This section contains information about Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000. The information provided here is not intended for playing the games, but is about the universe itself, as background information for stories. Material was taken from the games Warhammer 40k, Epic 40k and battle fleet Gothic as well as from some novels and related websites. This web site is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited. Most names and artwork is reserved to their respective owners. The unit images are mainly from 2004, there are only a few of the newer stuff. Be aware that some units listed are not game legal anymore.
There are different races or armies in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Each army has its own page with information about units (the units of Warhammer) and their weapons and organization, their war machines (the units of Epic 40k) and space ships (the units of Gothic), as well as some general information. Some pages are very large due to lots of unit graphics.
A man can remake the world if he has a dream and no facts to cloud his mind.
Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.
Camouflage is the colour of fear.
Faith is the sturdiest armour. Hatred the surest weapon.
For a warrior the only crime is cowardice.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest this side of the grave.
If a job's worth doing, it's worth dying for.
Inspiration grows from the barrel of a gun.
It causes me constant pain. I would not have it any other way, for it serves as a remainder against complacency.
Only the awkward question; only the foolish ask twice.
Pain is an illusion of the senses, despair is an illusion of the mind.
Prayer cleanses the soul, but pain cleanses the body.
Sometimes the good must perish so that the rest survive.
The Known is but a shadow of the Knowable.
There is nothing to fear but failure.
We are Last Chancers. If in doubt, shoot it.
We ask only to serve.
What can a man know of the Universe that knows not his own mind.
What is your fate? My duty is my fate.
Thanks to Riss for sending me some images of units I did not have before.
40k, Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, Chaos, the Chaos device, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Cityfight, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Dawn of War, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, the Fire Warrior logo, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, GW, GWI, the GWI logo, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, the Khorne logo, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, the Nurgle logo, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, the Slaanesh logo, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyranid, Tzeentch, the Tzeentch logo, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either registered, registered trademarks and/or Copyright Games Workshop Ltd. 2000-2007, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.


Crazy car game with full speed and no brakes! In this awesome racing game you have to drive your favorite car down the highway at 12 o'clock at night. Drive down the street as you avoid cars in your lanes and oncoming lanes. Don't crash and last as long as you can.
You have to catch the other car as soon as possible and you have to do that without getting your car crashed. Vengeance Rider may be the first car game with an highway for a track.
There's nothing mini about this motor's moves! Burn some rubber and break some blocks on this sky-high circuit and keep away from the edge!
Select your super motorbike to race and challenge your opponents. Race your bike and win to complete the level. You need to win the race to qualify for the next round. You have three chance to win the race in each level.
Save the people in the city from the zombie menace. Crazy Taxi meets Day of the Dead - a zombie game with a twist. This is what I would call the purist's version of the game, I'm planning a sequel if this is reasonably successful which will have multiple city maps, multiple cars and some power ups.
Perform the deadly stunts on the mountains and don't crash your dirt bike. You have only 3 lives to complete each level.
Rash your bike on the street and Perform high speed jumps. Avoid pit holes and other obstacles on your way. Balance your bike without falling down to complete the level. All the best!
Tune your Ferrari as you want in the game Tuning Ferrari. You can change the roof, hood, lights, rims and spoilers, and you have many options to choose from. If you like a sports car, you will enjoy tuning this car.


Thrash your legs with this brutal progression workout.
On most days you head to the gym and 'do the right thing'. You take out your training log, follow the reps and sets, add a little more weight than last week and walk out the door feeling pretty darn good about yourself. Other days, you're not quite 'feeling it' and you spend less time bench pressing and more time chatting up the IFBB Bikini Pro in the squat rack. Hey, it happens.
Then there are some days you just walk into the gym feeling extra pumped and super focused. Sure you could bang out your regularly scheduled training program. Hell, the way you're feeling you could probably hit a couple of PR's. But, today, you're same-old training program just won't do. You want to tackle something tough. You want a challenge. You want to train so hard that you crawl out of the gym. You want to GET CRUSHED.
Lucky for you, we're here to help. Each week we'll give you a tough, one-off workout that you can try when you are looking for the ultimate training challenge of just feel like you need a break from your regular routine. But be warned, this training program will leave you totally CRUSHED.
Two reps of the barbell back squat. That doesn't sound so hard. Well, hold your horses, Tonto, because this progression is absolutely brutal. Start with 50% of your 1RM on the bar. At the top of the minute, perform two reps of the back squat. Rest the remainder of the minute (NOT 60 seconds, but whatever time is left after you performed the squat). Add 10 pounds to the bar and repeat. Keep adding 10 pounds and performing 2 reps every minute until you can no longer get the two reps. Obviously, this will crush your quads, glutes, core and the will to live. Don't have a spotter? You can do the same workout with a deadlift, weighted chin ups or overhead press.
2 reps every minute on the minute increasing weight by 10 pounds each set (as described above).
Leave your highest weight and number of sets in the comments section below. See you next week, when you're finally ready to get out of bed after this workout and train again.
Dan Trink is a personal trainer, strength coach and nutritional consultant based in New York City. To find out more about Dan visit www.trinkfitness.com.


Clipped Internal Wires shall consist of wires from the interior of the computer. May include ribbon wire & fine plastic insulated wires. May not include double insulated wires. Must be free of all connectors.


text:
Borthlas
Different contexts
Tweet In a comment on a previous post, one of my anonymous friends took issue with my suggestion that the SNP/Plaid/Green Party bloc ruling out a deal with the Tories had more to do with electoral considerations than with putting the needs of Wales first. His (or her, one can never be sure with an Anon) argument was that failing to rule out a deal with the Tories wasn't just about electoral tactics, because failing to secure the maximum possible number of SNP MPs would itself weaken the bargaining power of the SNP/ Plaid/ Green bloc.
I can see the validity of that point, but it does also highlight a difficulty with the bloc itself, which is that it is being driven largely by what happens in Scotland, where the situation is very different to the position in Wales or England.
Given the position in Scotland, ruling out a deal with the Tories may well be an electorally sound strategy. The SNP is now in a commanding position, with the Labour Party's support apparently in freefall, and the party's leaders looking increasingly panicky. Reassuring Labour voters that the journey from their past voting habits to voting SNP is a very short and easy one makes a great deal of sense in terms of delivering the coup de grace. And there is no longer a single constituency in Scotland where it is credible to argue that the SNP can't win.
But the same is not true for the Greens in England or for Plaid in Wales. Outside a handful of seats, it is not credible to argue that those parties are in with a serious chance of winning. Can anyone seriously see those two parties having more than around 6 seats between them come May? Whilst it makes sense to tie the post-election narrative for those two parties to the strength of the SNP, does it make sense to tie their electoral narrative into that of the SNP in the same way?
The potential effect of knowing in advance that those parties favour a Labour government – and that's what they've effectively said – could all too easily backfire. For those of their supporters who would prefer to see a Conservative Government than a Labour one (and there are more of those than many would care to admit) it could encourage them to vote for one rather than against one. And if people do prefer a Labour government, why not simply vote for one directly?
It's too easy for people to convince themselves that the Wales of today is like the Wales of yesterday, with large swathes of the country inhabited by voters harbouring a fierce and instinctive hatred of all things Tory. But that is a narrative whose primary effect is to help Labour maintain its hegemony. And it's becoming increasingly less true, however much some of us might wish that the old values still prevailed. It's a narrative from which Labour may continue to benefit in their heartlands in the short term, but it's not an assumption on which it's possible to build a longer term alternative.
Insofar as the SNP has managed to displace the Labour Party in Scotland, it's been by taking that party on directly, not by treating it as a largely benign influence which has temporarily lost its way. And in Wales this raises a question which goes to the heart of the debate which Plaid has managed to avoid for decades, despite Dr Phil having raised it many times – does Plaid see itself as a party which seeks to deliver directly, or does it see itself as a party which seeks to push another party – Labour – into doing the delivery? Words usually state the former, but actions usually imply the latter.
Posted by John Dixon at 06:46 0 comments
Labels: Coalition, Green Party, Labour, Plaid, SNP, Tory
Averaging the averages
Tweet The idea of 'city regions' as some sort of solution to Wales' economic woes has taken far too strong a hold amongst the political classes. It's not often that I hear doubts being expressed, so this article on the Bevan Foundation blog earlier this week was more than a little welcome. Not least, it's a counterpoint to the interview with the chair of the Cardiff City Region a few days ago, in which he said that Cardiff is the "priority for driving Wales forward".
It's hard for those of us who are sceptical about the city region concept, and the emphasis being placed on it, to argue the case without sounding like we're opposed to economic success in Cardiff. I'm certainly not opposed to that, but I do want to see economic success in the north, and down here in the west as well. The question is how we achieve that without competing and arguing with each other.
I've never been convinced by the argument that creating wealth in one place means that it somehow 'trickles down' to other places; if that were true, we wouldn't have seen such a huge concentration of wealth and income in one small corner of the UK. It often seems that policy in Wales is trying to ape that of the UK as a whole, and merely exchanges the south east of Wales for the south east of England.
But I've also wondered whether it's not at least in part a result of politicians failing to understand that increasing the average income per head in a country is not the same as increasing the income of the average person. Maths is not often their strongest point.
I have no doubt that increased economic success in Cardiff could lead to an increase in average GDP per head when looking at the figures for Wales as a whole. But the point is that it could all too easily do that without there being any change at all in the average GDP per head outside Cardiff. Improving things for a few only looks like an improvement for the many when people fall back on the use of unqualified averages.
Yet it is often those overall averages – or rather the misuse of them – which fuels much of what passes for debate about economic 'success'. Just think of the headlines comparing Welsh averages with English averages, with no serious consideration of whether the comparison is a valid one. And I fear that may be part of what is driving Welsh Government policy – a need to be seen to be improving the figure for average GDP per head, without worrying too much about how that is achieved or what it means for all the people of Wales.
It's the wrong starting point – and people who start out in the wrong place rarely end up in the right one.
Labels: Cardiff, City Region, Economic Development, GDP
Poor dabs
Tweet According to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, MPs simply can't live on an annual salary of £67,000, and need to top up their earnings with outside work. On my calculations, a salary of £67,000 would put someone in the 95th percentile for salaries in the UK – meaning that 94% of us have to live on a salary which is apparently inadequate to keep an MP. How on earth do the poor dabs in Parliament manage it?
The calls from some quarters for an increase in salary for MPs so that they don't need to seek additional income are somehow not surprising. The people making them live and move in the same rarefied circles where incomes at that level are the norm rather than the exception; but it's not the world in which most of their constituents live and work.
It's not as if MPs carry a great deal of responsibility as individuals. All most of them are really required to do is walk through the right door when their masters tell them to, so that they can be counted, just like sheep. Some of course perform useful services for their constituents, although more of that than most people realise is actually delegated to their staff. The job requires no formal qualifications or experience, and the process of appointment has at least an element of randomness about it.
I've argued before that the salary should be linked to a multiple of average earnings. After all, if they think they're running the country, why shouldn't their salaries be linked to what their constituents might see as success? A multiple of between 1.5 and 2 should be quite adequate – it would mean a significant salary cut, rather than an increase, but might bring some of them back into contact with the real world.
Alternatively, what about the Cuban approach of paying them the same salary as they were earning before getting elected? They'd all end up on different salaries, of course, but it would mean that higher earners needn't be reluctant to take on the job; at least they wouldn't lose. And such a proposal would also save us a great deal of money; whilst a few MPs earn less than they did before they were elected which would cost us more, there are many more who'd be on a lower salary than they are now.
The one thing that neither of these suggestions would do is attract those who are primarily motivated by the financial rewards. Those calling for a higher salary might see that as a disadvantage; but most of us would probably see it as a plus.
Labels: MPs, Salaries
Individual advantage; collective cost
Tweet Last week, it was reported that those customers of the energy companies who switch suppliers regularly can end up paying around £200 a year less than those who remain loyal to one supplier. The reaction was somewhat predictable, with calls for the non-switchers to joint the tide and switch. Some of yesterday's papers even included large adverts, paid for by the Government out of our money, telling us that they'd made it easier to switch and encouraging more of us to do so.
There are, of course, always likely to be some customers who don't switch, no matter how easy the companies and government make it. They will tend to be the elderly and the vulnerable. They are the ones who are most likely to lose out in a market place which pays a premium to those who are willing and able to spend the time and effort shopping around. The best that fanatical fans of 'the market' can hope for is that this number reduces; it is unlikely ever to reach zero.
But I'm not sure that it's really as simple as encouraging people to switch anyway; it looks to me like one of those situations which appears to make sense individually but is crackers collectively.
In setting their tariffs, and particularly the difference between their tariffs for current customers and their tariffs for new customers, the energy companies are always trying to strike a balance which maintains what they consider to be a reasonable level of profit. (Whether the profits are reasonable or not is another issue entirely, and not one for today.) Does anyone really believe that they are going to allow their overall profit to go down if 100% of customers switch annually, so that they're all on the 'new' customer tariff? Of course not; the effect ultimately would simply be to erode the difference between 'new' and 'existing' customers' tariffs, with the 'average' tariff close to where it is now in order to maintain current levels of overall profit. Having a lower tariff to attract new customers only pays off as long as only some customers switch; the greater the proportion who do switch, the lower the premium for doing so would become.
So, if we suppose for a moment that the government were to succeed in its efforts to get everyone to switch regularly, what would the result be? The answer is that we'd all be paying pretty similar tariffs (so the difference in price would be diminished, even if not entirely eliminated); the average tariffs would be similar to the current average, with smaller deviations from the norm; the energy companies would have a complete infrastructure dedicated to handling a 100% turnover of customers every year (something which is likely to increase their costs); and we as customers would have to spend time every year deciding to whom to switch next.
What exactly is the collective advantage of doing that compared to the simpler expedient of protecting those least able to shop around by outlawing the practice of giving a preferential deal to new customers?
Labels: Energy Costs, Free Market, Pricing
Friends Falling Out
Tweet This week's little spat between the Wales Green Party and Plaid Cymru looks, from the outside at least, to have been based on a not insignificant misunderstanding of the difference between an agreement to work together after the election and an electoral pact. And reading between the lines, it looks as though some in Plaid had assumed, with no obvious foundation in evidence, that Plaid's unilateral decision to urge people in England to vote Green would be followed by some sort of quid pro quo in Wales.
The desire in some quarters to see an electoral pact where there is none is driven by an over-simplistic analysis of the polling data. The fact that adding the numbers of votes for two parties together leads to a higher total is an undeniable arithmetical fact. Turning that arithmetical fact into an electoral result however is another matter entirely.
In the first place, it's a fallacy to assume that supporters of one party will vote for another party if their leaders tell them to do so. Electors' votes are not the plaything of parties to be traded or swapped. The extent to which the electors might feel inclined to follow the advice of their leaders will inevitably depend at least in part on the extent to which they feel that there is a real policy crossover between the two. And in this case, at this time, I'm really not sure that there is.
There is, it is true, agreement on opposition to austerity and opposition to Trident, but these are essentially negatives, not positives. Being united in opposition to something isn't the same as having an agreed policy to do something different, let alone an agreed programme for possible future coalition. This is not a UK version of Syriza or Podemos - it's much less ambitious than that. And there are some fairly fundamental differences as well.
Any nationalist is likely to be wary about giving his or her support to a party which seems to have as little regard for Welsh national aspirations, to say nothing of the Welsh language, as some in the Green Party. It's as though Green Party members and candidates are free to take whatever line they want on an issue which is core to many nationalists. And in the same way, any green voter is likely to be wary of voting for a party which has no coherent policy on one of the key environmental issues, namely energy policy. On an issue which is core to many green supporters, Plaid's members have shown that they are, in practice, free to busk; to say whatever they think will win them votes in a particular constituency. Given just those points, the probability is that vote transference between the parties would be a very long way short of the 100% being assumed by people with calculators.
Looking at harsh electoral reality, the number of seats in Wales where one or other of the two parties standing down might (and I stress might) make it easier for the other to win, even if all the other party's supporters dutifully did as told, is a sum total of one. Only one of the parties stands to gain; the apparent expectation that the other would tamely acquiesce looks wholly unrealistic. Under the current voting system, what's in it for the Wales Green Party?
I can remember a time when Plaid was in a not too dissimilar position to the Green Party today; fighting a whole host of hopeless seats with no chance of winning. And I'm sure that I can remember voices from the general direction of the Labour Party (albeit far from unanimous voices) questioning why the two parties were fighting each other. Plaid developed a national presence at least partly as a result of insisting on putting its own unique view before all the electors of Wales. Supporters of a pact between Plaid and the Greens are suggesting that both parties should, in effect, stop doing that. It only works if that which they are proposing is sufficiently similar.
All that said, I'm attracted by the idea that, if we want to break the mould of politics (whether in Wales or the UK), more co-operation between parties would be helpful. But to be meaningful it needs to start from a unity of purpose around an agreed policy platform which is positive rather then merely negative, not merely around a shared dislike of some elements of current government policy, let alone around grubby electoral calculations - which is where things are at present.
Labels: Anti-austerity, Coalition, Electoral Pacts, Green Party, Plaid
Not talking to the baby eaters
Tweet I probably don't need to say this, but there isn't a great deal of love lost between myself and the Conservative Party. I'm not, never have been, and am confident that I never will be, a Conservative (although one member of that party did once, many years ago, make a vain attempt to recruit me). There is little with which I agree with that party.
On the other hand, I feel much the same about the Labour Party. The chief difference between them is not what they will do once in government, it is what they will say in order to achieve that. Labour in opposition almost always (the Blair era being an honest if unattractive exception) sound more radical – until they get their hands on power.
I can understand why Plaid, the SNP, and the Green Party would want to work together in parliament wherever their policies overlap. A lot could change between now and May, but on the basis of current predictions, it makes a great deal of sense for Plaid and the Greens to try and take advantage of the probable success of the SNP to increase their leverage in the Commons.
Opposition to austerity is the obvious place to start, of course, even if, when set against the formal aims of the nationalist parties, it can end up looking like something of a lowest common denominator. Furthermore, given the commitment of Labour and Tory alike to essentially similar spending plans, any concessions are likely to be small in the grand scheme of things.
Whilst opposition to Trident is a core issue for all three parties, given the overwhelming pro-Trident majority which exists in the Commons now and which will continue to exist after May, I'm not at all convinced that making it a red line issue does more than encourage the largest party – whichever that turns out to be – to avoid coming to any arrangement of any sort.
I'm even less convinced about the commitment in advance to talk to only one party about any sort of deal, and to exclude axiomatically the Tory party from any consideration. Whilst I can understand the electoral driver for that position – the idea that the Tories are still toxic in some places – it seems to me to weaken the bargaining position post-election. After all, if they all know that there's only one game in town, they hardly have an incentive to put their best offers on the table.
(And, as an aside, I'm not convinced that the Tories are as toxic in Wales as is claimed, let alone as many of us would like to believe. That is, though, another subject entirely.
There also seems to be some confusion coming from Plaid as to what the narrative is in relation to Labour and the Tories. One day, the Tories are so evil that they can't even be talked to but it's possible to build a 'progressive alliance' with Labour, and the next day, Labour and the Tories are like peas in a pod, they're so similar. In the rational world, both positions can't be true at the same time.)
However, I digress. If the main aim of a party is to protect the position of Wales, and to advance the constitutional position in Wales, what would happen if the Tories were to offer more than Labour? It's hypothetical, of course, but given the splits within Labour over devolution to Wales, it's far from inconceivable that the Tories could offer a more coherent and far-reaching next-step settlement than would be forthcoming from Labour. But if they know in advance that whatever they say will be rejected, they're unlikely to bother. One doesn't need to be a Tory sympathiser to wonder whether it's just possible that Wales will be the loser as a result.
Labels: Austerity, Elections, Labour-Tory, Plaid, Trident
It's all our fault
Tweet This report from the ERS makes for interesting reading. In essence, it argues that the FPTP (First Past The Post) is no longer fit for purpose, and that the result of the forthcoming election is likely to be something of a lottery, with just a few percentage points change in the difference between parties making a relatively large difference to the outcome.
I can't disagree with the conclusion that FPTP is a sub-optimal way of choosing a government; after all, I've supported STV as an alternative for decades. The growth of a multi-party system makes the deficiencies more obvious, but the system was deficient a long time before that. It worked, up to a point, when most of the population voted for one or other of two main parties; and I suspect that the desire of so many people in those two parties to cling on to the system reflects a lack of engagement with political reality, to say nothing of a deep-seated desire to go back to the 'good old days' when they didn't have to deal with all those 'others'.
That belief is part of what drives both of them to say that voting for anyone else is a vote for what they still see as their only 'real' opponent. But when that's the best argument that either of them can come up with to vote for them, they're both in a very sorry state. It's a strategy which assumes, at root, that the voters are basically stupid, and the fact that it has worked for so long is no reason to assume that it will go on working indefinitely.
It's something of a misconception, though, that the current system was 'designed' to choose a government in an era of two party politics, and that it is the change in nature of the political contest which has shown up the failings of the system. The electoral system we are using wasn't really designed to elect a government at all; insofar as any thought was given to it, it was a means by which a constituency elected one or more MPs. It even pre-dates the modern concept of parties as organisations which exist outside of parliament, and goes back to the days of a very limited franchise, sometimes with only a handful of voters in the 'rotten boroughs'.
At the time it was adopted, I doubt that anyone gave the idea of alternative methods a moment's thought; and they would probably have considered the very notion that people could be voting for a government rather than just an individual member to be a very strange one. And in that context, as a means solely of choosing a representative for a particular geographical area, FPTP is a system which works, in that it identifies the most popular individual of those standing.
It's only in the more 'modern' era that we, rightly, expect the election of a government to be an expression of the overall opinion of the nation, rather than the aggregation of opinion of MPs from individual constituencies. It should be obvious to anyone that FPTP fails hopelessly to achieve that. The main reason that we're stuck with an outdated system is that MPs from the two main parties haven't yet reached the 'modern' era. They're still living in an age when people simply elected an MP, and it was for the MP to deal with the important stuff, such as choosing a government. From that perspective, the problem isn't with the system; it's with the voters who are failing to understand that their role is simply to choose between two options.
So – it's all our fault really. And actually, it really is – for tolerating this travesty and allowing them to get away with it for so long.
Labels: Elections, FPTP, MPs, Parliament, STV
Compulsion isn't the answer
Tweet Last week the subject of making voting compulsory raised its ugly head again. This time it was mooted by Labour MP Chris Ruane. I'm no fan of the idea, to put it mildly – and I'm not sure that the motivations of politicians who propose the idea are entirely honourable either.
The usual rationale is that voting is a duty which citizens should take seriously and that governments elected on a low turnout don't have the same legitimacy as those elected on a high turnout. But the reality of politics in the UK these days is that, when it comes to the election of a government, there is no real choice at all. For sure, we can choose who implements policies, but the policies will be broadly the same whoever forms the government.
For those who are broadly happy with Labour-Tory policies, why on earth should it become compulsory to choose who implements them - or even care? And for those who are not happy with any of the options on the table, why compel them to choose the least unpalatable in order to add legitimacy to a system they reject? It is – and this is as it should be – up to the politicians to give us something worth voting for.
But I don't think that the real motivation for compulsory voting has much to do with civic duty or legitimacy; it's much more about seeking a party advantage. For any party, ensuring that all those who might vote for it are identified and persuaded to go out and cast their votes is a major task – I've been involved in doing it often enough to understand that. The best organised parties, with the most highly motivated voters and activists have a competitive edge over the others. Compelling people to vote takes away that advantage, so it should come as no surprise that those parties with the least motivated supporters are most likely to find the idea attractive. (Did I mention that it was a Labour MP raising the matter?)
Those not involved directly often fondly assume that all that canvassing at election time is about persuading people to vote for A or B. It really isn't. Very little happens by way of persuasion; few people are swayed. It is, rather, about identifying those who have already decided to vote for party A, increasing their motivation to go out and do the deed, and drawing up a list of people who can be cajoled on election day. If voting were to be compulsory, there would probably be a lot less direct doorstep contact between politicians and electors. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing probably depends on one's perspective, of course.
But it isn't really the job of the criminal law to make it easier for parties to get their supporters out to vote; it's the job of the parties to make it feel worthwhile.
Labels: Elections, Political Parties, Voting Practices
There's more to fracking than safety
Tweet I feel a certain amount of ambivalence about the opposition to fracking being expressed by some politicians in Wales. Personally, I'm opposed to fracking. We really shouldn't be seeking new sources of fossil fuels at all; we should instead be seeking a renewables-based future. But in the absence of a clear plan to achieve that, our economy has become increasingly dependent on gas. Both the availability and the price of that gas have been impacted by fracking in America, and even if the gas we use isn't directly produced by fracking, it would not be so readily available on world markets were it not for fracking. It seems to me that a willingness to go on using gas whilst refusing to exploit domestic resources is a less than honest position to take. It's like saying that we're OK with the environmental damage as long as it's happening somewhere else.
The decision of the Assembly last week to call for a moratorium until the safety of the technique is proved has been hailed as some sort of success. I fear that they are celebrating too soon. Calling a temporary halt to something for a reason which can be overcome is not the same as stopping it completely.
I would have thought that AMs would have learnt something from the debacle of the M4 relief road. During the One Wales period, there were plenty of people calling for the plan to be scrapped entirely on environmental grounds. But caution prevailed, and it was, instead, shelved on narrow cost grounds. It was obvious – or should have been – at the time that the cost objection could be overcome, and that the scheme could and would then be resurrected. And it duly came to pass.
Back to fracking, and the comparison is simply this: if it can be shown that fracking can be undertaken at an acceptably low level of risk (and nothing is ever entirely risk-free), then the objection is removed and fracking is back on the agenda. Those opposing fracking may believe that the safety arguments are strong enough, but I'm not convinced. Certainly there have been problems in the US, and I wouldn't want to dismiss them out of hand, but as the technology matures and more experience is gained, I'm sure that those who stand to make their fortunes from fracking will be able to produce adequate evidence that it can, in most circumstances and locations, be undertaken safely.
So if we really want to stop fracking, we have to reject in principle the exploitation of further fossil fuel resources, rather than reject one technique on narrow grounds at a point in time. And we can only do that if we have a plan to stop using fossil fuels and move to a renewables-based future.
And that highlights another problem. Some of the politicians opposing fracking also oppose every plan which comes forward for renewable energy; others support new nuclear build. Their position seems to have nothing to do with putting forward a coherent renewable energy policy, and little really to do with the safety of a particular technique – it's all about jumping on populist bandwagons in their own electoral interests. We need rather more long term thinking than that.
Labels: Energy policy, Fracking, Renewables
Taxpayer funded bribery
Tweet Yesterday, the Chancellor announced that he was extending the availability of pensioner bonds until a date which is conveniently just after the UK General Election. I posted on this some weeks ago, drawing attention to the fact that this was, in effect, getting us as taxpayers to pay more to borrow money than was necessary, in order to give a pre-election bribe to the wealthiest pensioners.
It's not often that I find myself agreeing with a right wing think tank such as the Institute for Economic Affairs, but there's a first time for everything. Their comment that "Borrowing more expensively than the government needs to is effectively a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working-age population" sums up precisely the point which I made previously.
They go on to say "Pensioner bonds have never been anything other than a gimmick that will benefit pensioners at the expense of the taxpayer, and it beggars belief that the government is prolonging such a foolish policy." Whilst I agree with the first part of that as well, it only beggars belief if considered solely as an economic policy. It may be rubbish economics, but it's good politics from a Tory point of view. Offering a bribe to a particular section of the population to stay loyal to them – and getting the rest of us to pay for it – is clever to say the least.
Cleverer yet, they've managed to get the entire compliant UK media to follow their line that they're 'selling a good investment' rather than making a very poor borrowing decision, and put the other parties on the wrong foot – they're afraid to criticise it for fear of being seen to be attacking those pensioners likely to benefit from it. What is a bad news story for those of us paying for it is being presented as a good news story for the minority who benefit from it.
There's plenty of reason for the taxpayer to offer more help to struggling pensioners, but no reason at all to single out the most well-off for the receipt of our largesse. The Tories are committing blatant taxpayer-funded bribery, and it's going largely unchallenged.
Labels: Borrowing, Pensions, Taxation
Does Ed kow something that I don't?
Tweet Last week, Ed Miliband told us that "The question on the ballot paper … is who is going to be prime minister, is it going to be David Cameron or is it going to be Ed Miliband?". This came as news to me – has the UK's electoral system been changed without me noticing it? And what if I don't want to vote for either of them – am I to be disenfranchised?
It's just sloppy wording on his part, of course, albeit part of a continuing deliberate attempt by the Labour-Tory parties to shut down any form of electoral debate which doesn't focus on that simple question. It's also another nail in the coffin of parliamentary democracy; he's effectively confirming his view that MPs are only there to vote as they're told, either for or against the government of the day.
It's clumsy, but it also strikes me as being not entirely wise. In his position, and looking at the ratings given to the party leaders in opinion polls, I can't believe that asking people to make a direct personal choice between himself and Cameron is the very best strategy he could have come up with.
Labels: Ed Miliband, General Election, Labour
Leighton the Trojan
Tweet I quite like the proposal put forward yesterday by Leighton Andrews for a time limit on councillors in Wales, but I wonder whether he's thought through the implications, not least for his own party.
The plan isn't without its flaws and omissions of course; 25 years is a very long time, and there's no obvious logic in applying the rule to councillors but not to AMs and MPs. Above all, it doesn't really get to grips with the reasons why there are so many long-serving old men on our councils in Wales.
In the bad old days when I was a member of the old Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council, most councils met in the evenings, and councillors were simply paid around £14 a time for turning up at meetings. For a committed individual it was, just about, possible to combine being an effective councillor with holding a full time job. But most councils now meet during the day time, and councillors are paid a basic salary of a little over £13,000 a year, which changes the picture in several ways. It makes it harder for people who work full time to commit to doing the job properly, whilst on the other hand, the salary is too low for many people to give up the day job. Small wonder that the job ends up looking particularly attractive to retired people.
I've expended time and effort over the years trying to twist arms of people to stand in local elections, and like anyone else who's ever tried that, I'm aware that it isn't an easy task. Whilst it's certainly true (as seems to be the premise behind the new proposal) that there are some old-stagers who are determined to carry on to the end and are thus keeping out other people, it's equally true that some are still there because they and their party have failed to find a successor candidate.
And that brings me back to the impact on the Labour Party. In parts of South Wales, as anyone who's ever campaigned there will know, the only thing that keeps the Labour Party alive and kicking is the elderly councillors who exist in a state of mutual dependency with the party. They are the people who come out and knock doors and deliver leaflets, in parliamentary and Assembly elections as well as council elections. Take them away, and what's left?
Could Leighton Andrews be working to a secret agenda to destroy his own party's hegemony from within?
Labels: Elections, Labour party, Local Government
Boris is right, sadly
Tweet London's mayor has inflamed some with his claim that the directors of Boots have a duty to their shareholders to pay as little tax as possible. But actually, he's absolutely correct in what he says. Company directors do indeed have a duty, placed on them by company law, to act at all times in the best interests of their shareholders, and maximising profits whilst minimising taxes is entirely consistent with that.
It is, though, the wrong question to be asking. The right question is whether things should be that way, and why the law of the land puts the interests of shareholders above those of the rest of us. There's nothing immutable about company law, and no fundamental reason why it cannot be changed to rebalance the responsibilities of directors.
Boris isn't the right person to be raising such a question of course. I wouldn't expect him to, and he's unlikely to surprise me by doing so. But there are others who could and should be asking the question, and thinking about how the law can be changed. In that context, the spectacle of Miliband wringing his hands and limply telling the bosses of Boots that they should pay more tax is more than a little weak and pathetic. And it tells us that he's more concerned about getting a headline or two than he is about changing anything.
Labels: Boris, Capitalism, Company Law, Miliband, Taxes
John Dixon
Nation.Cymru
WRU officials warned they are 'in the last chance saloon' at Senedd hearing - The two most senior figures in the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) have been told they are "in the last chance saloon" when giving evidence to Senedd Members thi...
Peter Black
Lib Dems secure significant victory in fight to clean up our waterways - The Guardian reports that taxpayer money may no longer be invested in water companies that fail to produce adequate plans to stop sewage discharges, after ...
Cargo cult economics - In the first pages of After Virtue Alasdair MacIntyre imagines people trying to revive science after it has been destroyed by catastrophes and know-nothing...
Jac o' the North
Weep for Wales 20 - Well, here we are again, with the latest instalment in this saga, and the first since Weep for Wales 19 in November 2021. As that title tells you, there ...
Blog Glyn Adda
Dweud yn iawn - Cwestiwn y clywid ei ofyn weithiau i blentyn – ac efallai ei fod yn cael ei ofyn o hyd: 'Sut rwyt ti'n mynd i ddeud wrth hwn-a-hwn (neu hon-a-hon) …?' Yn d...
Gwynoro Jones
- *The Forgotten Decade: Political Upheaval and Industrial Strife in 1980's Wales.* Gwynoro Jones. Alun Gibbard. *The 1980s - a decade of considerabl...
National Left
Not bloggiing because of injury - I will unfortunately not be blogging g for a wji!e as I have broken a collarbone.Aauzd
Pedryn Drycin
Cadw'n ffit a bocsio'n glyfar - Mae'r awydd am annibyniaeth ar fin berwi yn rhengoedd y mudiad cenedlaethol ar hyn o bryd os yw'r cyfryngau cymdeithasol i'w credu. Mae Trydar ar dân gyd...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Awesome background presenting 5 people silhouettes jumping at the sunset. We have designed super attractive web backgrounds that could be successfully applied to various of projects as website templates, business cards, flyers, posters, collages, presentations, book covers and any other web and print related projects. That's a friendly, welcoming, summer inspired background that will surely improve the look and feel of your creative projects. We have skillfully created 7 different color variations to make it easy for you when you need more color styles. So, don't hesitate anymore and proceed to the download section. Grab our happy people background set now absolutely for free!


text:
Home » Web Browsers » IE » IE Vulnerabilities Actively Exploited One Week Every Month
IE Vulnerabilities Actively Exploited One Week Every Month
Vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer have been found to be actively exploited for about 1 week out of every month, on average. The study from security journalist Brian Krebs focuses on zero day (unpatched) vulnerabilities – "IE users were exposed to active attacks against unpatched, critical vulnerabilities for months at a time over the past year and a half".
Logically, a zero day flaw is of most danger to users if it is being actively exploited in the wild e.g. by a malicious website to infect the user. Flaws which, although known and unfixed, are not being actively exploited simply do not present the same risk to the user (although they still need to be fixed quickly to prevent future exploitation).
IE Zero Day Flaws Actively Exploited – Brian concludes that, in the past 18 months, zero day flaws in IE were actively exploited for 152 days – about 5 months, based on Microsoft's figures. On average then, users of IE were left at risk of zero day flaws (which were known to be actively exploited) for one week in every month. The study compared the corresponding 18 month period for Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox:
Chrome – No disclosed vulnerabilities reported to be actively exploited. "A Google spokesperson said that the company has never observed a Chrome zero-day in the wild against any of its stable versions since it first released Chrome".
Firefox – No disclosed vulnerabilities reported to be actively exploited. "A Mozilla spokesperson said the last true zero-day that was used by attackers to install malware via a vulnerability in Firefox came in October 2010"
Why Is IE So Susceptible To Active Exploits? How can it be that IE users were left exposed to active attacks for 152 days in the last year and a half whereas Firefox and Chrome users were not exposed for a single day?
The answer must be the relative speed that updates are issued and applied for each browser. Google and Mozilla can fix the vulnerability before it can be exploited in the wild because they are able to update their browsers so quickly – using automatic updates.
1. IE security updates may suffer much longer delays because they have to be developed and tested on 5 different 'live' versions of the browser – IE6 through to IE10. However, Google only has to produce security updates for the current stable version of Chrome and Mozilla abandoned Firefox 3.6 support, leaving it free to produce security updates for the current stable version only.
With both Chrome and Firefox, if you use an old version you do not receive security updates – upgrades to the latest version are automatic and available for all versions of Windows from XP onwards (unlike IE9 which is not available to XP users).
2. IE security updates during the 18 months covered in the study were rolled out as part of the normal monthly automatic update cycle for Windows, not as emergency fixes. It should therefore be no surprise that those delays of up to 1 month (or more) left ample opportunity for flaws to be actively exploited in the wild – before they were fixed.
When faced by such a zero day vulnerability, Chrome and Firefox release an emergency update of the browser – a new version rolled out automatically to all users to protect them, even if they weren't aware of the problem.
However, the infamous IE fix on September 21 was the first emergency update of an IE zero day flaw since January 2010. A quote from the director of security operations at nCircle Security which praises Microsoft's reaction time is amusing: "Let's call it five days from advisory to patch, I'd like to see anybody pull that off."
Instead of admiring Microsoft's 'quick' 5 day reaction (the first time in almost 2 years they reacted so fast) perhaps he should consider Mozilla's reaction to a serious privacy vulnerability found October 10th in the new Firefox 16. There is no evidence that it was exploited in the wild but Mozilla still managed to release a fixed 16.0.1 version for users on October 11 – just a day later…
Zero day flaws in web browsers are most serious risks for users if they are being actively exploited. Whereas Firefox and Chrome users have not been at risk from active zero day exploits over the last 18 months, IE users have been at risk for about 1 week in every month.
There is still almost a full month before we can expect Microsoft's next set of security updates. Do IE users feel lucky this week?
IE Vulnerabilities Actively Exploited One Week Every Month was last modified: March 9th, 2015 by Roy
Adobe Flash Player 11.5 Released - Critical…
34% Of Firefox Users At Risk From Outdated Browser
New Java Security Flaw Exploited By Malware –…
How To Speed Up The Windows Right Click Context Menu
How To Quickly Eject USB Drives etc In Windows
5 Websites to download Free Online User Manuals in PDF
Android App To Help You Improve WiFi Speed
Should You Use Compatible Ink Cartridges or Genuine Ink?
How To Reload All Tabs In Chrome, Firefox Or IE
How To Disable Print Preview In Google Chrome
Free Bejeweled Classic game on Chrome, Android and iOS
Benefits Of Partitioning A Hard Drive
How to Ping Google.com to test your Internet connection
7 Steps To Fix Flash Player Not Working in Chrome
Using Powerline Adapters to Extend Internet Around the House
TechLogon.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no extra cost to you. See the Disclosure page for details.
© 2011 - 2019 TechLogon.com © All Rights Reserved.


text:
Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office welcomes Government visa grants
National Director of the Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office, Father Maurizio Pettenà CS, welcomed news the Australian Government has given visas to the first of the 12,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees to be resettled in Australia.
On Tuesday, at the Australian Embassy in Amman, Jordan, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton personally gave out the first refugee visas to four families. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports, two of the families fled the war in Syria, and the other two are Christian families who fled Iraq.
Fr Pettenà also welcomed the news that depending on the success of the resettlement of the 12,000 refugees from Syria and Iraq, Australia will look at expanding the refugee intakes. Mr Dutton said, "…we do think it's a reasonable thing to look at the prospect of offering more places beyond the 12,000, over coming years".
In September, the Australian government announced that, in response to the Syrian conflict, it would add 12,000 places for Syrians and Iraqis to the 13,750 it takes through the United Nation's resettlement program. A total of 25,750 vulnerable refugees will be offered a new life.
Australia has a good record in the successful resettlement and integration of people in local communities, so we have the benefit of working from experience. Given that the group to be resettled includes members of the broader Catholic Church, it is clear that there is a particular role that our parishes, Church agencies and dioceses can play in successfully welcoming people into their community.
Since September, the ACMRO and CSSA (Catholic Social Services Australia) have been liaising with Dioceses and Religious Congregations to identify the support that is likely to be required at the local level. Some assistance that communities may consider includes:
Identifying housing that may be made available to accommodate people on a permanent basis.
Identifying opportunities to provide employment and work experience;
Donations of goods that are targeted to the needs of people resettling in Australia;
Identifying their religious traditions and helping to connect with the appropriate faith leaders and faith communities;
Encouraging people to register as volunteers to provide English conversation, orient people to local community services;
Hosting parish dinners, play groups and BBQs to welcome people into the local community.
For more information please visit acmro.catholic.org.au
ACBC Media Release _ 4th November 2015
Catholic_Migrant_and_Refugee_Office_welcomes_grants.pdf (329 KB)


Written by Matt Kidd on 30 October 2017 .
We take a look at the heritage and history of one of the UK's leading cartridge manufacturers.
1) The first record in history of the Eley brand as a cartridge manufacturer dates back to 1828. Brothers William and Charles Eley founded the company and they were based at a factory in Old Bond Street where they worked together to develop new cartridge patents.
2) The first cartridge to be produced by the company was the Jenour wire cartridge, after the brothers purchased the patent in 1828. The cartridge incorporated a wire cage designed to help hold the shot together during the first stages of its flight, but the demand for this was a lot lower than anticipated.
3) Whilst developing and testing new designs for a percussion cap, founding brother William Eley tragically blew himself up at the age of just 47. His sons William, Charles and Henry later took over the running of the business.
4) Eley has been hugely influential in the world of cartridge manufacturing. For example, they were the first company to produce cartridges specifically for trap shooting, the first to develop and produce plastic cartridge casings, and they also designed a fibre wad that cleaned the barrels when fired.
5) In 1905, Eley introduced machines to automate many of the cartridge-making processes. These machines would still be manually operated until the 1960s, but allowed an impressive 1,500 cartridges to be completed per hour. The downside to this was that there was a high spoilage rate.
6) In 1931 a severe outbreak of the disease Stronglylosis in grey partridges led Major H. G. Eley (Eley was part of the ICI group at the time) to start research on the causes of disease and fluctuations in partridge numbers. After the Second World War they founded the Eley Game Advisory Service, which later evolved into its own organisation, The Game Conservancy Trust. The latter of which is now called the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and continues to record bag counts and other data vital to gamebird management and survival.
7) Today, Eley produces approximately 100 million cartridges per year, and it is estimated that since inception the total figure would sit over the one-billion mark.
8) To meet demand and adapt to the needs of modern guns, the company estimates that almost 80 different cartridge types have been designed since inception, with sub brands bringing the total to over 120.
9) To ensure that every cartridge is produced to the optimum standard, every 30–40 minutes a batch of 50 cartridges are taken from the production line to test thoroughly. Speeds, ignition rates on primers, pressures etc. are checked and meticulously recorded.
10) The best-selling clay cartridges are the Selects, due to the reengineered cases and wads which have allowed for less recoil and cleaner burning. And for game shooting, the Eley Zenith – with copper-coated lead shot in 12 and 20 bore – is making strides and selling rapidly.


A British court on Wednesday sentenced two restaurant bosses to prison after they were convicted of causing the death of a 15-year-old girl who suffered an extreme allergic reaction to traces of nuts in a takeaway meal.
Manchester Crown Court convicted restaurant owner Mohammed Kuddus, 40, and takeaway manager Harun Rashid, 38, of "gross negligence manslaughter'' in the death of Megan Lee.
The court acknowledged that Megan suffered a fatal asthma attack caused by the allergic reaction in December 2016.
It, therefore, sentenced Kuddus to two years and Rashid to three years in prison.
"Their manifest failures and complete disregard for the safety of customers was astonishing.
"No appropriate systems or conditions were in place to protect Megan or any customer with a known allergy,'' Tonge said.
Another restaurant owner was sentenced to six years in prison in 2016 after the death of a 38-year-old man in a similar case in North-Eastern England.


The 'tkz-tab' package is built on top of PGF and its associated front-end, TikZ and is a (La)TeX-friendly drawing package. The aim is to provide some useful macros to build tables showing variations of functions as they are used in France. These macros may be used by only LaTeX TeX users. The documentation is in French. Features -- works with utf8 and pdflatex -- provides 'help' option, -- allows to draw tables of variations with a "forbidden zone", -- allows to use TikZ.


text:
2021 Year in Review: E-Cigarettes, Hookah Use, and Vaping Lung Injuries During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Respir Care. 2022 Jun;67(6):709-714. doi: 10.4187/respcare.09919.
Rachel E Culbreth 1 , Kyle J Brandenberger 2 , Corinne M Battey-Muse 2 , Douglas S Gardenhire 2
1 Department of Respiratory Therapy, Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. rculbreth@gsu.edu.
2 Department of Respiratory Therapy, Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.09919
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and hookah smoking have gained tremendous popularity over the past decade. With the constantly evolving e-cigarette market and potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on users of these tobacco products, research is needed to assess the prevalence and safety of these devices as well as potential public health implications and cessation tools. For this year in review, PubMed was searched from January 2021-December 14, 2021, for articles related to e-cigarettes, vaping-related lung injury, and hookah smoking. Relevant articles addressing the objectives were included in this review. This review focused primarily on articles based on United States populations. Gray literature and nonpublished articles were not included in this review. The 2020 pandemic resulted in a decline in e-cigarette usage among youth (potentially due to the COVID-19 pandemic); however, recent research in 2021 suggests that e-cigarette usage is increasing again among youth. Conflicting evidence exists for e-cigarettes and the risk of COVID-19 infection, but biological plausibility suggests that e-cigarette users are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection and more severe COVID-19 infection compared to non-e-cigarette users. Hookah smoking has remained stable across the past several years and remains a primarily social activity among youth. New e-cigarette devices are constantly emerging, resulting in an increased demand to understand the safety of these devices. Additionally, hookah smoking continues to be a concerning public health issue with the increase in hookah bars and venues coupled with lack of policy regulations for hookah smoking.
Copyright © 2022 by Daedalus Enterprises.
COVID-19* / epidemiology
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems*
Lung Injury* / epidemiology
Lung Injury* / etiology
Smoking Water Pipes*
Vaping* / adverse effects
Vaping* / epidemiology


trying to complete the ESB characters on ROTJ Kenner or Palitoy offerless if poss. Trying to keep sub £100, but I appreciate many will be over that!
Also looking for any cardback/carded figures with a Chadds of Hereford price sticker on.
Last edited by roundster on Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:10 pm, edited 11 times in total.
Have you got a picture of what the price sticker looks like ?
Pretty sure someone posted a resealed Luke Bespin which had the price ticket on. Will try and find it!
From memory it had a handwriting style Chadds on it.
Thats the place Jason, closed down years ago, although the toy dept went downhill years before that!
Have a number of open bubble (ie bubble still attached) versions across Kenner SW, Kenner ESB, Palitoy SW & Palitoy ESB, but will need to check my other cardbacks (no bubble attached) for any more examples.
Jason will remember the open bubble Palitoy 12bk Han cards I had with me @ a SWF London meet up earlier this year (May 16) and one of those was a Chadds card.
Thats awesome, Can you pop a pick up if you find any!
The Palitoy 30bk ESB cards (the Yoda on Jason's guide was mine too, I sold it to Ryan (Blue Dog) before I believe it was returned to the UK as a fantastic reseal).
Last edited by scottie_boy on Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.


text:
1818 (MDCCCXVIII) byl rok, který dle gregoriánského kalendáře započal čtvrtkem.

Události

 12. února – Chile vyhlásilo nezávislost na Španělsku.
 4. dubna – Kongres USA přijal zásadu, že počet pruhů na státní vlajce bude třináct a zvyšovat se bude pouze počet hvězd.
 29. dubna – Na ostrově Jan Mayen proběhla erupce sopky Beerenberg, nejsevernějšího aktivního vulkánu světa.
 11. května – Karel XIV. nastoupil na švédský trůn.
 29. září – 21. listopadu – Panovníci a ministři Francie, Pruska, Rakouska, Ruska a Spojeného království rozhodli na kongresu v Cáchách o stažení okupačních vojsk z Francie.
 6. listopadu – Mariánské Lázně získaly status lázeňského města.
 3. prosince – Illinois se stal 21. státem USA.
 24. prosince – V Oberndorfu u Salcburku poprvé zazněla koleda Tichá noc.

Probíhající události
 1810–1821 – Mexická válka za nezávislost
 1817–1864 – Kavkazská válka

Vědy a umění
 Francouzský chemik M. E. Chevreul izoloval a pojmenoval mastnou kyselinu olejovou a stearovou.
 V Praze bylo založeno Vlastenské muzeum v Čechách, pozdější Národní muzeum.
 Byly vydány knihy Frankenstein (Mary Shelleyová), Anna Elliotová (Jane Austenová), Opatství Northanger (Jane Austenová) a báseň Endymion (John Keats)

Narození

Česko

 13. ledna – František Kavan, skladatel a sbormistr († 6. prosince 1896)
 28. ledna – Karel Drahotín Villani, šlechtic, politik, vlastenec a básník († 24. března 1883)
 leden – Josef Macháček, vlastenecký statkář, cukrovarník a politik († 23. března 1870)
 17. února – Jan Nepomuk Maýr, operní zpěvák a skladatel († 25. října 1888)
 5. března – Václav Bělský, právník, politik, pražský purkmistr († 22. května 1878)
 7. března – Otto Bischoff, podnikatel a politik německé národnosti († 6. června 1871)
 15. března – Leopold Hasner von Artha, rakouský politik († 5. června 1891)
 23. března – Peter Steffens, podnikatel a politik německé národnosti († září 1879)
 7. dubna – Antonín Skřivan, pedagog a odborník v oboru obchodu a účetnictví († 9. května 1887)
 31. května – Václav Vladivoj Tomek, historik, archivář, politik a pedagog († 12. června 1905)
 9. června – Jan Adolf Brandeis, portrétní malíř a fotograf († 13. listopadu 1872)
 24. července – Josef Dittrich, lékárník a politik († 3. července 1898)
 18. srpna – Václav Bolemír Nebeský, básník († 17. srpna 1882)
 6. září – Karel Průcha, světící biskup arcidiecéze pražské († 23. října 1883)
 11. září – Gustav Belrupt-Tissac, olomoucký biskup († 9. června 1895)
 16. září – Karl von Limbeck, právník a politik německé národnosti († 22. září 1901)
 11. října – Josef Pečírka, lékař, pedagog a spisovatel († 27. června 1870)
 16. října – Alexander Dreyschock, klavírista a hudební skladatel († 1. dubna 1869)
 18. září – Franz Moritz Roser, rakouský český lékař a politik († 11. srpna 1906)
 6. listopadu – Josef Florian Vogl, český a rakouský geolog a politik († 1. října 1896)
 23. listopadu – Johann Eichler, opavský kněz († 30. května 1899)
 10. prosince – František Ladislav Rieger, politik († 3. března 1903)
 11. prosince – Emanuel von Proskowetz starší, rakouský průmyslník a politik († 25. prosince 1909)
 ? – František Neubauer, poslanec Českého zemského sněmu a Říšské rady, starosta Vlašimi († 24. listopadu 1883)

Svět

 9. ledna – Antoine Samuel Adam-Salomon, francouzský sochař a fotograf († 29. dubna 1881)
 30. ledna
 Artúr Görgey, uherský vojevůdce a politik († 21. května 1916)
 Franz Albert Eder, arcibiskup salcburský a politik († 10. dubna 1890)
 10. února – Karol Beyer, polský fotograf a numismatik († 8. listopadu 1877)
 únor – Frederick Douglass, americký sociální reformátor, spisovatel a politik († 20. února 1895)
 13. února
 Angelica Van Burenová, snacha 8. prezidenta USA Martina Van Burena, první dáma († 29. prosince 1877)
 Anton Melbye, dánský malíř a fotograf († 10. ledna 1875)
27. února – Charles Gordon-Lennox, 6. vévoda z Richmondu, britský státník a šlechtic († 27. září 1903)
 11. března
 Marius Petipa, francouzský tanečník a choreograf († 14. července 1910)
 Antonio Bazzini, italský houslista a skladatel († 10. února 1897)
 19. března – Petar Preradović, chorvatský básník, panslavista a překladatel († 18. srpna 1872)
 30. března – Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen, propagátor rolnických úvěrových družstev v Bavorsku († 11. března 1888)
 4. dubna – Thomas Mayne-Reid, americký spisovatel († 22. října 1883)
 6. dubna – Aasmund Olavsson Vinje, norský básník a novinář († 30. července 1870)
 20. dubna – Heinrich Göbel, hodinář a vynálezce († 4. prosince 1893)
 29. dubna – Alexandr II. Nikolajevič, ruský car († 13. března 1881)
 8. dubna – Kristián IX.. dánský král († 29. ledna 1906)
 5. května – Karl Marx, německý filosof a ekonom († 14. března 1883)
 8. května – Max Buchon, francouzský spisovatel a básník († 14. prosince 1869)
 13. května – Eduard von Engerth, rakouský malíř († 28. července 1897)
 25. května – Jacob Burckhardt, švýcarský historik († 8. srpna 1897)
 17. června – Žofie Württemberská, nizozemská královna († 3. června 1877)
 18. června – Charles Gounod, francouzský skladatel († 18. října 1893)
 21. června – Richard Wallace, anglický sběratel umění a mecenáš († 20. července 1890)
 29. června – Angelo Secchi, jezuitský kněz a astronom († 26. února 1878)
 1. července – Ignác Filip Semmelweis, maďarský lékař, zachránce matek († 13. srpna 1865)
 6. července – Adolf Anderssen, německý šachový mistr († 13. března 1879)
 7. července – Catherine Hubbacková, britská spisovatelka († 25. února 1877)
 29. července – Karel Ferdinand Rakousko-Těšínský, rakouský arcivévoda († 20. listopadu 1874)
 30. července – Emily Brontëová, britská spisovatelka († 19. prosince 1848)
10. srpna – Eva Josefina Julie Potocká, polská šlechtična a kněžna z Lichtenštejna († 21. května 1895)
 18. srpna – Henri Le Secq, francouzský malíř a fotograf († 26. prosince 1882)
 25. srpna – Thomas Francis Wade, britský diplomat a sinolog († 31. července 1895)
 12. září – Richard Gatling, americký vynálezce († 26. února 1903)
 13. září – Gustave Aimard, francouzský spisovatel († 20. června 1883)
 26. září – Alexander Julius Schindler, rakouský spisovatel a politik († 16. března 1885)
 27. září – Hermann Kolbe, německý chemik († 25. listopadu 1884)
 17. října – Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa, německý diplomat a šachový mistr († 27. července 1899)
 22. října – Leconte de Lisle, francouzský básník († 17. července 1894)
 31. října – Franz Karl von Becke, rakouský ministr financí a obchodu († 15. ledna 1870)
 7. listopadu – Emil du Bois-Reymond, německý lékař a fyziolog († 26. prosince 1896)
 9. listopadu – Ivan Sergejevič Turgeněv, ruský spisovatel († 3. září 1883)
 16. listopadu – Konstantin Kavelin, ruský filozof a historik († 15. května 1885)
 21. listopadu – Lewis Henry Morgan, americký etnograf, antropolog a archeolog († 17. prosinec 1881)
 23. listopadu – József Szlávy, ministr financí Rakouska-Uherska († 9. srpna 1900)
 3. prosince – Max von Pettenkofer, německý lékař – hygienik († 10. února 1901)
 13. prosince
Mary Toddová Lincolnová, manželka 16. prezidenta USA Abrahama Lincolna († 16. července 1882)
John Manners, 7. vévoda z Rutlandu, britský státník a šlechtic († 4. srpna 1906)
 24. prosince – James Prescott Joule, anglický fyzik a badatel († 11. října 1889)

Úmrtí

Česko

 31. ledna – Jan Jiří Grasel, jihomoravský a rakouský bandita a loupežník (* 4. dubna 1790)
 15. března – Karel Postl, malíř a grafik (* 9. listopadu 1769)
 28. dubna – Karel Jan Rudzinsky, architekt, průzkumník Moravského krasu (* 2. června 1751)
 7. května – Leopold Koželuh, hudební skladatel a pedagog (* 26. června 1747)
 16. listopadu – Karel August Pácalt, misionář v jižní Africe (* 7. října 1773)
 ? – Jan Bohumír Práč, sběratel lidových písní a skladatel (* 1750)

Svět
 1. ledna – Fedele Fenaroli, italský hudební skladatel a pedagog (* 25. dubna 1730)
 5. ledna – Marcello Bacciarelli, italský malíř působící v Polsku (* 16. února 1731)
 11. ledna – Johann David Wyss, švýcarský protestantský kněz a spisovatel (* 28. května 1743)
 15. ledna – Matvej Ivanovič Platov, ruský generál, ataman donských kozáků (* 17. srpna 1751)
 5. února – Karel XIII., švédský král (* 7. října 1748)
25. února – George Cranfield Berkeley, britský admirál a politik (* 10. srpna 1753)
 20. března – Johann Nikolaus Forkel, německý varhaník a hudební vědec (* 22. února 1749)
 24. března – Humphry Repton, anglický zahradní architekt (* 21. dubna 1752)
 14. května – Matthew Gregory Lewis, anglický spisovatel a dramatik (* 9. července 1775)
 26. května – Michail Bogdanovič Barclay de Tolly, ruský generál (* 27. prosince 1761)
 6. června – Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, polský generál, národní hrdina (* 2. srpna 1755)
 20. června – Hedvika Šlesvicko-Holštýnsko-Gottorpská, švédská královna (* 22. března 1759)
 28. července – Gaspard Monge, francouzský přírodovědec, matematik a revoluční politik (* 9. května 1746)
 19. září – Olof Peter Swartz, švédský botanik (* 21. září 1760)
 13. srpna – Agostino Accorimboni, italský hudební skladatel (* 28. srpna 1739)
 22. října – Joachim Heinrich Campe, německý jazykovědec a lexikograf (* 29. června 1746)
 28. října
 Henri Jacques Guillaume Clarke, francouzský generál a státník (* 17. října 1765)
 Abigail Adamsová, manželka amerického prezidenta Johna Adamse (* 11. listopadu 1744)
 8. listopadu – Ivan Petrovič Kulibin, ruský hodinář, mechanik, projektant a vynálezce (* 21. dubna 1735)
 17. listopadu – Šarlota Meklenbursko-Střelická, manželka britského krále Jiřího III. (* 19. května 1744)
 18. listopadu – Josef Wallis, rakouský státník a úředník (* 31. srpna 1767)
 8. prosince
 Karel Ludvík Fridrich Bádenský, bádenský velkovévoda (* 8. června 1786)
 Johan Gottlieb Gahn, švédský chemik (* 19. srpna 1745)
 25. prosince – Catherine-Dominique de Pérignon, francouzský generál, císařský maršál (* 31. května 1754)
 26. prosince – Marie Isabela Portugalská, španělská královna, manželka Ferdinanda VII. (* 19. května 1797)

Hlava státu

 Francie – Ludvík XVIII. (1815–1824)
 Království obojí Sicílie – Ferdinand I. (1816–1825)
 Osmanská říše – Mahmut II. (1808–1839)
 Prusko – Fridrich Vilém III. (1797–1840)
 Rakouské císařství – František I. (1792–1835)
 Rusko – Alexandr I. (1801–1825)
 Spojené království – Jiří III. (1760–1820)
 Španělsko – Ferdinand VII. (1813–1833)
 Švédsko – Karel XIII. (1809–1818) do 5. února / Karel XIV. (1818–1844) od 5. února
 USA – James Monroe (1817–1825)
 Papež – Pius VII. (1800–1823)
 Japonsko – Ninkó (1817–1846)
 Lombardsko-benátské království – Antonín Viktor Habsbursko-Lotrinský, poté Rainer Josef Habsbursko-Lotrinský

Externí odkazy

Digitalizované noviny a časopisy z roku 1818:
 Císařské královské vlastenské noviny (založil Václav Matěj Kramerius) —

19. století

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Antique 1920s Ideal by Houbigant Parfum Miniature Mini Perfume Crystal Baccarat Bottle VINTAGE Extrait.
The cute little bottle stands just over 2.25" tall x 1" wide x 1/2" thick. There is only a small amount of perfume residue inside. The stopper is frozen in place and I will not force its removal. The small stopper is gilded.
This is a tiny flacon that was used for various Houbigant perfumes, it was produced by Baccarat and was used as a purse bottle because of its small size which made it the perfect size for keeping in the handbag.
The bottle is unmarked. Early examples of Baccarat bottles were not always marked. Bottles were engraved with a mark only from 1936 onward. Prior to this, some were stamped, others had a small circular paper label, and many have no distinguishing mark at all. Many bottles are usually signed with an acid etched mark. After 1936, all bottles were stamped with a logo.
Launched in 1896. Ideal was the first floral composite bouquet perfume, containing synthetic compounds of coumarin and salicylates. It's originality made it a great success for many years. It was considered a chic and vibrant perfume with notes of rose and ylang ylang.