7532 would be the exclusive procedure in this and like cases, since no national security termination would then be permissible without an initial suspension and adherence to the standard of Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536, 546, 76 S.Ct. 861, 868, 100 L.Ed. 1396, whereby a showing of "immediate threat of harm to the 'national security' " is required in order for § 7532 to be invoked. Indeed, when Congress later passed the NSA Personnel Security Procedures Act, it must have intended that § 7532 not impose such restrictions on the various affected agencies, since the stringency of the § 7532 standard would conflict with the more lenient provisions of that Act authorizing the revocation of a security clearance and consequent dismissal. The Court of Appeals' view that its construction of § 7532 is necessary to provide employees sought to be removed on national security grounds with procedures equivalent to those provided by that section assumes that NSA's ordinary clearance revocation and for-cause dismissal procedures are less protective than those guaranteed by § 7532, which assumption is not borne out by the record in this case. More significantly, the Court of Appeals' view that Congress enacted § 7532 to extend new protections to such employees runs counter to explicit congressional statements that the legislation was proposed to increase agency heads' authority to suspend and terminate employees on national security grounds. Pp. 99-104.
261 U.S.App.D.C. 96, 820 F.2d 1275 (CADC 1987) reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Michael K. Kellogg, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
John G. Gill, Jr., Rockville, Md., for respondent.
Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the National Security Agency (NSA) invoked the proper statutory authority when it terminated respondent John Doe, an NSA employee. The Court of Appeals held that NSA did not—a decision with which we disagree. We first describe the statutes relevant to this case.
Section 7532 of Title 5 of the United States Code, on which the Court of Appeals relied, was passed in 1950 and reenacted and codified in 1966, as part of Chapter 75 of Title 5, the Chapter that deals with adverse actions against employees of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. 7532. The section provides that the head of an agency "may suspend without pay" an employee when he considers such action "necessary in the interests of national security," see § 7532(a), and "may remove" the suspended employee if such action is "necessary or advisable in the interests of national security." § 7532(b). Subsection (c) of § 7532 specifies the procedural protections to which a suspended employee is entitled prior to removal.1
The National Security Agency Act of 1959 (1959 NSA Act) empowers the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, to establish NSA positions and appoint employees thereto "as may be necessary to carry out the functions of such agency." Note following 50 U.S.C. 402. By virtue of the 1959 NSA Act, NSA employees who are not preferred eligible veterans are in the "excepted" service, hence not covered by the removal provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. 5 U.S.C. 7511-7513. Pursuant to the Defense Department Directive No. 5100.23 (May 17, 1967), as printed in App. in No. 86-5395 (CADC), p. 60, the Secretary delegated his 1959 NSA Act appointment authority to the NSA Director, who promulgated internal personnel regulations. See National Security Agency Central Security Service Personnel Management Manual 30-2 (PMM), Ch. 370 (Aug. 12, 1980), App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a. Chapter 370 of these regulations describes procedures for removing employees, and states generally that removal is permissible for "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service," § 3-4, App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a. Dismissals proposed under Chapter 370 guarantee employees various procedural protections, such as 30-day advance notice, an opportunity to respond and to legal representation, and a written final decision. Although Chapter 370 assigns to some employees the further right to appeal an adverse action to the Merit Systems Protection Board, nonveterans like Doe at NSA do not have this right; nor does Chapter 370 provide for a hearing or review by the Secretary of Defense.
In 1964, Congress amended the Internal Security Act of 1950 by passing an Act relating to "Personnel Security Procedures in the National Security Agency." 78 Stat. 168, 50 U.S.C. 831-833 (NSA Personnel Security Procedures Act). Section 831 requires the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations assuring that no person will be employed or continue to be employed by NSA or have access to classified information unless such employment or access is "clearly consistent with the national security." The Secretary's determination is final. The Secretary's authority under § 831 has been delegated to the NSA Director and implemented through regulations, including a regulation requiring security clearance for employment at NSA. See PMM, Ch. 371, §§ 1-1, 1-3. Section 832(a) proscribes NSA employment to any person not subjected to a full field investigation and "cleared for access to classified information." In addition, Congress directs that boards of appraisal are to assist in appraising the loyalty and suitability of persons for access to classified information in those cases where the NSA Director doubts such suitability. § 832(b). Section 833(a) gives the Secretary authority to terminate the employment of any NSA officer or employee whenever he considers that action "to be in the interest of the United States" and determines that the procedures stated in other provisions of the law "cannot be invoked consistently with national security."
This case began in 1982 when John Doe, a cryptographic material control technician at NSA for 16 years, disclosed to NSA officials that he had engaged in homosexual relationships with foreign nationals. Doe was notified of his proposed removal pursuant to Chapter 370 of the PMM, which governs NSA's procedures for removal for cause. The notification letter of Virginia C. Jenkins, Director of Civilian Personnel, was dated November 23, 1982, and explained that Doe's "indiscriminate personal conduct with unidentified foreign nationals" makes impossible his continued—and essential to NSA employment—access to classified information. See App. in No. 86-5395 (CADC), p. 83. The notice also advised Doe of his adjudicatory rights to contest the decision, which rights he exercised through counsel, including in his answer the results of a psychiatric evaluation as to his security threat. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 832(b), the NSA Director convened a board of appraisal, which ultimately concluded that Doe's access to classified material was "clearly inconsistent with the national security." See App. in No. 5395 (CADC), p. 108. After a hearing before the Director, Doe was notified that his security clearance was being revoked. Because this clearance is a condition of NSA employment, the Director, pursuant to the authority delegated to him under the 1959 NSA Act, removed Doe. Relying on 5 U.S.C. 7532, Doe then requested a hearing before the Secretary of Defense, claiming that the 1959 NSA Act does not authorize removals and that he could only be discharged by the Secretary after a hearing before that official or his designee. Both the Secretary and the Director replied that Doe's removal was "for cause" under Chapter 370 of the PMM and was not pursuant to the Secretary's § 7532 summary authority.
Doe brought suit in the District Court challenging his removal on constitutional and statutory grounds. He charged, inter alia, that the 1959 NSA Act's appointment authority delegated by the Secretary of Defense to the NSA Director does not include the authority to remove employees; hence NSA is required to apply 5 U.S.C. 7532's termination procedures that guarantee NSA employees a preremoval hearing before the Secretary or his designee, the NSA Director. The District Court denied this argument and granted summary judgment for petitioners. Acknowledging that the NSA Director could have elected to proceed under either § 833 or § 7532 summary authority, the court held that the Director could also proceed under the authority provided by the 1959 NSA Act, Doe v. Weinberger, Civ. Action No. 85-1996 (DC, Apr. 25, 1986).
The Court of Appeals reversed as to the optional applicability of § 7532 and vacated the remainder of the District Court's decision. Doe v. Weinberger, 820 F.2d 1275 (1987). The court of Appeals was of the view that the chronology of congressional action indicates that § 7532, which predates the establishment of NSA, must control NSA employee dismissals on national security grounds. The court acknowledged § 833's parallel summary removal scheme, but held that because the NSA Director disclaimed reliance on that section, remand to NSA for compliance with § 7532 was obligatory. We granted the Secretary's and Director's petition for certiorari. 485 U.S. 904, 108 S.Ct. 1073, 99 L.Ed.2d 233 (1988).
The 1959 NSA Act authorizes the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, "to establish such positions, and to appoint thereto, without regard to the civil service laws, such officers and employees, in the National Security Agency, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of such agency." Note following 50 U.S.C. 402. The Secretary, in turn, issued Defense Department Directive No. 5100.23 to delegate this appointment authority to the NSA Director, which authority was implemented by regulations covering both the hiring and removal of NSA employees. Although the 1959 NSA Act does not refer to termination, the Court has held, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that, absent a "specific provision to the contrary, the power of removal from office is incident to the power of appointment." Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 293, 20 S.Ct. 574, 575, 44 L.Ed. 774 (1900); see also Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.S. 99, 108, 10 S.Ct. 431, 434, 33 L.Ed. 825 (1890); Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 896, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1749, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961). Neither the Court of Appeals nor respondent questions this general proposition, nor have they shown that Congress expressly or impliedly indicated a contrary purpose in the 1959 NSA Act or its subsequent amendments.
The Court of Appeals, however, held that removals for national security reasons must occur under either 5 U.S.C. 7532 or 50 U.S.C. § 833 and that because NSA disclaimed reliance on § 833, resort to § 7532 rather than NSA's for-cause removal regulations was mandatory. In our view, however, § 833 and § 7532 are not the exclusive means to remove NSA employees for national security reasons, but instead contemplate alternative recourse to NSA's ordinary removal mechanisms pursuant to the 1959 NSA Act. This discretionary aspect of §§ 833 and 7532 is manifest in both the express statutory language and also the legislative history of these provisions.
Section 833(a) states: "Notwithstanding sections 7512 and 7532 of title 5, or any other provision of law," the Secretary of Defense "may" remove an employee provided that he finds that "the procedures prescribed in other provisions of law that authorize the termination . . . cannot be invoked consistently with the national security." Petitioners correctly argue that where the for-cause procedures for removal under § 7512 or under the regulations adopted under the 1959 NSA Act do not jeopardize national security, recourse may, even must, be had to those other procedures.2
Section 7532 also is not mandatory. It provides that "notwithstanding other statutes," the head of an agency "may" suspend and remove employees "in the interests of national security." This language declares that even though other statutes might not permit it, the Secretary may authorize removals pursuant to § 7532 procedures, rather than those governing terminations under those other laws. The Court of Appeals did not expressly address the permissive character of the section and construed the statute to require the Secretary, in all cases of removal based on national security, to resort to the removal procedures of § 833 or § 7532, notwithstanding other available statutory removal regimes.
The Court of Appeals reached this conclusion by relying on two sentences from the House Report on the bill that ultimately became the predecessor to § 7532. These sentences state that the bill guarantees employees in various agencies, including the Department of Defense, the right to appeal to the head of the department in removal cases covered by § 7532.3 This passage, however, does not indicate that § 7532 procedures are the exclusive means for removals on national security grounds or that § 7532 displaces the otherwise applicable removal provisions of the agencies covered by the section.4 Read as the Court of Appeals understood them, the two sentences confound the permissive language of the statute and are inconsistent with other evidence from the legislative history.5
Congress enacted the § 7532 and § 833 summary removal measures to supplement, not narrow, ordinary agency removal procedures. Section 7532, like § 833, applies to a special class of national security cases, and authorizes summary suspension and unreviewable removal at the Secretary's personal initiative after a hearing of unspecified scope. The removal provisions apply only to an employee who has been suspended. An employee so removed is ineligible for employment elsewhere in the Government without approval by the Office of Personnel Management. See 5 U.S.C. 7312. The Court has held that in light of its summary nature, Congress intended § 7532 to be invoked only where there is "an immediate threat of harm to the 'national security' " in the sense that the delay from invoking "normal dismissal procedures" could "cause serious damage to the national security." Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536, 546, 76 S.Ct. 861, 868, 100 L.Ed. 1396 (1956). Were § 7532 the exclusive procedure in this case and like cases, no national security termination would be permissible without an initial suspension and adherence to the Cole v. Young standard. We are unconvinced that Congress intended any such result when it enacted § 7532.
Indeed, when Congress passed the NSA Personnel Security Procedures Act in 1964, 50 U.S.C. 831-833, Congress must have intended that § 7532 did not impose this restriction on the various affected agencies. The stringency would conflict with the provisions of that Act that require the Secretary to apply general security considerations in selecting NSA employees. Just as the Secretary need only find "inconsistency" with national security to reject an applicant seeking the necessary NSA clearance for classified information, see § 831, so too the boards of appraisal that assist in this determination are authorized to recommend denial or cancellation of such clearance if the NSA Director "doubts" that clearance is consistent with national security. See § 832(b). The Secretary, in turn, must adhere to a board's recommendation unless he makes the affirmative finding that clearance is in the national interest. See ibid. Under the construction adopted by the Court of Appeals, however, the revocation of a security clearance ordered by NSA pursuant to a board's recommendation will not suffice for the dismissal mandated by § 832(a), but rather would require further review by the Secretary under the more stringent standard imposed by § 7532.
The Court of Appeals was of the view that its construction of § 7532 is necessary to provide employees sought to be removed on national security grounds with procedures equivalent to those provided by that section. This approach assumes that NSA's ordinary clearance revocation and for cause dismissal procedures are less protective than those guaranteed by § 7532. This is a doubtful proposition, to say the least. The section, as we have said, provides for summary suspension without pay, affords a hearing of undefined scope before the agency head, and attaches to a removal order the sanction that the employee is ineligible for other governmental employment. NSA's for-cause removals neither are preceded by suspension nor entail a collateral bar from federal employment. In this case, Doe was on the payroll until removed, and the record does not indicate that the hearing Doe received, or the other procedural protections accorded to him, were inferior to those that would have been available under § 7532. Indeed, in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 533, 108 S.Ct. 818, 827, 98 L.Ed.2d 918 (1988), we rejected the argument that § 7532 would have provided more protections than the Navy's ordinary for-cause removal procedures. More significantly, the Court of Appeals' view that Congress enacted § 7532 to extend new protections to all employees sought to be dismissed on national security grounds runs counter to explicit congressional statements that the legislation was proposed "to increase the authority of the heads of Government departments engaged in sensitive activities to summarily suspend employees considered to be bad security risks, and to terminate their services if subsequent investigation develops facts which support such action." S.Rep. No. 2158, at 2; see also H.R.Rep. No. 2330, at 2.
We thus agree with the conclusion of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a similar case that "section 7532 is not the exclusive basis for removals based upon security clearance revocations," Egan v. Department of the Navy, 28 M.S.P.R. 509, 521 (1985), and with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "there is nothing in the text of section 7532 or in its legislative history to suggest that its procedures were intended to preempt section 7513 procedures whenever the removal could be taken under section 7532. The language of section 7532 is permissive." Egan v. Department of the Navy, 802 F.2d 1563, 1568 (1986).
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.6
So ordered.
Title 5 U.S.C. 7532(c) accords the suspended employee the following procedural rights before removal: "(A) a written statement of the charges against him within 30 days after suspension, which may be amended within 30 days thereafter and which shall be stated as specifically as security considerations permit; (B) an opportunity within 30 days thereafter, plus an additional 30 days if the charges are amended, to answer the charges and submit affidavits; (C) a hearing, at the request of the employee, by an agency authority duly constituted for this purpose; (D) a review of his case by the head of the agency or his designee, before a decision adverse to the employee is made final; and (E) a written statement of the decision of the head of the agency."
See Defense Department Directive No. 5210.45, p. 3 (May 9, 1964), as printed in App. in No. 86-5395 (CADC), p. 75 (emphasis added), which reads: "When the two conditions [in § 833—i.e., (1) other statutory removal provisions, which (2) will safeguard the national security—] do not exist, the Director, NSA shall, when appropriate, take action pursuant to other provisions of law, as applicable, to terminate the employment of a civilian officer or employee. The Director shall recommend to the Secretary of Defense the exercise of the authority of [§ 833] only when the termination of the employment of a civilian officer or employee cannot, because of paramount national security interests, be carried out under any other provision of law."
The relevant sentences in the House Report state: "Under the present law, with respect to [the Departments of State and Defense,] the officer or employee who is suspended or terminated as a security risk is not entitled as a matter of right to an appeal to the head of the agency concerned. This legislation extends this appeal right to employees [of these agencies]." H.R.Rep. No. 2330, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1950).
The Court of Appeals also noted that 5 U.S.C. 7533 provides that § 7532 does not "impair the powers vested in the Atomic Energy Commission [AEC]—or the requirement—that adequate provision be made for administrative review" of a termination by that Agency, yet does omit any similar exception for the pre-existing powers of any other agency. The Court of Appeals extrapolated that except in the case of the AEC, § 7532 supplants the removal authority of all agencies covered by the section in all cases involving national security. This conjecture extracts far more meaning than is warranted from the special mention by Congress that it intended to preserve the unique, expansive removal powers of the AEC, particularly in light of § 7532's language indicating that its applicability is permissive.
Numerous congressional reports and statements indicate that § 7532 and its legislative antecedents were proposed as extraordinary, supplementary measures to enable the Secretary of Defense, and other agency heads responsible for United States security, to respond to rare, urgent threats to national security. See, e.g., S.Rep. No. 2158, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 2, 6 (1950); H.R.Rep. No. 2330, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 2, 6 (1950); S.Rep. No. 1155, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1948); Hearing on S. 1561 and S. 1570 before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3, 4 (1948).
Respondent defends the result reached by the Court of Appeals on the alternative ground that NSA violated its own regulations in removing him. That claim, as well as others argued to the Court of Appeals, was not passed on by that court, and we prefer to leave the matter to the Court of Appeals in the first instance.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners v. CITIZENS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE, INC., et al.


Visiting Japan & My Upcoming Trip - Super Cute Kawaii!!
Some of you have been asking for more posts about visiting Japan and guides for how to organise a trip and what to do there. The reason we haven't shared much of this on SCK is because I have a whole other blog about just that.
I've been blogging about my Japan trips and sharing guides and advice since 2008 so there's tons of information available. Here's a few links to start you off.
Tokyo Shopping Guide – posts on all my favourite shops for kawaii, stationery, crafts and more.
Tokyo Area Guides – the areas you should visit for the best shopping, eating and sightseeing.
Plan Your Japan Trip – a series of posts to help you with everything from flights and hotels to travelling solo.
If you prefer videos, there are some great YouTube channels. Cakes With Faces has loads of videos, both from her trips to Japan and advice and tips for 'Japlanning'.
Or watch Princess Peachie's super-kawaii new series from her summer trip. I haven't had much time for watching videos lately but there's plenty more channels too – let us know if you have any favourites.
I'm off to Japan again next weekend with my sister and SCK events writer Nicolette. Some of our plans include Universal Studios on Halloween, eating all the kawaii food I've drawn above, Sanrio Puroland and lots and lots of kawaii shopping. Let us know if there's anything you'd like us to share photos of.
I hope I will, it's such a fascinating country.


You will receive an email when your order is shipped.
If not received, check your email spam box.
All prices are without taxes. Customers with Taiwan shipping addresses will have VAT (5% Tax) automatically added to the prices when they complete their orders or when logging in.
VAT (value added tax) will be added when order shipping country address is Taiwan.
There are no discounts for Rosita Real Foods™ Artisan Extra-Virgin Cod liver Oil. For Company Customers (Wholesale) and practitioners we may consider special discounts after registration. Please email us for further assistance and approval.
For Company Customers (Wholesale), practitioners and other customers with special needs (Special Customers) we may consider special discounts after registration. Please email us for further assistance and approval.
Packages with total price less than (495.00) $USD are shipped according to the methods selected during "Check out".
Orders will be shipped out from us here in New Taipei City, Taiwan within (4- days) of receiving the completed order, and an email confirming that the product has been "Shipped" will also be sent to you.
* Be aware of delays due to your national customs services. Some countries have customs services that may use longer time to process their services to you the customer. (Please check this out with your local customs authorities before ordering).
Due to import prohibitions, we may not be able to ship to your specific country. Some countries may require various types of import licenses. We will not knowingly ship any product to any country that may require any type of license. Please check with the destination's local authorities to determine if an import license is needed before ordering from us.
Our Net-Shop uses Bank Transfer and PayPal as payment methods. You may use credit cards through PayPal even if you do not have a PayPal account.
To verify your order status, please login and check your order in "My Account". In your "My Account" you may also print out completed or shipped orders.


text:
From DaynalWiki
German Narzissismus, from Narziss Narcissus, from Latin Narcissus
Narcissus or Narkissos (Greek: Νάρκισσος), possibly derived from ναρκη (narke) meaning "sleep, numbness," in Greek mythology was a hunter from the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty. He was exceptionally proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis saw this and attracted Narcissus to a pool where he saw his own reflection in the waters and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus died.
Several versions of this myth have survived from ancient sources. The classic version is by Ovid, found in book 3 of his Metamorphoses (completed 8 AD). This the story of Narcissus and Echo. An earlier version ascribed to the poet Parthenius of Nicaea, composed around 50 BC, was recently rediscovered among the Oxyrhynchus papyri at Oxford.[2] Unlike Ovid's version, this one ends with Narcissus committing suicide. A version by Conon, a contemporary of Ovid, also ends in suicide (Narrations, 24). A century later the travel writer Pausanias recorded a novel variant of the story, in which Narcissus falls in love with his twin sister rather than himself (Guide to Greece, 9.31.7)
For lessons on the topic of Narcissism, follow this link.
1: egoism, egocentrism
2: love of or sexual desire for one's own body
Narcissism is a term with a wide range of meanings, depending on whether it is used to describe a central concept of psychoanalytic theory, a mental illness, a social or cultural problem, or simply a personality trait. Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, "narcissism" usually is used to describe some kind of problem in a person or group's relationships with self and others. In everyday speech, "narcissism" often means inflated self-importance, egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others. In psychology, the term is used to describe both normal self-love and unhealthy self-absorption due to a disturbance in the sense of self.
The term "narcissism" was introduced in 1887 by Alfred Binet but its usage today stems from Freud's 1914 essay, On Narcissism. In Greek myth, Narcissus was a beautiful young man who rejected all potential lovers, but then tragically fell in love with his own reflection in a pool. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havelock_Ellis Havelock Ellis wrote in 1898 of "Narcissus-like" self-absorption, and in 1899 Paul Näcke used "narcissism" to describe men who were sexually excited by their own bodies rather than someone else's. In "On Narcissism," Freud expanded the term "narcissism" to explain the difference between being pathologically self-absorbed and having an ordinary interest in oneself.
In On Narcissism, Freud argued that primary narcissism is a natural and necessary investment of one's sexual energy in oneself, a sexual version of ordinary self-interest, whereas secondary narcissism is a defensive reaction of withdrawing one's sexual interest from other people and focusing it exclusively on oneself. To illustrate the difference, Freud compared secondary narcissism to the self-absorption of a person in pain:
"It is universally known, and we take it as a matter of course, that a person who is tormented by organic pain and discomfort gives up his interest in the things of the external world, in so far as they do not concern his suffering. Closer observation teaches us that he also withdraws libidinal interest from his love-objects: so long as he suffers, he ceases to love."
Today, in psychology, narcissistic personality disorder is a mental illness characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others, and an inflated sense of self-importance. In popular discourse, "narcissism" is a widely-used term for a range of selfish behaviors. Cultural critics including Christopher Lasch have applied the term "narcissism" more generally to contemporary American culture. Some experts believe a disproportionate number of pathological narcissists are at work in the most influential reaches of society, such as medicine, finance, and politics.[1]
Retrieved from "http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Narcissism&oldid=117907"
About DaynalWiki


A man went calmly about his work while his wife lay dead in the house. After he is arrested and accused of the murder, doubt is cast regarding his guilt. Richardson is assigned the case.
Richardson delves into the murdered woman's strange background, and becomes convinced that the law is holding an innocent man. With dogged persistence and courage he pursues the sinister figure who dominated the terrible business. Will he, in the end, with the aid of an initialled handbag and an initialled hammer, bring the case to a successful end and finds the guilty person?
Who Killed Stella Pomeroy? was originally published in 1936. This new edition, the first in many decades, features an introduction by crime novelist Martin Edwards, author of acclaimed genre history The Golden Age of Murder.


residential, commercial and industrial needs as well.
Whether you have a clogged drain or your sewer line needs to be cleaned, you'll be taken care of by our experienced technicians. All work is GUARANTEED.
For your peace of mind, references are available upon request.
Handle your sewer and plumbing problems today.


Camps for kids behind in reading!
Reading Camp provides FREE week-long camps for kids going into third, fourth or fifth grade who could use extra help with reading. Reading Camp builds both reading skills and self-confidence!