The Data/Trade Service Settings window is for viewing and specifying settings for Sierra Chart to work with Data and Trading services.
The Data/Trade Service Settings window also contains various settings related to connectivity and the processing of market data.
To display the Data/Trade Service Settings window, select Global Settings >> Data/Trade Service Settings on the menu.
Press OK to save the settings or Cancel to not save them.
The image below shows the Data or Trading Service specific settings on the Data/Trade Service Settings window.
The Service specific settings change depending upon what Service is selected on this window.
For descriptions of the Service specific settings, refer to the Data and Trading Services page for links to pages for the service you are using.
Each page for a specific Data or Trading Service contains the instructions for setting the Service specific controls.
The Service specific settings controls are not documented on this page.
You will need to consult the corresponding Data or Trading service page for the service, for the specific set up instructions for that service.
This control displays and sets the Data or Trading service you want to use.
If the selected service supports market data only and not live trading it will have a [data] suffix.
If the selected service supports market data and live trading functionality it will have a [trading] suffix.
If this option is checked, Sierra Chart will connect to the Data and Trade servers when you start Sierra Chart.
When this option is enabled, then Sierra Chart will reconnect to the Data and Trade servers when the connection is detected to be lost or it will retry to connect to the servers if it could not connect initially.
It is recommended to keep this option enabled in most cases.
Also, when this option is enabled, when using the Sierra_hart Exchange Data Feed with a supported Trading service, when the connection to the Trading server is lost, the data feed will continue to be received from the Sierra Chart Exchange Data Feed which comes from a different server.
Refer to the Time Zone Settings page for complete details about this setting.
This sets the time period for each record of data in an Intraday chart data file which is used to build the chart bars in Intraday charts. These files have a .scid file extension.
Setting this to 1 Tick means there will be one data record for each tick/trade. It is necessary to use 1 Tick in the case when you are using a Bar Period Type in an Intraday chart based upon a Number of Trades, Volume, Range, Reversal, Renko, Delta Volume, or Price Changes amount, for 100% accuracy.
Although even with these Intraday chart Bar Period Types, you may want to use 1 Second as an alternative since it is more CPU efficient. This is less accurate but still may work sufficiently for you. 1 Tick will provide you 100% accuracy for these Bar Period Types. However, it will use more disk space, cause slower Chartbook loading, and slower historical data downloading.
If you are only using chart bars that are based upon a fixed amount of time, like based upon a specific amount of minutes, then you can use an Intraday Storage Time Unit setting that divides evenly with no remainder into the shortest bar time frames you will be working with. For example, 30 seconds divides evenly into 1 minute with no remainder.
Intraday data files do use compression. However, there will be an increase in disk space usage with smaller Intraday Data Storage Time Units. Using 1 Minute will save disk space and provide maximum performance.
If you do not use chart bar periods less than 1 minute, then use a setting of 10 Seconds or higher.
The Intraday Data Storage Time Unit setting affects data collected in real-time and the historical Intraday data downloaded unless the Data/Trading service you are using only provides historical data in 1 Minute units.
All Ticks/Trades received from the data feed are stored, independent of whatever this setting is. No data is missed by using a setting of 1 Minute. Your charts will still update at the same speed. This setting is also independent of the Chart Update Interval in General Settings.
When using a setting of 1 Tick, any Intraday Bar Period Type and bar duration can be used and will be accurate, including bar periods of Days. The same is true with higher settings, but the accuracy becomes less with the following Bar Period Types: Number of Trades, Volume, Range, Reversal, Renko, Delta Volume, or Price Changes . Also, when using for example a setting of 10 Seconds, then it is not possible to create 1 second chart bars.
The Intraday Data Storage Time Unit setting has no effect on Market Depth data or Time and Sales data.
Anytime this setting has been changed, in order to apply it to existing historical data in the charts, go to an Intraday chart for each symbol and select Edit >> Delete All Data and Download. This only needs to be done once for each symbol. Refer to the Deleting and Downloading Intraday Data for All Charts documentation for instructions to re-download data for multiple symbols at once.
This setting controls how many Time and Sales records Sierra Chart will maintain in memory during a Sierra Chart session. Each Time and Sales record is equivalent to one trade or one Bid/Ask quote update. The Number of Stored Records applies for each symbol being tracked.
Using a high Records setting could potentially take a considerable amount of memory. It is recommended to maintain about 5000 Records. If you use 100000, that is going to consume a lot of memory!
The Number of Stored Time and Sales Records is completely separate from charting. It is only used for the Time and Sales window, for the Bid & Ask Depth Bars study, the Time and Sales studies, and for other specialized purposes which rely on Time and Sales data. Studies like the Volume by Price study do not rely on this data.
Changes to this setting do not go into effect until the next reconnection to the data feed. To do this, refer to Reconnecting to Data Feed.
To access these settings, select Global Settings >> Data/Trade Service Settings.
The Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download setting controls the maximum number of days of historical Intraday data that will be downloaded from the remote historical data server when historical Intraday data is downloaded for a symbol.
There are separate settings for Non-Tick Data and 1-Tick Data. Non-Tick data is Intraday data downloaded from the data server which has a timeframe greater than 1 tick/trade. 1-Tick Data is Intraday data downloaded from the data server which is tick by tick. Each tick is 1 trade in this case.
The Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download >> 1 Tick Data setting applies when the Intraday Data Storage Time Unit is set to 1 Tick. The Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download >> Non-Tick Data setting applies when the Intraday Data Storage Time Unit is set to a setting greater than 1 Tick.
However, in the case of when the Data/Trading service supports both historical Minute data and Tick data, there are two separate downloads performed. One for Minute data which uses the Non-Tick Data setting, and one for 1 Tick data which uses the 1-Tick Data setting. This is only true in the case of IQ Feed.
If this value is higher than the number of days available on the server, then only the number of days of Intraday data on the server will be downloaded.
The amount of Historical Intraday data that will actually be downloaded for a symbol depends upon the last Date-Time in the Intraday data file. If the file is empty and it is therefore a new Intraday data file, then this Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download setting will exactly control the number of days downloaded, assuming the server has the same amount of data available. If this setting is set to 90, but the file was only missing 1 day of data from the last Date-Time in the file to the present time, then only 1 day of data will be downloaded.
When you increase this setting, then this will not automatically cause more data to be inserted into existing Intraday data files. You will need to go to an Intraday chart for the symbol you want to get more data for and then select Edit >> Delete All Data and Download on the menu. You only need to do this once per symbol.
Likewise, when Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download is reduced, to actually reduce the data in an Intraday chart data file you also need to go to the Intraday chart for the symbol and re-download the data with Edit >> Delete All Data and Download.
The settings of an individual chart do not have any effect upon the historical Intraday data which is downloaded. Although the only exception to this, is when using the Continuous Contract option in a chart. In this case the number of days of historical data downloaded for historical futures contract symbols is not going to follow the Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download and instead the required data is downloaded. However, this only is true in the case of where the data has to be downloaded for the symbol and has not already been.
When using some Data and Trading services (like IQ Feed), it can be slow to download 1 Tick data due to how those services work. Follow the instructions below to reduce the Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download >> 1-Tick Data setting in order to increase the speed of historical Intraday data downloading.
Set the Maximum Historical Intraday Days to Download >> 1-Tick Data to 31 or lower.
If Sierra Chart is currently connected to the data feed, and you want to cancel the existing historical Intraday data downloads and use this new lower setting, then select File >> Disconnect. After this, select File >> Connect to Data Feed.
The Maximum Time and Sales Depth Levels setting controls how many market depth levels are included when the total Bid depth quantities and the total Ask depth quantities are calculated and included with the Time and Sales data.
With Time and Sales Bid and Ask records, the total of the Bid quantities and the total of the Ask quantities in the market depth data are added together and included in the Total Bid Sizes and Total Ask Sizes fields.
If this is set to 0 all of the market depth levels are added together to calculate the total. Otherwise, the specified number of levels are only added.
Sierra Chart uses FIX connections to various supported Trading services.
When this option is enabled, a log file is maintained for the FIX connection which contains the sent and received messages. Heartbeat messages and market data full refresh and incremental refresh messages are not saved because those use too much space.
The advantage of logging messages is that if there is ever a problem with trading, this log file provides additional data about the messages exchanged.
The log files are saved in the Logs subfolder in the folder Sierra Chart is installed to.
This option does not apply to Trading services that do not use the FIX protocol. It does not apply to DTC Protocol connections.
If you need to provide a FIX log to Sierra Chart support, then refer to Providing FIX Log to Support.
The Allow Support for Sierra Chart Data Feeds option only applies if you have activated the Sierra Chart Real-Time and Historical Exchange Data Feed on your Sierra Chart account.
To use this data feed in a copy of Sierra Chart you have installed, this option must be enabled. To not use the Sierra Chart Real-Time and Historical Exchange Data Feed and instead use your Trading service provided data feed, then this option must be disabled.
This option is assumed to be enabled, regardless of the actual setting, when the Service setting on the Data/Trade Service Settings window is set to SC Exchange Data.
After enabling or disabling this option, it is necessary to reconnect to the data feed with File >> Disconnect and File >> Connect to Data Feed.
Using Interactive Brokers: When this option is enabled, any IB -CASH- symbol for the major Forex crosses, will download historical Intraday data from the Sierra Chart historical data server. This provides more history and better downloading performance.
When this option is enabled, then the Historical Daily stock data downloaded will be adjusted for stock dividends. Otherwise, if it is unchecked the data will not be adjusted. This only applies to the Sierra Chart Historical Data service.
After changing this setting, it is necessary to re-download the data in the Historical Daily charts by selecting Edit >> Delete All Data and Download for the data in the chart to be updated. This only needs to be done once per symbol and not per chart if the symbol is the same on the charts.
Normally this option should be disabled. Only enable this option when the standard port for downloading historical data from the Sierra Chart historical data server, which is 10149, is blocked or throttled on your network. When this option is enabled, port 80 will be used instead.
Enable this option to always use port 443 for real-time market data for Sierra Chart provided data services.
For complete documentation for the DTC Protocol server, refer to DTC Protocol Server.
When this option is enabled, Sierra Chart will reconnect to the data and trade servers at the specified time in the time zone specified. The specified time needs to be in the time zone set to the right of the time control. The time is of the format of HH:MM:SS.
This option is only valid when Reconnect Daily At is enabled. When Reconnect Only On Sunday is enabled, then the reconnection at the set time only occurs on a Sunday.
This setting is only valid when Reconnect Daily At is enabled. When Reconnect Delay in Milliseconds is set to a nonzero number, this specifies the number of milliseconds after the specified time to reconnect that the reconnection will take place.
The purpose of this is to allow a delay for any new Symbol Settings to be retrieved. A recommended value is 10000 milliseconds. Otherwise, the standard delay is used if it is set to 0.
This setting specifies the time interval where data which has been recorded to Intraday data files will be flushed to the actual operating system file. This is specified in milliseconds.
In almost all cases this needs to be set at 0. In this case the flush time will be 10000 milliseconds. This should never be changed unless you know what you are doing and it is detrimental performance wise to be setting this lower than 500 ms.
Sierra Chart supports connecting through proxy servers. Both HTTP and SOCKS 5 proxies are supported. The HTTP proxy will only be used for HTTP related communication. When using the SOCKS 5 proxy settings, all network communication is routed through the specified SOCKS 5 proxy.
Set the proxy type through the Proxy Type setting and then set the appropriate proxy settings.
The following two options in Global Settings >> Data/Trade Service Settings need to be enabled for Sierra Chart to automatically connect to the data and/or trade servers upon start up and to automatically reconnect when the connection is lost.
To open the Intraday Data File Management window, select Global Settings >> Data/Trade Service Settings and press the Data File Management button.
This window is for compressing the older data in Intraday data files to a higher timeframe per record in order to reduce the file size and increase the speed at which data is loaded into an Intraday chart from the chart data file.
This feature does not run automatically. It can only be manually started through the Intraday Data File Management window.
This functionality has been redeveloped in version 1619 and higher. During the compression, a temporary file with file extension tempcompressed is now used for performance and safety. This file is copied back to the original Intraday data file and the temporary file is deleted.
The Compress Records Older Than setting specifies the number of days from the last date in the chart data file that the records which are older than this number of days will be compressed to the Intraday Data Storage Time Unit specified by Compress to Data Unit Size.
When data records are compressed together, Compress to Data Unit Size specifies the timeframe of the final output record.
This is the same as the Intraday Data Storage Time Unit.
When this is set to a setting higher than 1 Tick which would be expected otherwise there would be no point in using this feature, then any Chart Studies which have a dependency on 1 Tick data for accuracy will have less accuracy when built from the data being compressed.
Press the Manual Start button to begin the process of compressing data of all of the Intraday data files in the Data Files Folder. The Compress Records Older Than and Compress to Data Unit Size settings apply.
When an Intraday data file is being compressed, the progress and any error messages related to the compression will be displayed in the Window >> Message Log window.
If the compression operation completes and in the Sierra Chart Data Files Folder (C:\SierraChart\Data by default), you see temporary files with names like [symbol].scid.tempcompressed, then check the Message Log for any errors encountered.
If you interrupt the compression process before it completes, there will also be at least one [symbol].scid.tempcompressed file which remains.
Try running the compression again and enable the Delete Any Previous Temporary Files Before Starting Compression option on the Intraday Data File Management window before pressing the Manual Start button.
If you need help with understanding any error messages in the Message Log, then contact Sierra Chart Support. Provide a copy of the relevant Message Log lines.
The Data and Trading Service Specific Settings on the Data/Trade Service Settings window, can be saved and restored at a later time. These are the service settings in the list box with the Service Setting and Value fields.
Only the Service specific settings can be saved and loaded. Not the common settings.
This is useful if you have different sets of settings for the same Data or Trading service and you need to switch between them.
The settings for different Data and Trading services are already stored separately by Sierra Chart.
Below are the descriptions of the available commands for this feature and explanations of how to use them.
Saved DTS Configuration >> Load: This button is used to load a saved set of settings into the service specific settings controls. It is first necessary to select an existing configuration from the DTS Config list box before pressing this button. Refer to the image below. When loading existing settings, the Service setting will be changed to the service that the settings are for.
After you Load the new settings for the same Service that Sierra Chart is already connected to and press OK, it is the necessary to reconnect to the data feed to connect using those new settings.
Saved DTS Configuration >> Save: This button is used to save the service specific settings. It is first necessary to type in a name in the DTS Config box or select the name from the list that you want to save the settings as.
Saved DTS Configuration >> Delete: This button is used to delete previously saved settings. It is first necessary to select the name of the previously saved settings in the DTS Config list box.
Occasionally we are asked about the bandwidth usage of Sierra Chart. This would be the number of bits per second on average Sierra Chart would use for received data.
We do not know the bandwidth usage of the particular Data or Trading service you are using and the bandwidth usage of those services.
We do not know how many symbols you are tracking.
We do not know the market activity of those symbols.
The amount of bandwidth usage is also affected by the amount of historical data being downloaded. Although historical data downloading is relatively infrequent.
You are able to monitor the bandwidth usage of an insectionidual process running within Windows. From within Windows you can access this through Windows Task Manager >> Performance >> Resource Monitor. For further information, consult with the documentation for the Resource Monitor.
*Last modified Tuesday, 16th October, 2018.


ECDPMEventsAgricultural food trade and policy in Africa: Why is Africa not feeding Africa?
Agricultural food trade and policy in Africa: Why is Africa not feeding Africa?
Pre-conference workshop at the Annual German Agricultural Economics Conference (GEWISOLA) 2016.
The food trade balance has worsened in most African countries over the last decades (FAO 2012) and in particular basic food commodities such as cereals, dairy products, edible oils and fats as well as meat products are increasingly imported. With the African Union Malabo Declaration from June 2014, African countries committed to triple intra-African trade by the year 2025. If achieved, this may help to improve the food trade balance and thereby improve food security and contribute to the achievement of SDG 2 in Africa.
However, in most Sub-Saharan countries, local excess supply areas are not well connected with the mostly urban demand regions due to insufficient infrastructure, road harassment, and often excessive and cumbersome controls at border posts. It is often faster and cheaper to import from the global market than to import from the remote hinterland or a neighboring country. This highlights one of the main development problems with regard to agricultural food trade in Africa: the lack of competitiveness of African on-farm production and food value chains. A recent World Bank report from 2012 ("Africa can help feed Africa") concluded that removing trade barriers to better link farmers to consumers and inputs can be a key element in improving the food balances.
Moreover, the food trade balance is not just a question of agricultural trade, but also a question of supportive national agricultural policies. A development-oriented agricultural policy agenda supports the ongoing transformation of rural areas, so that these areas can become a driving force for economic and social development in African countries (see e.g. GIZ/ODI "Agricultural Development Policy: A Contemporary Agenda). Modern instruments of agricultural food and trade policy give answers to the burning questions that arise in view of rural transformation: providing a conducive policy environment to rural areas with public goods that are known to reduce rural poverty and hunger, plus a conducive business environment that stimulates the competitiveness of agri-food value chains.
To support Africa to better feed Africa, a stronger consensus on agricultural food and trade policy for African countries is needed. It seems that regional integration processes can be the key to this development. But up to this point, there is no unanimous answer regarding sequence of actions, adverse effects, the role industrialized countries (e.g. Europe) may play, and how the accompanying political processes should be designed.
For GIZ, this question are of high relevance, as GIZ implements agricultural development and value chain projects across the African continent and advises agricultural policy makers at different levels and in more than 20 African countries. With this pre-conference workshop, we would like to stimulate the debate and engage with German academia on these questions.
ECDPM's Francesco Rampa will speak about 'The political economy around regional food market integration and policies in Africa'.


We are a manufacturer & exporter of 27simn steel for Geoje for more than 13 years with reliable quality, competitive price and fast delivery. Our good quality is built on superior mechanical equipment, imported from Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.
35Mn2 quenching and tempering Steel exporter also can be called as alloy structural steel. Alloy steel means this kind of grade contains some special alloy composition. Alloy steel plate application is very wide, as : Machine, pressure vessel, construction and so on .


text:
RustyCon 2012: After Action Report
This weekend represented the first convention I attended in which I got to appear as a panelist. RustyCon is one of the smaller conventions in the Seattle area that caters to the general fan community. The impression I got is that they consider themselves a bit more of a family friendly convention compared to Norwescon. According to their site they have membership of about 500-600. It didn't seem that crowded to me, but then there were parts of the convention we just never went to.
I sat as a panelist in four of the panels over the weekend. They varied pretty widely in quality. I think there were a few things I struggled with the most as a new panelist. The first was that I am not used to giving a bio for myself in front of people, so I fumbled it every time. I was also not as assertive as I needed to be, so stronger personalities dominating things more. And I found that I'm not used to having those sorts of dialogues, so I wouldn't think of the best responses right away and I didn't try to steer conversations where I wanted them to be. For the most part I tried to request panels where I figured I had some sort of input on the topic, but I found that my input was not always relevant to the discussion on hand as I'll illustrate below.
The panels were often very small. Most of the panels I attended as a listener often turned into round-table discussions just because there were so few people that came to the panel. For the most part that seemed to work out, but the facilities were often much bigger than they needed to be for the crowd that showed up in the events.
Crossing Genre: My first panel I shared the table up front with Shoshana Glick. We had a third panelist, but they didn't show up. Shoshana had been involved in the Genre Evolution Project at the University of Michigan. She had a lot of knowledge of theory involving what genre means, the tropes that are involved, and how many things that get filed as one genre often don't fit the classic structure of the genre. Me? I tend to cross genres when I write, partly influenced by having published most of my early stuff through Crossed Genres magazine. I felt very out of my league as Shoshana blazed a trail of commentary on genre right off the bat. So, my debut as a panelist was pretty heavily fumbled by me. But I think Shoshana really injected a lot of insight into the topic.
How to Make the Most Out of Gaming: I shared the table with Dustin Gross of Dragondyne Publishing, which publishes a d20-based "omni-genre" roleplaying game. I figured this would make a good fit for me since I wrote for some roleplaying games, blogged about roleplaying game ideas and have experimented with a lot of things over the years (with many failures on my part). I came to this thinking about GM/player communication, player contributions, making a wiki, etc.
Not counting my wife, we had one person in the audience for most of it who was very vocal, mostly played D&D and hadn't been happy with a game since Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. His biggest concerns were game balance and how D&D always gets broken. I had really very little to contribute to this conversation. This was really a place for Dustin to shine, so I tried to seed in some questions to establish some ideas about what makes a game fun. I also tried to interject indie game design ideas into this, since one thing that came up was how everyone has a different idea of what makes a good game. But that one got lost in the initial response pretty fast and I'm not entirely certain that they understood what I meant.
The Rise of Indie Publishing: This was my favorite panel of the weekend. There had been some trouble in keeping a writing track clear in the programming. So earlier in the day there had been a two hour panel about Workshops and Writing Groups that ran against Writing Battle Scenes in the first half and Agents: Are They More Necessary Than Ever in the second half. Similarly, the panel on indie publishing ran opposite a panel on Self-Publishing. K.C. Ball was with me on the Indie Publishing panel. Tod McCoy, who recently published K.C.'s short story collection Snapshots from a Black Hole & Other Oddities through Hydra House, was on the self-publishing panel with Jax Hix of Literary Underground.
Since it seemed weird to have those two panels at the same time, K.C. and Tod coordinated to combine the two panels. This turned out to be the best attended panel of the ones I was on. The downside was that there was a lot more emphasis on self-publishing than indie publishers so I had less to say on the topic. But some great discussions were had and I learned a lot.
The Return of the Radio Shows: I requested to be on this believing that I'd be closer to writing for Cobalt City Adventures Unlimited, but work on Kensei overshadowed that. So I felt like I was going to be completely at a loss for this. But the other panelist was the same panelist missing from the Crossing Genre panel. This could have been very awkward for me, but no one else showed up for the panel either. A big empty room with just my wife. After fifteen minutes we gave up. I could have been extra responsible and went to one of the volunteers and seen what we could have done. But I'd heard from others that there had been other panels that day with no one attending. Since this was the last thing we planned on doing, we just bailed. If there'd been some sort of last minute room change, I didn't hear about it. If I'm actually the person who was absent from where I needed to be: Sorry?
Beyond these panels and the excellent people that showed up, I had some really excellent experiences with other attendees at the convention. I ran into the lovely and talented Danika Dinsmore a couple times and may get to review an advance copy of The Ruins of Noe (FAIRIES!!!).
Also, one panel led by Ted Butler turned into a cozy roundtable discussion with me, my wife, Melina Gunnett, and Anna Sheehan. All of us were authors in varying stages of writing YA books. The panel started out as "Morality in Youth-Based Fantasy," but turned into a general discussion of what is appropriate to include in YA fantasy in terms of moral lessons, violence, language, etc. And then we got into general talks of the writing industry, agents, publishers and other career oriented talk. It was really wonderful and I'm happy to have met them.
Overall it was a good time, even if the small size of the con sometimes defeated the intentions of the panels. But I look forward to attending this convention again next year!
This entry was posted in Gaming, Writing and tagged conventions, craft, game design, indie rpgs, kensei, RustyCon 2012, the biz on January 22, 2012 by Jeremy Zimmerman.
← NaNoWriMo 2011 Aftermath (with special guest star Mark Teppo) Life in Fast Forward →
6 − one =

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Once upon a time, there was a girl from Kansas named Dorothy.
You might know her as the Girl Who Rode the Cyclone. She ended up in Oz, where she became friends with the Tin Woodman, the Scarecrow, and the Cowardly Lion. But the temptation of magic was too much for her. She let it change her. Her friends became twisted versions of their former selves.
The magical land of Oz is now a dark and menacing place.
The only way to stop Dorothy from destroying Oz—and Kansas—is to kill her. And I'm the only one who can do it.
But I failed. Others died for my mistakes. Because of me, the portal between the worlds has been opened and Kansas and Oz are both in danger. And if I don't find a way to close it?
Amy Gumm had one mission after she got whisked from her trailer-park home in Kansas to Oz. To kill Dorothy Gale, who has stolen Oz's magic and is turning the place dead and dark.
And now she and the four Witches of Oz are stuck. In Kansas.
You see, things are brewing – bad bad things. Oz and Kansas are linked together with magic – and Dorothy wants to blow both of them off the map.
Can Amy help the Wicked Witches (including the boy she loves, Nox, who has lied to her and can never be hers) to stop Dorothy from destroying both places? Preferably without letting Oz's magic turn her as twisted as Dorothy – without letting herself become the monster she's so afraid to be…?
And then there are our Big Bads. Dorothy is just the most fascinating character and I loved that we go to understand her more in this book. Every scene she's in is brilliant – she's such a perfect villain; sickly sweet on the surface and rotten to the core, but with the kind of background that makes you almost empathise with her.
If you haven't read this series, I just can't recommend it enough. It is the ultimate escape with the most fantastic world building and one of the coolest classical twists ever written. Which, for a fairy-tale-twist lover like myself, is sayin' something. Yellow Brick War kept me hooked from the word go and has left me absolutely desperate for more.
Can't wait for Book Four !


Neonatal Apnea is a topic covered in the 5-Minute Pediatric Consult.
The cessation of breathing for >20 seconds or if <20 seconds is accompanied by oxygen desaturation or bradycardia in infants born <37 weeks GA.
AOP is inversely correlated to GA. It occurs in <10% of neonates 34 to 35 weeks GA and in almost all neonates <28 weeks GA at birth.
Activation of laryngeal chemoreceptors (via superior laryngeal nerve afferents) as seen in GERD can result in apnea, bradycardia, and hypotension.
Neonates spend majority of their time in active sleep. Apneas are more common during active sleep when breathing is irregular and chest wall and upper airway muscles are inactivated.
Cabana, Michael D., editor. "Neonatal Apnea." 5-Minute Pediatric Consult, 8th ed., Wolters Kluwer, 2019. Pediatrics Central, peds.unboundmedicine.com/pedscentral/view/5-Minute-Pediatric-Consult/617710/all/Neonatal_Apnea.
Neonatal Apnea. In: Cabana MD, ed. 5-Minute Pediatric Consult. 8th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2019. https://peds.unboundmedicine.com/pedscentral/view/5-Minute-Pediatric-Consult/617710/all/Neonatal_Apnea. Accessed April 23, 2019.
Neonatal Apnea [Internet]. In: Cabana MD, editors. 5-Minute Pediatric Consult. Wolters Kluwer; 2019. [cited 2019 April 23]. Available from: https://peds.unboundmedicine.com/pedscentral/view/5-Minute-Pediatric-Consult/617710/all/Neonatal_Apnea.


text:
HideMenu
Write for Rightwingism
Leftwingism
Rightwingism
Free Speech and Community
Is Money a Social Construct?
One congenital flaw of people in general is an inability to respond to an abstract problem that threatens society.
Even if climate change was something over which people were righteously hysterical, the convenience of all the goods and services that are powered by fossil fuels would enable climate change to devastate the globe with insufficient collective resistance. This lamentable natural quality applies similarly to the issue of endless federal spending. The people of the United States are agents of destructive sympathy, unable to forfeit the impending bankruptcy of their nation for the preponderance of the welfare state. The questions of debt, money, and excessive social welfare become the left-wing moral imperatives of state-mandated compassion, economic equality, and the obsolescence of money. Proponents of aggressive Keynesianism and an exorbitant welfare state have a moral valuation system founded in consequentialism and fantastic delusion. Left-Wing consequentialists believe that the ultimate moral deed is to establish a redistributive state or commune whereby access to resources and political power are granted equally by the very merits of human worth. Unfortunately, social democrats like Bernie Sanders and media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also live in a world where the monetary means to accomplish their redistributive goals are an imaginary obstacle. To them, money is a social construct; an arbitrary manifestation of capitalism.
There are just two tiny problems with this general worldview. One, we already behave as if money exists and has intrinsic value. Every year, we pay interest on our national debt which will soon surpass our total military spending. Spending the incomes of unborn generations via debt, and willfully ignoring possible future ramifications is an unparalleled immorality. And two, the European examples to which social democrats point for guidance indubitably subsist on global trade and other elements of capitalism. By any standard, the American left demands too much to possibly consider the subject of payment. At the very least, the European left admits to extortionately taxing all of its citizens.
In most of Europe, typical income tax rates may range from roughly thirty to fifty percent depending on one's level of income. Already significantly higher than the US, this does not account for the other pocket-cleaning taxes that are levied on Europeans. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Germany levies a progressive income and capital tax that caps out at 45%, but still place a 25% withholding tax on interest and dividends and a 15% withholding tax on royalties. The OECD also reports that The Danes pay an 8% labor market contribution tax, a 5% healthcare tax, between 22.5% and 27.8% in municipal taxes, social security taxes of DKK1,080 (approximately USD $164) per year, a capital gains taxes of 27% or 42%, and a withholding tax of 27% on dividends and 25% on royalties.
Despite aggressive taxation, a homogenous society, relatively low population, and a low immigration flow, Europe struggles to maintain the welfare state. Meanwhile, the American left has said taxes will not be raised on most income brackets, while also welcoming an unceasing flow of immigration, and advocating a continuum of new federal expenditures with basically no restraint.
The United States has comparatively low taxes, but over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, as well as the $22 trillion national debt. When social security was first implemented, it was funded by an excess of one-hundred and twenty contributors for every single social security beneficiary. Today, that ratio is hardly two contributors for every one recipient of benefits. Most retirement pensions and social security plans are nothing but a receding cliff upon which the lie of infinite money was built. What would any rational person do if put in charge of such a pathetically overwhelming situation? Spend more or less? The answer is clear.
However, the left does not care one iota about the state of our debt crisis, nor do they seriously put any thought into funding their political fantasies. Jake Tapper from CNN interviewed AOC, the young new face of the Democratic Party, in the months and weeks leading to the 2018 midterms. Determined to receive a detailed answer, he asked her how she plans to "fund her projects" including enterprises like Medicare for all, free college, student loan alleviation, and a federal jobs guarantee. Tapper pointed out to then-candidate Ocasio-Cortez that her plans could cost at least $40 trillion over the next 10 years. Apart from tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that would have extracted a maximum of $2 trillion, AOC was unable to account for the remaining $38 trillion; and it didn't matter. To the left, price and merit are secondary to utility, while resources and services are to be innately available in a state of nature. Sen. Bernie Sanders, when confronted with the financial reality of single-payer healthcare, simply said: "It's the moral and humane thing to do". I suppose this could be the justification for spending as much as $700 trillion, if it meant prolonging our delusions for one more generation.
There is no social program the left will not fund, no immigration policy too lenient, no amount of debt too high. The one inevitability: bankruptcy. But at least we will all feel morally self-affirmed for temporarily maintaining the welfare state.
(As seen on Ceccpoint.com and the Conservative Analysis Podcast on Youtube and iTunes)
About Esteban
Esteban Villegas is the creator of Conservative Analysis. As a Catholic Classical Conservative, he believes a society requires a socially coerced moral code based in religion and cooperative obligation to survive. Ideologically, Esteban considers himself a Capitalist, an Elitist, a selective Interventionist, and a Conservative, despite the seeming contradiction. Subjects that capture his interest and influence his politics include: Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology, Economics, Philosophy, Constitutional Law, and History. Much of his work can be found on Ceccpoint.com, or his podcast on YouTube and iTunes called "Conservative Analysis". He is based in Southern California where he currently attends University for Political Science and Philosophy.
Follow Rightwingism on WordPress.com
The New American Revolution
Re: Immigration


text:
UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN
UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN(1968)
Argued: January 24, 1968Decided: May 27, 1968
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 233, O'Brien v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
O'Brien burned his Selective Service registration certificate before a sizable crowd in order to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs. He was indicted, tried, and convicted for violating 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b), a part of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, subdivision (3) of which applies to any person "who forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such certificate . . .," the words italicized herein having been added by amendment in 1965. The District Court rejected O'Brien's argument that the amendment was unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge free speech and served no legitimate legislative purpose. The Court of Appeals held the 1965 Amendment unconstitutional under the First Amendment as singling out for special treatment persons engaged in protests, on the ground that conduct under the 1965 Amendment was already punishable since a Selective Service System regulation required registrants to keep their registration certificates in their "personal possession at all times," 32 CFR 1617.1, and wilful violation of regulations promulgated under the Act was made criminal by 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (6). The court, however, upheld O'Brien's conviction under 462 (b) (6), which in its view made violation of the nonpossession regulation a lesser included offense of the crime defined by the 1965 Amendment. Held:
1. The 1965 Amendment to 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (3) is constitutional as applied in this case. Pp. 375, 376-382.
(a) The 1965 Amendment plainly does not abridge free speech on its face. P. 375.
(b) When "speech" and "nonspeech" elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. P. 376.
(c) A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government and furthers [391 U.S. 367, 368] an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to that interest. The 1965 Amendment meets all these requirements. P. 377.
(d) The 1965 Amendment came within Congress' "broad and sweeping" power to raise and support armies and make all laws necessary to that end. P. 377.
(e) The registration certificate serves purposes in addition to initial notification, e. g., it proves that the described individual has registered for the draft; facilitates communication between registrants and local boards; and provides a reminder that the registrant must notify his local board of changes in address or status. The regulatory scheme involving the certificates includes clearly valid prohibitions against alteration, forgery, or similar deceptive misuse. Pp. 378-380.
(f) The pre-existence of the nonpossession regulation does not negate Congress' clear interest in providing alternative statutory avenues of prosecution to assure its interest in preventing destruction of the Selective Service certificates. P. 380.
(g) The governmental interests protected by the 1965 Amendment and the nonpossession regulation, though overlapping, are not identical. Pp. 380-381.
(h) The 1965 Amendment is a narrow and precisely drawn provision which specifically protects the Government's substantial interest in an efficient and easily administered system for raising armies. Pp. 381-382.
(i) O'Brien was convicted only for the wilful frustration of that governmental interest. The noncommunicative impact of his conduct for which he was convicted makes his case readily distinguishable from Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). P. 382.
2. The 1965 Amendment is constitutional as enacted. Pp. 382-385.
(a) Congress' purpose in enacting the law affords no basis for declaring an otherwise constitutional statute invalid. McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (1904). Pp. 383-384.
(b) Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936) and Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), distinguished. Pp. 384-385.
376 F.2d 538, vacated; judgment and sentence of District Court reinstated. [391 U.S. 367, 369]
Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Beatrice Rosenberg, and Jerome M. Feit.
Marvin M. Karpatkin argued the cause for respondent in No. 232 and petitioner in No. 233. With him on the brief were Howard S. Whiteside, Melvin L. Wulf, and Rhoda H. Karpatkin.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the morning of March 31, 1966, David Paul O'Brien and three companions burned their Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse. A sizable crowd, including several agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, witnessed the event. 1 Immediately after the burning, members of the crowd began attacking O'Brien and his companions. An FBI agent ushered O'Brien to safety inside the courthouse. After he was advised of his right to counsel and to silence, O'Brien stated to FBI agents that he had burned his registration certificate because of his beliefs, knowing that he was violating federal law. He produced the charred remains of the certificate, which, with his consent, were photographed.
For this act, O'Brien was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 2 He did not contest the fact [391 U.S. 367, 370] that he had burned the certificate. He stated in argument to the jury that he burned the certificate publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs, as he put it, "so that other people would reevaluate their positions with Selective Service, with the armed forces, and reevaluate their place in the culture of today, to hopefully consider my position."
The indictment upon which he was tried charged that he "willfully and knowingly did mutilate, destroy, and change by burning . . . [his] Registration Certificate (Selective Service System Form No. 2); in violation of Title 50, App., United States Code, Section 462 (b)." Section 462 (b) is part of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948. Section 462 (b) (3), one of six numbered subdivisions of 462 (b), was amended by Congress in 1965, 79 Stat. 586 (adding the words italicized below), so that at the time O'Brien burned his certificate an offense was committed by any person,
"who forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such certificate . . . ." (Italics supplied.)
In the District Court, O'Brien argued that the 1965 Amendment prohibiting the knowing destruction or mutilation of certificates was unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge free speech, and because it served no legitimate legislative purpose. 3 The District Court rejected these arguments, holding that the statute on its face did not abridge First Amendment rights, that the court was not competent to inquire into the motives of Congress in enacting the 1965 Amendment, and that the [391 U.S. 367, 371] Amendment was a reasonable exercise of the power of Congress to raise armies.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held the 1965 Amendment unconstitutional as a law abridging freedom of speech. 4 At the time the Amendment was enacted, a regulation of the Selective Service System required registrants to keep their registration certificates in their "personal possession at all times." 32 CFR 1617.1 (1962). 5 Wilful violations of regulations promulgated pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act were made criminal by statute. 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (6). The Court of Appeals, therefore, was of the opinion that conduct punishable under the 1965 Amendment was already punishable under the nonpossession regulation, and consequently that the Amendment served no valid purpose; further, that in light of the prior regulation, the Amendment must have been "directed at public as distinguished from private destruction." On this basis, the court concluded that the 1965 Amendment ran afoul of the First Amendment by singling out persons engaged in protests for special treatment. The court ruled, however, that O'Brien's conviction should be affirmed under the statutory provision, 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (6), which in its view made violation of the nonpossession regulation a crime, because it regarded such violation to be a lesser included offense of the crime defined by the 1965 Amendment. 6 [391 U.S. 367, 372]
The Government petitioned for certiorari in No. 232, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the statute unconstitutional, and that its decision conflicted with decisions by the Courts of Appeals for the Second 7 and Eighth Circuits 8 upholding the 1965 Amendment against identical constitutional challenges. O'Brien cross-petitioned for certiorari in No. 233, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction on the basis of a crime of which he was neither charged nor tried. We granted the Government's petition to resolve the conflict in the circuits, and we also granted O'Brien's cross-petition. We hold that the 1965 Amendment is constitutional both as enacted and as applied. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment and sentence of the District Court without reaching the issue raised by O'Brien in No. 233.
When a male reaches the age of 18, he is required by the Universal Military Training and Service Act to register with a local draft board. 9 He is assigned a Selective Service number, 10 and within five days he is issued a [391 U.S. 367, 373] registration certificate (SSS Form No. 2). 11 Subsequently, and based on a questionnaire completed by the registrant, 12 he is assigned a classification denoting his eligibility for induction, 13 and "[a]s soon as practicable" thereafter he is issued a Notice of Classification (SSS Form No. 110). 14 This initial classification is not necessarily permanent, 15 and if in the interim before induction the registrant's status changes in some relevant way, he may be reclassified. 16 After such a reclassification, the local board "as soon as practicable" issues to the registrant a new Notice of Classification. 17
Both the registration and classification certificates are small white cards, approximately 2 by 3 inches. The registration certificate specifies the name of the registrant, the date of registration, and the number and address of the local board with which he is registered. Also inscribed upon it are the date and place of the registrant's birth, his residence at registration, his physical description, his signature, and his Selective Service number. The Selective Service number itself indicates his State of registration, his local board, his year of birth, and his chronological position in the local board's classification record. 18
The classification certificate shows the registrant's name, Selective Service number, signature, and eligibility classification. It specifies whether he was so classified by his local board, an appeal board, or the President. It [391 U.S. 367, 374] contains the address of his local board and the date the certificate was mailed.
Both the registration and classification certificates bear notices that the registrant must notify his local board in writing of every change in address, physical condition, and occupational, marital, family, dependency, and military status, and of any other fact which might change his classification. Both also contain a notice that the registrant's Selective Service number should appear on all communications to his local board.
Congress demonstrated its concern that certificates issued by the Selective Service System might be abused well before the 1965 Amendment here challenged. The 1948 Act, 62 Stat. 604, itself prohibited many different abuses involving "any registration certificate, . . . or any other certificate issued pursuant to or prescribed by the provisions of this title, or rules or regulations promulgated hereunder . . . ." 62 Stat. 622. Under 12 (b) (1)-(5) of the 1948 Act, it was unlawful (1) to transfer a certificate to aid a person in making false identification; (2) to possess a certificate not duly issued with the intent of using it for false identification; (3) to forge, alter, "or in any manner" change a certificate or any notation validly inscribed thereon; (4) to photograph or make an imitation of a certificate for the purpose of false identification; and (5) to possess a counterfeited or altered certificate. 62 Stat. 622. In addition, as previously mentioned, regulations of the Selective Service System required registrants to keep both their registration and classification certificates in their personal possession at all times. 32 CFR 1617.1 (1962) (Registration Certificates); 19 32 CFR 1623.5 [391 U.S. 367, 375] (1962) (Classification Certificates). 20 And 12 (b) (6) of the Act, 62 Stat. 622, made knowing violation of any provision of the Act or rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto a felony.
By the 1965 Amendment, Congress added to 12 (b) (3) of the 1948 Act the provision here at issue, subjecting to criminal liability not only one who "forges, alters, or in any manner changes" but also one who "knowingly destroys, [or] knowingly mutilates" a certificate. We note at the outset that the 1965 Amendment plainly does not abridge free speech on its face, and we do not understand O'Brien to argue otherwise. Amended 12 (b) (3) on its face deals with conduct having no connection with speech. It prohibits the knowing destruction of certificates issued by the Selective Service System, and there is nothing necessarily expressive about such conduct. The Amendment does not distinguish between public and private destruction, and it does not punish only destruction engaged in for the purpose of expressing views. Compare Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). 21 A law prohibiting destruction of Selective Service certificates no more abridges free speech on its face than a motor vehicle law prohibiting the destruction of drivers' licenses, or a tax law prohibiting the destruction of books and records. [391 U.S. 367, 376]
O'Brien nonetheless argues that the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional in its application to him, and is unconstitutional as enacted because what he calls the "purpose" of Congress was "to suppress freedom of speech." We consider these arguments separately.
O'Brien first argues that the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to him because his act of burning his registration certificate was protected "symbolic speech" within the First Amendment. His argument is that the freedom of expression which the First Amendment guarantees includes all modes of "communication of ideas by conduct," and that his conduct is within this definition because he did it in "demonstration against the war and against the draft."
We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. However, even on the assumption that the alleged communicative element in O'Brien's conduct is sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment, it does not necessarily follow that the destruction of a registration certificate is constitutionally protected activity. This Court has held that when "speech" and "nonspeech" elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. To characterize the quality of the governmental interest which must appear, the Court has employed a variety of descriptive terms: compelling; 22 substantial; 23 subordinating; 24 [391 U.S. 367, 377] paramount; 25 cogent; 26 strong. 27 Whatever imprecision inheres in these terms, we think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. We find that the 1965 Amendment to 12 (b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act meets all of these requirements, and consequently that O'Brien can be constitutionally convicted for violating it.
The constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 755 -758 (1948); Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918); see also Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 25 -26 (1942). The power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is "beyond question." Lichter v. United States, supra, at 756; Selective Draft Law Cases, supra. Pursuant to this power, Congress may establish a system of registration for individuals liable for training and service, and may require such individuals within reason to cooperate in the registration system. The issuance of certificates indicating the registration and eligibility classification of individuals is a legitimate and substantial administrative aid in the functioning of this system. And legislation [391 U.S. 367, 378] to insure the continuing availability of issued certificates serves a legitimate and substantial purpose in the system's administration.
O'Brien's argument to the contrary is necessarily premised upon his unrealistic characterization of Selective Service certificates. He essentially adopts the position that such certificates are so many pieces of paper designed to notify registrants of their registration or classification, to be retained or tossed in the wastebasket according to the convenience or taste of the registrant. Once the registrant has received notification, according to this view, there is no reason for him to retain the certificates. O'Brien notes that most of the information on a registration certificate serves no notification purpose at all; the registrant hardly needs to be told his address and physical characteristics. We agree that the registration certificate contains much information of which the registrant needs no notification. This circumstance, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the certificate serves no purpose, but that, like the classification certificate, it serves purposes in addition to initial notification. Many of these purposes would be defeated by the certificates' destruction or mutilation. Among these are:
1. The registration certificate serves as proof that the individual described thereon has registered for the draft. The classification certificate shows the eligibility classification of a named but undescribed individual. Voluntarily displaying the two certificates is an easy and painless way for a young man to dispel a question as to whether he might be delinquent in his Selective Service obligations. Correspondingly, the availability of the certificates for such display relieves the Selective Service System of the administrative burden it would otherwise have in verifying the registration and classification of all suspected delinquents. Further, since both certificates are in the nature of "receipts" attesting that the registrant [391 U.S. 367, 379] has done what the law requires, it is in the interest of the just and efficient administration of the system that they be continually available, in the event, for example, of a mix-up in the registrant's file. Additionally, in a time of national crisis, reasonable availability to each registrant of the two small cards assures a rapid and uncomplicated means for determining his fitness for immediate induction, no matter how distant in our mobile society he may be from his local board.
2. The information supplied on the certificates facilitates communication between registrants and local boards, simplifying the system and benefiting all concerned. To begin with, each certificate bears the address of the registrant's local board, an item unlikely to be committed to memory. Further, each card bears the registrant's Selective Service number, and a registrant who has his number readily available so that he can communicate it to his local board when he supplies or requests information can make simpler the board's task in locating his file. Finally, a registrant's inquiry, particularly through a local board other than his own, concerning his eligibility status is frequently answerable simply on the basis of his classification certificate; whereas, if the certificate were not reasonably available and the registrant were uncertain of his classification, the task of answering his questions would be considerably complicated.
3. Both certificates carry continual reminders that the registrant must notify his local board of any change of address, and other specified changes in his status. The smooth functioning of the system requires that local boards be continually aware of the status and whereabouts of registrants, and the destruction of certificates deprives the system of a potentially useful notice device.
4. The regulatory scheme involving Selective Service certificates includes clearly valid prohibitions against the alteration, forgery, or similar deceptive misuse of certificates. [391 U.S. 367, 380] The destruction or mutilation of certificates obviously increases the difficulty of detecting and tracing abuses such as these. Further, a mutilated certificate might itself be used for deceptive purposes.
The many functions performed by Selective Service certificates establish beyond doubt that Congress has a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing their wanton and unrestrained destruction and assuring their continuing availability by punishing people who knowingly and wilfully destroy or mutilate them. And we are unpersuaded that the pre-existence of the nonpossession regulations in any way negates this interest.
In the absence of a question as to multiple punishment, it has never been suggested that there is anything improper in Congress' providing alternative statutory avenues of prosecution to assure the effective protection of one and the same interest. Compare the majority and dissenting opinions in Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386 (1958). 28 Here, the pre-existing avenue of prosecution was not even statutory. Regulations may be modified or revoked from time to time by administrative discretion. Certainly, the Congress may change or supplement a regulation.
Equally important, a comparison of the regulations with the 1965 Amendment indicates that they protect overlapping but not identical governmental interests, and that they reach somewhat different classes of wrongdoers. 29 The gravamen of the offense defined by the statute is the deliberate rendering of certificates unavailable for the various purposes which they may serve. Whether registrants keep their certificates in their personal [391 U.S. 367, 381] possession at all times, as required by the regulations, is of no particular concern under the 1965 Amendment, as long as they do not mutilate or destroy the certificates so as to render them unavailable. Although as we note below we are not concerned here with the nonpossession regulations, it is not inappropriate to observe that the essential elements of nonpossession are not identical with those of mutilation or destruction. Finally, the 1965 Amendment, like 12 (b) which it amended, is concerned with abuses involving any issued Selective Service certificates, not only with the registrant's own certificates. The knowing destruction or mutilation of someone else's certificates would therefore violate the statute but not the nonpossession regulations.
We think it apparent that the continuing availability to each registrant of his Selective Service certificates substantially furthers the smooth and proper functioning of the system that Congress has established to raise armies. We think it also apparent that the Nation has a vital interest in having a system for raising armies that functions with maximum efficiency and is capable of easily and quickly responding to continually changing circumstances. For these reasons, the Government has a substantial interest in assuring the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates.
It is equally clear that the 1965 Amendment specifically protects this substantial governmental interest. We perceive no alternative means that would more precisely and narrowly assure the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates than a law which prohibits their wilful mutilation or destruction. Compare Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 -408 (1963), and the cases cited therein. The 1965 Amendment prohibits such conduct and does nothing more. In other words, both the governmental interest and the operation of the 1965 Amendment are limited to the noncommunicative [391 U.S. 367, 382] aspect of O'Brien's conduct. The governmental interest and the scope of the 1965 Amendment are limited to preventing harm to the smooth and efficient functioning of the Selective Service System. When O'Brien deliberately rendered unavailable his registration certificate, he wilfully frustrated this governmental interest. For this noncommunicative impact of his conduct, and for nothing else, he was convicted.
The case at bar is therefore unlike one where the alleged governmental interest in regulating conduct arises in some measure because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful. In Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), for example, this Court struck down a statutory phrase which punished people who expressed their "opposition to organized government" by displaying "any flag, badge, banner, or device." Since the statute there was aimed at suppressing communication it could not be sustained as a regulation of noncommunicative conduct. See also, NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers Union, 377 U.S. 58, 79 (1964) (concurring opinion).
In conclusion, we find that because of the Government's substantial interest in assuring the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates, because amended 462 (b) is an appropriately narrow means of protecting this interest and condemns only the independent noncommunicative impact of conduct within its reach, and because the noncommunicative impact of O'Brien's act of burning his registration certificate frustrated the Government's interest, a sufficient governmental interest has been shown to justify O'Brien's conviction.
O'Brien finally argues that the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional as enacted because what he calls the "purpose" of Congress was "to suppress freedom of [391 U.S. 367, 383] speech." We reject this argument because under settled principles the purpose of Congress, as O'Brien uses that term, is not a basis for declaring this legislation unconstitutional.
It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive. As the Court long ago stated:
"The decisions of this court from the beginning lend no support whatever to the assumption that the judiciary may restrain the exercise of lawful power on the assumption that a wrongful purpose or motive has caused the power to be exerted." McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 56 (1904).
This fundamental principle of constitutional adjudication was reaffirmed and the many cases were collected by Mr. Justice Brandeis for the Court in Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 455 (1931).
Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter. When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature, 30 because the benefit to sound decision-making in [391 U.S. 367, 384] this circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress' purpose. It is entirely a different matter when we are asked to void a statute that is, under well-settled criteria, constitutional on its face, on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it. What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it, and the stakes are sufficiently high for us to eschew guesswork. We decline to void essentially on the ground that it is unwise legislation which Congress had the undoubted power to enact and which could be reenacted in its exact form if the same or another legislator made a "wiser" speech about it.
O'Brien's position, and to some extent that of the court below, rest upon a misunderstanding of Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), and Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960). These cases stand, not for the proposition that legislative motive is a proper basis for declaring a statute unconstitutional, but that the inevitable effect of a statute on its face may render it unconstitutional. Thus, in Grosjean the Court, having concluded that the right of publications to be free from certain kinds of taxes was a freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment, struck down a statute which on its face did nothing other than impose [391 U.S. 367, 385] just such a tax. Similarly, in Gomillion, the Court sustained a complaint which, if true, established that the "inevitable effect," 364 U.S., at 341 , of the redrawing of municipal boundaries was to deprive the petitioners of their right to vote for no reason other than that they were Negro. In these cases, the purpose of the legislation was irrelevant, because the inevitable effect - the "necessary scope and operation," McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 59 (1904) - abridged constitutional rights. The statute attacked in the instant case has no such inevitable unconstitutional effect, since the destruction of Selective Service certificates is in no respect inevitably or necessarily expressive. Accordingly, the statute itself is constitutional.
We think it not amiss, in passing, to comment upon O'Brien's legislative-purpose argument. There was little floor debate on this legislation in either House. Only Senator Thurmond commented on its substantive features in the Senate. 111 Cong. Rec. 19746, 20433. After his brief statement, and without any additional substantive comments, the bill, H. R. 10306, passed the Senate. 111 Cong. Rec. 20434. In the House debate only two Congressmen addressed themselves to the Amendment - Congressmen Rivers and Bray. 111 Cong. Rec. 19871, 19872. The bill was passed after their statements without any further debate by a vote of 393 to 1. It is principally on the basis of the statements by these three Congressmen that O'Brien makes his congressional-"purpose" argument. We note that if we were to examine legislative purpose in the instant case, we would be obliged to consider not only these statements but also the more authoritative reports of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. The portions of those reports explaining the purpose of the Amendment are reproduced in the Appendix in their entirety. While both reports make clear a concern with the "defiant" [391 U.S. 367, 386] destruction of so-called "draft cards" and with "open" encouragement to others to destroy their cards, both reports also indicate that this concern stemmed from an apprehension that unrestrained destruction of cards would disrupt the smooth functioning of the Selective Service System.
Since the 1965 Amendment to 12 (b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act is constitutional as enacted and as applied, the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the District Court. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and reinstate the judgment and sentence of the District Court. This disposition makes unnecessary consideration of O'Brien's claim that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction on the basis of the nonpossession regulation. 31
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
PORTIONS OF THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE EXPLAINING THE 1965 AMENDMENT.
The "Explanation of the Bill" in the Senate Report is as follows:
"Section 12 (b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951, as amended, provides, among other things, that a person who forges, alters, or changes [391 U.S. 367, 387] a draft registration certificate is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. There is no explicit prohibition in this section against the knowing destruction or mutilation of such cards.
"The committee has taken notice of the defiant destruction and mutilation of draft cards by dissident persons who disapprove of national policy. If allowed to continue unchecked this contumacious conduct represents a potential threat to the exercise of the power to raise and support armies.
"For a person to be subject to fine or imprisonment the destruction or mutilation of the draft card must be `knowingly' done. This qualification is intended to protect persons who lose or mutilate draft cards accidentally." S. Rep. No. 589, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).
And the House Report explained:
"Section 12 (b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951, as amended, provides that a person who forges, alters, or in any manner changes his draft registration card, or any notation duly and validly inscribed thereon, will be subject to a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. H. R. 10306 would amend this provision to make it apply also to those persons who knowingly destroy or knowingly mutilate a draft registration card.
"The House Committee on Armed Services is fully aware of, and shares in, the deep concern expressed throughout the Nation over the increasing incidences in which individuals and large groups of individuals openly defy and encourage others to defy the authority of their Government by destroying or mutilating their draft cards.
"While the present provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to the destruction of Government property [391 U.S. 367, 388] may appear broad enough to cover all acts having to do with the mistreatment of draft cards in the possession of individuals, the committee feels that in the present critical situation of the country, the acts of destroying or mutilating these cards are offenses which pose such a grave threat to the security of the Nation that no question whatsoever should be left as to the intention of the Congress that such wanton and irresponsible acts should be punished.
"To this end, H. R. 10306 makes specific that knowingly mutilating or knowingly destroying a draft card constitutes a violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act and is punishable thereunder; and that a person who does so destroy or mutilate a draft card will be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years." H. R. Rep.
[ Footnote 1 ] At the time of the burning, the agents knew only that O'Brien and his three companions had burned small white cards. They later discovered that the card O'Brien burned was his registration certificate, and the undisputed assumption is that the same is true of his companions.
[ Footnote 2 ] He was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. 5010 (b), to the custody of the Attorney General for a maximum period of six years for supervision and treatment.
[ Footnote 3 ] The issue of the constitutionality of the 1965 Amendment was raised by counsel representing O'Brien in a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment. At trial and upon sentencing, O'Brien chose to represent himself. He was represented by counsel on his appeal to the Court of Appeals.
[ Footnote 4 ] O'Brien v. United States, 376 F.2d 538 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1967).
[ Footnote 5 ] The portion of 32 CFR relevant to the instant case was revised as of January 1, 1967. Citations in this opinion are to the 1962 edition which was in effect when O'Brien committed the crime, and when Congress enacted the 1965 Amendment.
[ Footnote 6 ] The Court of Appeals nevertheless remanded the case to the District Court to vacate the sentence and resentence O'Brien. In [391 U.S. 367, 372] the court's view, the district judge might have considered the violation of the 1965 Amendment as an aggravating circumstance in imposing sentence. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied O'Brien's petition for a rehearing, in which he argued that he had not been charged, tried, or convicted for nonpossession, and that nonpossession was not a lesser included offense of mutilation or destruction. O'Brien v. United States, 376 F.2d 538, 542 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1967).
[ Footnote 7 ] United States v. Miller, 367 F.2d 72 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 911 (1967).
[ Footnote 8 ] Smith v. United States, 368 F.2d 529 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1966).
[ Footnote 9 ] See 62 Stat. 605, as amended, 65 Stat. 76, 50 U.S.C. App. 453: 32 CFR 1613.1 (1962).
[ Footnote 10 ] 32 CFR 1621.2 (1962).
[ Footnote 11 ] 32 CFR 1613.43a (1962).
[ Footnote 12 ] 32 CFR 1621.9, 1623.1 (1962).
[ Footnote 16 ] 32 CFR 1625.1, 1625.2, 1625.3, 1625.4, and 1625.11 (1962).
[ Footnote 17 ] 32 CFR 1625.12 (1962).
[ Footnote 19 ] 32 CFR 1617.1 (1962), provides, in relevant part:
"Every person required to present himself for and submit to registration must, after he is registered, have in his personal possession at all times his Registration Certificate (SSS Form No. 2) [391 U.S. 367, 375] prepared by his local board which has not been altered and on which no notation duly and validly inscribed thereon has been changed in any manner after its preparation by the local board. The failure of any person to have his Registration Certificate (SSS Form No. 2) in his personal possession shall be prima facie evidence of his failure to register."
"Every person who has been classified by a local board must have in his personal possession at all times, in addition to his Registration Certificate (SSS Form No. 2), a valid Notice of Classification (SSS Form No. 110) issued to him showing his current classification."
[ Footnote 21 ] See text, infra, at 382.
[ Footnote 22 ] NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438 (1963); see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403 (1963).
[ Footnote 23 ] NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 444 (1963); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 464 (1958).
[ Footnote 24 ] Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524 (1960).
[ Footnote 25 ] Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1945); see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963).
[ Footnote 27 ] Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 408 (1963).
[ Footnote 28 ] Cf. Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551 (1961); Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415 (1959); Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322 (1957).
[ Footnote 30 ] The Court may make the same assumption in a very limited and well-defined class of cases where the very nature of the constitutional question requires an inquiry into legislative purpose. The principal class of cases is readily apparent - those in which statutes have been challenged as bills of attainder. This Court's decisions have defined a bill of attainder as a legislative Act which inflicts punishment on named individuals or members of an easily ascertainable group without a judicial trial. In determining whether a particular statute is a bill of attainder, the analysis necessarily requires an inquiry into whether the three definitional elements - specificity in identification, punishment, and lack of a judicial trial - are contained in the statute. The inquiry into whether the challenged statute contains the necessary element of punishment has on occasion led the Court to examine the legislative motive in [391 U.S. 367, 384] enacting the statute. See, e. g., United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946). Two other decisions not involving a bill of attainder analysis contain an inquiry into legislative purpose or motive of the type that O'Brien suggests we engage in in this case. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 169 -184 (1963); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 95 -97 (1958). The inquiry into legislative purpose or motive in Kennedy and Trop, however, was for the same limited purpose as in the bill of attainder decisions - i. e., to determine whether the statutes under review were punitive in nature. We face no such inquiry in this case. The 1965 Amendment to 462 (b) was clearly penal in nature, designed to impose criminal punishment for designated acts.
[ Footnote 31 ] The other issues briefed by O'Brien were not raised in the petition for certiorari in No. 232 or in the cross-petition in No. 233. Accordingly, those issues are not before the Court. No. 747, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
The crux of the Court's opinion, which I join, is of course its general statement, ante, at 377, that:
"a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."
I wish to make explicit my understanding that this passage does not foreclose consideration of First Amendment claims in those rare instances when an "incidental" restriction upon expression, imposed by a regulation which furthers an "important or substantial" governmental interest and satisfies the Court's other criteria, in practice has the effect of entirely preventing a "speaker" [391 U.S. 367, 389] from reaching a significant audience with whom he could not otherwise lawfully communicate. This is not such a case, since O'Brien manifestly could have conveyed his message in many ways other than by burning his draft card.
The Court states that the constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies is "broad and sweeping" and that Congress' power "to classify and conscript manpower for military service is `beyond question.'" This is undoubtedly true in times when, by declaration of Congress, the Nation is in a state of war. The underlying and basic problem in this case, however, is whether conscription is permissible in the absence of a declaration of war. 1 That question has not been briefed nor was it presented in oral argument; but it is, I submit, a question upon which the litigants and the country are entitled to a ruling. I have discussed in Holmes v. United States, post, p. 936, the nature of the legal issue and it will be seen from my dissenting opinion in that case that this Court has never ruled on [391 U.S. 367, 390] the question. It is time that we made a ruling. This case should be put down for reargument and heard with Holmes v. United States and with Hart v. United States, post, p. 956, in which the Court today denies certiorari. 2
The rule that this Court will not consider issues not raised by the parties is not inflexible and yields in "exceptional cases" (Duignan v. United States, 274 U.S. 195, 200 ) to the need correctly to decide the case before the court. E. g., Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 ; Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 .
In such a case it is not unusual to ask for reargument (Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 379 , n. 2, Frankfurter, J., concurring) even on a constitutional question not raised by the parties. In Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , the petitioner had conceded that an administrative deportation arrest warrant would be valid for its limited purpose even though not supported by a sworn affidavit stating probable cause; but the Court ordered reargument on the question whether the warrant had been validly issued in petitioner's case. 362 U.S., at 219 , n., par. 1; 359 U.S. 940 . In Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74 , the petitioner argued that an exclusionary rule should apply to the fruit of an unreasonable search by state officials solely because they acted in concert with federal officers (see Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 ; Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 ). The Court ordered reargument on the question raised in a then pending case, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 : applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the States. U.S. Sup. Ct. Journal, October Term, 1947, p. 298. In Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178 , the only issue presented, [391 U.S. 367, 391] according to both parties, was whether the record contained sufficient evidence of fraud to uphold an order of the Postmaster General. Reargument was ordered on the constitutional issue of abridgment of First Amendment freedoms. 333 U.S., at 181 -182; Journal, October Term, 1947, p. 70. Finally, in Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95, 96 , reargument was ordered on the question of unconstitutional vagueness of a criminal statute, an issue not raised by the parties but suggested at oral argument by Justice Jackson. Journal, October Term, 1947, p. 87.
These precedents demonstrate the appropriateness of restoring the instant case to the calendar for reargument on the question of the constitutionality of a peacetime draft and having it heard with Holmes v. United States and Hart v. United States.
[ Footnote 1 ] Neither of the decisions cited by the majority for the proposition that Congress' power to conscript men into the armed services is "`beyond question'" concerns peacetime conscription. As I have shown in my dissenting opinion in Holmes v. United States, post, p. 936, the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 , decided in 1918, upheld the constitutionality of a conscription act passed by Congress more than a month after war had been declared on the German Empire and which was then being enforced in time of war. Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742 , concerned the constitutionality of the Renegotiation Act, another wartime measure, enacted by Congress over the period of 1942-1945 (id., at 745, n. 1) and applied in that case to excessive war profits made in 1942-1943 (id., at 753). War had been declared, of course, in 1941 (55 Stat. 795). The Court referred to Congress' power to raise armies in discussing the "background" ( 334 U.S., at 753 ) of the Renegotiation Act, which it upheld as a valid exercise of the War Power.
[ Footnote 2 ] Today the Court also denies stays in Shiffman v. Selective Service Board No. 5, and Zigmond v. Selective Service Board No. 16, post, p. 930, where punitive delinquency regulations are invoked against registrants, decisions that present a related question. [391 U.S. 367, 392]


text:
| Music
West Ocean String Quartet
Thursday October 20, 8:00pm
€18 / €15
The RCC looks forward to hosting the West Ocean String Quartet featuring Lynda O'Connor!
Lynda O'Connor is known one of the greatest Irish violinists of her generation with an international career as soloist, chamber musician and orchestral leader. Lynda is filling in for Seamus McGuire who is recovering from a shoulder injury. The whole RCC team wishes Seamus a speedy recovery!
In November 1999, The West Ocean String Quartet set sail on what has become an endlessly fascinating journey of experimentation and collaboration, of seeking out other ways, of finding our own voice. Along the way, they have shared stages and studios with some of the very finest – Christy Moore, Liam O'Flynn, Stephen Rea, Maighread Ní Dhomhnaill, Matt Molloy, Iarla Ó Lionáird, Brian Kennedy and Eimear Quinn. Core to the journey has been the weaving of the quartet's own tapestry, striving for ways to communicate through composing and arranging and producing what they believe in. A quadruple marriage over more than two decades is no dull jaunt.
For Atlantic Edge, the quartet's fifth album, rather than the emphasis being predominantly on newly-composed music, they have embraced traditional music from or about the west of Ireland. The seemingly endless store of inexplicably beautiful airs and robust dance music from along the Atlantic edge underlines how landscape shapes humans, and vice versa. The two become inextricable, interdependent, and when artists seek to express themselves it's inevitable that something of that sense of place appears. Airs and tunes of love and exile and home and longing and heartbreak.
"A musical odyssey to soothe and stimulate the imagination". Siobhan Long, Irish Times


text:
Mainland Tiger Snake
Notechis scutatus
Conservation Status: Least Concern
A highly variable species, which does not always display the distinctive tiger stripes suggested by its common name. The body can be grey, olive-brown or almost black. In most specimens' darker bands are visible. The pale areas between the bands are usually light brown or cream in colour but in some specimens, they may be bright yellow. The underside is usually creamy-yellow but again may be a distinctive bright yellow in some snakes. The banding in juvenile snakes is often much more conspicuous, fading gradually as the snake matures. Tiger snakes are relatively short, and stout bodied with a broad head. Most specimens reach around 1.2-1.6m in length, although particularly large animals may exceed 2m.
The tiger snake is a very dangerous species and is ranked the fourth most toxic land snake in the world. Its range coincides with the highest human population in Australia, so encounters are common. Tiger snakes will usually act out an impressive threat display before attempting to bite. This begins with flattening of the neck and loud hissing followed by mock strikes.
Tiger snakes used to be the most common cause of snake bite fatalities in Australia. This position has now been taken over by the eastern brown snake.
A common species of the swamps, wetlands and water courses of south-eastern Australia. In some areas where food is plentiful large numbers of tiger snakes can be found in close proximity to each other.
Tiger snakes love frogs. This is their main diet, however, given the opportunity, they will also readily take lizards, birds, small mammals and fish. In hot weather feeding often takes place at night with daytime foraging predominating at other times.
As an adaptation to the temperate climate of its range, the tiger snake produces live young instead of laying eggs. The female normally produces 20-30 wriggling babies in late summer after mating in spring, although some litters as high as 70 have been recorded.
Snake Antivenom Program
The mainland tiger snake is a part of the Australian Reptile Park's antivenom program and the facility remains the only place in Australia to milk the species for its raw venom to make into antivenom.
Australian Reptile Park2020-10-01T13:42:21+10:00


text:
Q: How do bson arrays compare (in mongodb/pymongo)? I would like to store in mongdb some very large integers, exactly (several thousands decimal digits). This will not work of course with the standard types supported by BSON, and I am trying to think of the most elegant workaround, considering that I would like to perform range searches and similar things. This requirement excludes storing the integers as strings as it makes the range searches impractical.
One way I can think of is to encode the 2^32-expansion using (variable-length) arrays of standard ints, and add to this array a first entry for the length of the array itself. That way lexicographical ordering on these arrays corresponds to the usual ordering of arbitrarily large integers.
For instance, in a collection I could have the 5 documents
{"name": "me", "fortune": [1,1000]}
{"name": "scrooge mcduck", "fortune": [11,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]}
{"name": "bruce wayne","fortune": [2, 10,0]}
{"name": "bill gates", "fortune": [2,1,1000]}
{"name": "francis", "fortune": [0]}

Thus Bruce Wayne's net worth is 10*2^32, Bill Gates' 2^32+1000 and Scrooge McDuck's 2^320.
I can then do a sort using {"fortune":1} and on my machine (with pymongo) it returns them in the order francis < me < bill < bruce < scrooge, as expected.
However, I am making assumptions that I haven't seen documented anywhere about the way BSON arrays compare, and the range searches don't seem to work  the way I think (for instance,
find({"fortune":{$gte:[2,5,0]}})

returns no document, but I would wish for bruce and scrooge).
Can anyone help me? Thanks

A: You can instead store left padded strings which represent exact integer equal to the fortune.
eg.  "1000000" = 1 million
     "0010000" = 10 thousand
     "2000000" = 2 million
     "0200000" = 2 hundred thousand

Left padding with zeroes will ensure that lexographical comparison of these strings directly corresponds to their comparison as numeric values also. You will have to
assume a safe MAXIMUM possible value of fortune here, say a 20 digit number, and
pad the 0s accordingly
So a sample documents would be :
  {"name": "scrooge mcduck", "fortune": "00001100000000000000" }
  {"name": "bruce wayne",    "fortune": "00000200000000000000" }

querying:
> db.test123.find()
{ "_id" : ObjectId("4f87e142f1573cffecd0f65e"), "name" : "bruce wayne", "fortune" : "00000200000000000000" }
{ "_id" : ObjectId("4f87e150f1573cffecd0f65f"), "name" : "donald", "fortune" : "00000150000000000000" }
{ "_id" : ObjectId("4f87e160f1573cffecd0f660"), "name" : "mickey", "fortune" : "00000000000000100000" }

> db.test123.find({ "fortune" : {$gte: "00000200000000000000"}});
{ "_id" : ObjectId("4f87e142f1573cffecd0f65e"), "name" : "bruce wayne", "fortune" : "00000200000000000000" }

> db.test123.find({ "fortune" : {$lt: "00000200000000000000"}});
{ "_id" : ObjectId("4f87e150f1573cffecd0f65f"), "name" : "donald", "fortune" : "00000150000000000000" }
{ "_id" : ObjectId("4f87e160f1573cffecd0f660"), "name" : "mickey", "fortune" : "00000000000000100000" }

The querying / sorting will work naturally as mongodb compares strings lexographically.
However, to do other numeric operations on your data, you will have to write custom logic in your data processing script ( PHP,Python,Ruby etc)
For querying and data storage, this string version should do fine.

A: Unfortunately your assumption about array comparison is incorrect. Range queries that, for example, query for all array values smaller than 3 ({array:{$lt:3}}) will return all arrays where at least one element is less than three, regardless of the element's position. As such your approach will not work.
What does work, but is a bit less obvious, is using binary blobs for your very large integers since those are byte-order compared. That requires you set an upper bit limit for your integers but that should be fairly straightforward. You can test it in shell using BinData(subType, base64) notation :
db.col.find({fortune:{$gt:BinData(0, "e8MEnzZoFyMmD7WSHdNrFJyEk8M=")}})

So all you'd have to do is create methods to convert your big integers from, say, strings to two-complements binary and you're set. Good luck

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Raibliania is an extinct genus of tanystropheid archosauromorph discovered in the Calcare del Predil Formation in Italy. It lived during the Carnian stage of the Late Triassic and it was related to Tanystropheus. Raibliania is distinct from Tanystropheus due to some distinct features of the cervical vertebrae and teeth. The type species is Raibliania calligarisi, named in 2020. The holotype (MFSN 27532) consists of a partial post-cranial skeleton, with the known elements including vertebrae (sacral, cervical and dorsal; sans caudal), a single tooth, several ribs, gastralia and parts of the pelvis (ilium and pubis).

References

Tanystropheids
Prehistoric reptile genera
Carnian genera
Late Triassic reptiles of Europe
Triassic Italy
Fossils of Italy
Fossil taxa described in 2020

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Code is missing for service error Service Fabric I am trying to deploy a new service in to my service fabric cluster
I am sure I have created this in the same way as my other services.
I have manually sorted out the ApplicationManifest file that seems fine
However, when I try to run the local dev cluster VS crashes out with powershell error
Register-ServiceFabricApplicationType : The BuildLayout of the application in
6>C:\SfDevCluster\Data\ImageBuilderProxy\AppType\Inspired.TradingPlatform.ServiceFabricType is invalid. Code is missing
6>for service Inspired.TradingPlatform.TrayportApi.Primary.ServiceFabricPkg.
6>At C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Service
6>Fabric\Tools\PSModule\ServiceFabricSDK\Publish-NewServiceFabricApplication.ps1:251 char:9

This error is really unhelpful, it doesnt tell me anything about what code is missing
The rest of the error is
   Register-ServiceFabricApplicationType -ApplicationPathInImage ...
6>    + CategoryInfo          : InvalidOperation: (Microsoft.Servi...usterConnection:ClusterConnection) [Register-Servic
6>   eFabricApplicationType], FabricException
6>    + FullyQualifiedErrorId : RegisterApplicationTypeErrorId,Microsoft.ServiceFabric.Powershell.RegisterApplicationType

A: @HiredMind thanks that was the issue!  My project was preferring x32 and even when changed to x64 was just going to debug when it should have been debug\x64 Thanks!