text:
Die Schlacht von Beerscheba () wurde am 31. Oktober 1917 zwischen dem Vereinigten Königreich und dem Osmanischen Reich ausgetragen.

Am Morgen des 31. Oktober begannen die Briten an der Palästinafront eine Großoffensive mit einem überraschenden Angriff auf Beerscheba. Das XX. Corps und das Desert Mounted Corps errangen einen taktischen Sieg und zwangen die osmanische Garnison in Beerscheba zum Rückzug. Die Sprengung der Brunnen durch die Osmanen scheiterte.

Vorgeschichte

Nach zwei erfolglosen Schlachten um den schwer befestigten osmanischen Grenzort Gaza im März und April 1917 mit hohen britischen Verlusten reorganisierten die Briten ihre Kommandostruktur an der Palästinafront und tauschten mehrere Befehlshaber aus. Da die Osmanische Armee nicht zu einer Gegenoffensive in diesem Gebiet in der Lage war, entwickelte sich eine Phase relativer Ruhe an dieser Front, die die Briten nutzten, um Wasserleitungen und Bahnlinien für die geplante Invasion Palästinas durch die Sinai-Halbinsel vorzutreiben.

Das landeinwärts gelegene Beerscheba bildete den südöstlichen Eckpfeiler der osmanischen Front und war mit einer Garnison von ca. 5000 Mann belegt. Es wurde von den Osmanen festungsartig ausgebaut und mit einer halbkreisförmigen Linie von befestigten Posten, Schützengräben und Stacheldrahthindernissen umgeben. Die Egyptian Expeditionary Force, seit Ende Juni 1917 unter dem Befehl von Edmund Allenby, plante, die osmanische Frontlinie an dieser Stelle in einem großangelegten Überraschungsangriff zu durchbrechen und so den Weg für eine landseitige Umfassung der osmanischen Stellungen zwischen Gaza und Beerscheba zu eröffnen. Hierfür war ein möglichst unbemerkter Aufmarsch einer großen Angriffstruppe über Dutzende Kilometer Wüstengelände nötig, der mit Hilfe von Kamelen, Lastwagen und etwa 130 Holt-Kettenfahrzeugen bewerkstelligt wurde. Fesselungsangriffe bei Gaza sollten die Osmanen daran hindern, Verstärkungen an die bedrohte Frontstelle zu verschieben.

Die Türken glaubten, dass es dem Gegner aufgrund der Wasserknappheit in der Region Beerscheba unmöglich sein würde, groß angelegte Operationen gegen diese Flankenstellung durchzuführen, weshalb nur eine türkische Division für ihre Verteidigung als ausreichend angesehen wurde.

Britische Truppen
Insgesamt hatten die Briten für den Angriff auf Beerscheba ein Infanterie- und ein Kavalleriekorps zur Verfügung:

 XX Corps, Generalleutnant Sir Philip Chetwode
 74th (Yeomanry) Division, Generalmajor Eric Girdwood
 229., 230. und 231. Brigade
 60th (London) Division, Generalmajor John S. M. Shea
 179., 180. und 181. Brigade
 Desert Mounted Corps, Generalleutnant Henry Chauvel
 Anzac Mounted Division, Generalmajor Edward Chaytor
 1st Light Horse Brigade, Brigadegeneral Charles Frederick Cox
 2nd Light Horse Brigade, Brigadegeneral Granville De Laure Ryrie
 New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Brigadegeneral W. Meldrum
 Australian Mounted Division, Generalmajor H. W. Hodgson
 3rd Light Horse Brigade, Brigadegeneral Lachlan C. Wilson
 4th Light Horse Brigade, Brigadegeneral William Grant
 Imperial Camel Corps, Brigadegeneral Clement Leslie Smith
 7. Cavalry Brigade, Brigadegeneral John Tyson Wigan

Osmanische 7. Armee
Oberbefehlshaber: General Fehwzi Pascha und Kreß von Kressenstein
 III. Korps: General Mustafa İsmet Pascha
 27. Infanteriedivision, Oberst Ibrahim Bey mit 48., 81., 67. Infanterieregiment
 3. Kavalleriedivision, Oberst Issad Bey mit 6. und 7 Kavallerieregiment
 Teile der 16. und 24. Division

Ablauf

Schlacht

Die Australian Mounted Division brachte sich in der Nacht vom 30. auf den 31. Oktober in Position, um die Stadt von Osten her zu umgehen und anzugreifen. Im Osten von Beerscheba bildete die Redoute von Tel el Saba den wichtigsten Verteidigungspunkt des osmanischen III. Korps. Diese Position war mit einem Bataillon des 48. Regiments und einer Maschinengewehrkompanie besetzt, während das 6. und 8. Regiment der türkischen 3. Kavalleriedivision auf der Hochebene im Nordosten stationiert war, um die Straße nach Jerusalem zu decken oder um einer Umzingelung Beerschebas entgegenzuwirken. Im Westen und Südwesten der Stadt lagen das 67. und 81. Infanterieregiment der 27. Division in einer halbkreisförmigen Reihe tiefer Gräben und Schanzen verschanzt, die mit Stacheldraht verstärkt waren.

Die Briten unter dem Befehl des Generalleutnants Sir Philip Chetwode begannen um 5:55 Uhr morgens von Südwesten her mit einem Bombardement der Stadt und der gegnerischen Stellungen. Das Feuer der Artillerie richtete sich auf die Befestigungen und Grabenlinien der Osmanen. Die äußerste linke Flanke würde von "Smiths Gruppe" (158. Brigade der 53. Division und Teilen der Imperial Camel-Brigade) geschützt. Die 74. Division hielt damit den Abschnitt, der sich vom Wadi es Saba nach Norden in Richtung der Straße von Beerscheba nach Tel el Fara erstreckte. Die 53. Division (verstärkt mit einer Brigade der 10. Division) wurde auf einer 11 km langen Linie eingesetzt, die sich nach Westen bis etwa 1,6 km vor der Bahnstation Karm hinzog. Um 6:30 Uhr war das erste Bombardement beendet, damit sich der Staub legen konnte und die Artilleriebeobachter die Ziele überprüfen konnten. Um 7:45 Uhr wurde das Feuer wieder aufgenommen. Um 8:20 traf ein letztes Bombardement die türkischen Schützengräben. Anschließend folgten erste Angriffe der beiden Infanteriedivisionen des XX. Corps gegen die türkische Außenverteidigung auf der Anhöhe westlich und südwestlich von Beerscheba. Die Kommandeure der 60. und 74. Division beschlossen, um 12:15 Uhr mit dem Hauptangriff zu beginnen: Vier Brigaden – die 179., die 181. (60. Division), die 231. und die 230. (74. Division) – starteten den Angriff mit je zwei Bataillonen in der vorderen Linie.
Das 67. Regiment der türkischen 27. Division, welches die Westseite von Beerscheba verteidigte, erlitt schwere Verluste, Ismet Bey, der Verteidiger von Beerscheba, musste seine letzte Reserve einsetzen.

Während der Infanterie-Angriff auf der Westseite von Beerscheba eingeleitet wurde, befahl General Chaytor der 2. Lighthorse-Brigade um 9:00 Uhr, zusammen mit der neuseeländischen Mounted Rifles Brigade über Tel el Sakaty anzugreifen und die Kontrolle über die Straße von Jerusalem zu erlangen. Im Osten von Beerscheba in Tel es Saba hielten sich noch immer ein Bataillon des türkischen 48. Infanterieregiments und eine Maschinengewehrkompanie, während sich der Rest des Regiments südlicher an der Khalasa-Straße nach Ras Ghannam eingegraben hatte. Der Frontalangriff des Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiments wurde zu Fuß gestartet, da ein Reiterangriff aus jeder Richtung auf Grund des Geländes nicht möglich war. Aufgrund des schweren osmanischen Maschinengewehrfeuers geriet der Angriff 800 Meter vor den osmanischen Position ins Stocken. Um 10:00 Uhr befahl Chaytor auch der 1. Lighthorse-Brigade, den Angriff auf Tel el Saba aus dem Süden zu verstärken und am Angriff mitzuwirken. Nach mehreren Angriffen wurde um 13:55 Uhr der Befehl zum Generalangriff auf Tel el Saba erteilt, den ab 14:00 Uhr auch die 3. Lighthorse Brigade und die B Battery der Division verstärkten.

Im Laufe des späten Nachmittags gelang es den Briten schließlich durch den Einsatz der 4. Lighthorse-Brigade, die Stadt Beerscheba zu erstürmen und einzunehmen. Die 1/1 Nottinghamshire Battery der Royal Horse Artillery eröffnete das Feuer auf türkische Maschinengewehre in den Schützengräben von Ras Ghannam, dann begann die erfolgreiche Attacke der leichten Reiterei unter Brigadegeneral William Grant. Das 4. (viktoria) und 12. (New South Wales) Regiment der Brigade formierten drei Angriffswellen und stürmten über 6,4 km offenes Gelände durch das türkisches Maschinengewehrfeuer vor. Die Kühnheit der Attacke verwirrte die türkischen Verteidiger, die das Visier ihrer Gewehre nicht nachstellten und teilweise zu hoch feuerten. Infolgedessen war die Attacke erfolgreich und es gab bei den Australiern nur wenige Opfer. Dem 12. Lighthorse-Regiment gelang es schließlich in Beerscheba einzudringen. Ein Großteil der Stadt war durch britisches Artilleriefeuer zerstört worden. Die Türken mussten sich zurückziehen, ehe noch die vorgesehene Sprengung der Brunnen durchgeführt werden konnte. Ismet Bey befahl seinen Truppen um 16:00 Uhr nördlich von Beerscheba zurückzugehen, er selbst zog sich in den bisherigen Kampfstand des 143. Regiments zurück, der etwa 9,7 km nördlich von Beerscheba auf den judäischen Hügeln lag.

Ausgang
Die Kämpfe um Beerscheba dienten der Aufrollung der osmanischen Gazafront und bildeten die Einleitung zur Dritten Schlacht um Gaza. Nach dem Verlust von Beerscheba zog sich die türkische 7. Armee nach Nordwesten in Richtung Tel esh Sheria und nach Norden in Richtung Tel el Khuweilfe zurück. Nach dem siegreichen Abschluss der Kämpfe um Gaza konnte General Allenby die türkische 8. Armee bis 13. November auf die Linie Jaffa – Ramlah zurückwerfen und am 9. Dezember in Jerusalem einziehen.

Sonstiges
Der australische Spielfilm The Lighthorsemen handelt von dem Kriegsgeschehen in Palästina, unter anderem wird auch die Schlacht von Beerscheba dargestellt. In Australien wird der 31. Oktober jährlich von Veteranenorganisationen als Beersheba Day begangen.

Literatur
 Henry S. Gullet: The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine. 1914–1918 (= Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918. Bd. 7); darin: Chapter XXIII: The Battle of Beersheba.
 Dennis, Peter; Jeffrey Grey; Ewan Morris; Robin Prior; Jean Bou: The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History (2nd ed.).  Oxford University Press, Melbourne: Australia & New Zealand 2008.
 "7th Australian Light Horse Regiment War Diary".

Weblinks

Beerscheba
Britische Militärgeschichte (Erster Weltkrieg)
Australische Militärgeschichte
Konflikt 1917
Be'er Scheva

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


My photomedia work investigates the Unconscious. After 150 years of psychology, the Unconscious remains as vague and powerful as the Gods it has emancipated itself from. Being a reservoir of our past experiences, it stores urges and feelings we have rationally no access to. Nevertheless, images have the power to open these doors, trigger emotions and unlock memories. This is what interests me. Using archetypes, dreams and poetic acts, my work uses the language of the Unconscious to take you somewhere between the sublime and the uncanny, where the attributes of photography, painting, theatre and lm are melting into one.


text:
From June 2010, to the end of 2019, Falcon 9 was launched 77 times, with 75 full mission successes, one partial failure and one total loss of the spacecraft. In addition, one rocket and its payload were destroyed on the launch pad during the fueling process before a static fire test was set to occur. Falcon Heavy was launched three times, all successful.

The first Falcon 9 version, Falcon 9 v1.0, was launched five times from June 2010, to March 2013, its successor Falcon 9 v1.1 15 times from September 2013, to January 2016, and the Falcon 9 Full Thrust (through Block 4) 36 times from December 2015, to June 2018. The latest Full Thrust variant, Block 5, was introduced in May 2018, and launched 21 times until the end of 2019.

Statistics

Rocket configurations

Launch sites

Launch outcomes

Booster landings

Launches

2010 to 2013

2014
With six launches, SpaceX became the second most prolific American company in terms of 2014, launches, behind Atlas V launch vehicle.

2015
With 7 launches in 2015, Falcon 9 was the second most launched American rocket behind Atlas V.

2016
With 8 successful launches for 2016, SpaceX equalled Atlas V for most American rocket launches for the year.

2017
With 18 launches throughout 2017, SpaceX had the most prolific yearly launch manifest of all rocket families. Five launches in 2017, used pre-flown boosters.

2018
In November 2017, Gwynne Shotwell expected to increase launch cadence in 2018, by about 50% compared to 2017, leveling out at a rate of about 30 to 40 per year, not including launches for the planned SpaceX satellite constellation Starlink. The actual launch rate increased by 17% from 18 in 2017, to 21 in 2018, giving SpaceX the second most launches for the year for a rocket family, behind China's Long March. Falcon Heavy made its first flight.

2019
Shotwell stated in May 2019, that SpaceX might conduct up to 21 launches in 2019, not counting Starlink missions. With a slump in worldwide commercial launch contracts for 2019, SpaceX ended up launching only 13 launch vehicles throughout 2019, (11 without Starlink), significantly fewer than in 2017, and 2018, and third most launches of vehicle class behind China's Long March and Russia's R-7 launch vehicles.

Notable launches

First flight of Falcon 9

On 4 June 2010, the first Falcon 9 launch successfully placed a test payload into the intended orbit. Starting at the moment of liftoff, the booster experienced roll. The roll stopped before the craft reached the top of the tower, but the second stage began to roll near the end of its burn, tumbling out of control during the passivation process and creating a gaseous halo of vented propellant that could be seen from all of Eastern Australia, raising UFO concerns.

COTS demonstration flights

Second launch of Falcon 9 was COTS Demo Flight 1, which placed an operational Dragon capsule in a roughly  orbit on 8 December 2010, The capsule re-entered the atmosphere after two orbits, allowing testing for the pressure vessel integrity, attitude control using the Draco thrusters, telemetry, guidance, navigation, control systems, and the PICA-X heat shield, and intended to test the parachutes at speed. The capsule was recovered off the coast of Mexico and then placed on display at SpaceX headquarters.

The remaining objectives of the NASA COTS qualification program were combined into a single Dragon C2+ mission, on the condition that all milestones would be validated in space before berthing Dragon to the ISS. The Dragon capsule was propelled to orbit on 22 May, and for the next days tested its positioning system, solar panels, grapple fixture, proximity navigation sensors, and its rendezvous capabilities at safe distances. After a final hold position at  away from the Harmony docking port on 25 May, it was grabbed with the station's robotic arm (Canadarm2), and eventually, the hatch was opened on 26 May. It was released on 31 May and successfully completed all the return procedures, and the recovered Dragon C2+ capsule is now on display at Kennedy Space Center.  Falcon 9 and Dragon thus became the first fully commercially developed launcher to deliver a payload to the International Space Station, paving the way for SpaceX and NASA to sign the first Commercial Resupply Services agreement for 12 cargo deliveries.

CRS-1

First operational cargo resupply mission to ISS, the fourth flight of Falcon 9, was launched on 7 October 2012. At 76 seconds after liftoff, engine 1 of the first stage suffered a loss of pressure which caused an automatic shutdown of that engine, but the remaining eight first-stage engines continued to burn and the Dragon capsule reached orbit successfully and thus demonstrated the rocket's "engine out" capability in flight. Due to ISS visiting vehicle safety rules, at NASA's request, the secondary payload Orbcomm-2 was released into a lower-than-intended orbit. The mission continued to rendezvous and berth the Dragon capsule with the ISS where the ISS crew unloaded its payload and reloaded the spacecraft with cargo for return to Earth. Despite the incident, Orbcomm said they gathered useful test data from the mission and planned to send more satellites via SpaceX, which happened in July 2014, and December 2015.

Maiden flight of v1.1

Following unsuccessful attempts at recovering the first stage with parachutes, SpaceX upgraded to much larger first stage booster and with greater thrust, termed Falcon 9 v1.1 (also termed Block 2). SpaceX performed its first, demonstration flight of this version on 29 September 2013, with CASSIOPE as a primary payload. This had a payload mass that is very small relative to the rocket's capability, and was launched at a discounted rate, approximately 20% of the normal published price.  After the second stage separation, SpaceX conducted a novel high-altitude, high-velocity flight test, wherein the booster attempted to reenter the lower atmosphere in a controlled manner and decelerate to a simulated over-water landing.

Loss of CRS-7 mission

On 28 June 2015, Falcon 9 Flight 19 carried a Dragon capsule on the seventh Commercial Resupply Services mission to the ISS. The second stage disintegrated due to an internal helium tank failure while the first stage was still burning normally. This was the first (and only as of February 2022) primary mission loss for any Falcon 9 rocket. In addition to ISS consumables and experiments, this mission carried the first International Docking Adapter (IDA-1), whose loss delayed preparedness of the station's US Orbital Segment (USOS) for future crewed missions.

Performance was nominal until T+140 seconds into launch when a cloud of white vapor appeared, followed by rapid loss of second-stage LOX tank pressure. The booster continued on its trajectory until complete vehicle breakup at T+150 seconds. The Dragon capsule was ejected from the disintegrating rocket and continued transmitting data until impact with the ocean. SpaceX officials stated that the capsule could have been recovered if the parachutes had deployed; however, the Dragon software did not include any provisions for parachute deployment in this situation. Subsequent investigations traced the cause of the accident to the failure of a strut that secured a helium bottle inside the second-stage LOX tank. With the helium pressurization system integrity breached, excess helium quickly flooded the tank, eventually causing it to burst from overpressure. NASA's independent accident investigation into the loss of SpaceX CRS-7 found that the failure of the strut which led to the breakup of the Falcon-9 represented a design error. Specifically, that industrial grade stainless steel had been used in a critical load path under cryogenic conditions and flight conditions, without additional part screening, and without regard to manufacturer recommendations.

Full-thrust version and first booster landings

After pausing launches for months, SpaceX launched on 22 December 2015, the highly anticipated return-to-flight mission after the loss of CRS-7. This launch inaugurated a new Falcon 9 Full Thrust version (also initially termed Block 3) of its flagship rocket featuring increased performance, notably thanks to subcooling of the propellants. After launching a constellation of 11 Orbcomm-OG2 second-generation satellites, the first stage performed a controlled-descent and landing test for the eighth time, SpaceX attempted to land the booster on land for the first time. It managed to return the first stage successfully to the Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral, marking the first successful recovery of a rocket first stage that launched a payload to orbit. After recovery, the first stage booster performed further ground tests and then was put on permanent display outside SpaceX's headquarters in Hawthorne, California.

On 8 April 2016, SpaceX delivered its commercial resupply mission to the International Space Station marking the return-to-flight of the Dragon capsule, after the loss of CRS-7. After separation, the first-stage booster slowed itself with a boostback maneuver, re-entered the atmosphere, executed an automated controlled descent and landed vertically onto the drone ship Of Course I Still Love You, marking the first successful landing of a rocket on a ship at sea. This was the fourth attempt to land on a drone ship, as part of the company's experimental controlled-descent and landing tests.

Loss of AMOS-6 on the launch pad

On 1 September 2016, the 29th Falcon 9 rocket exploded on the launchpad while propellant was being loaded for a routine pre-launch static fire test. The payload, Israeli satellite AMOS-6, partly commissioned by Facebook, was destroyed with the launcher. On 2 January 2017, SpaceX released an official statement indicating that the cause of the failure was a buckled liner in several of the COPV tanks, causing perforations that allowed liquid and/or solid oxygen to accumulate underneath the COPVs carbon strands, which were subsequently ignited possibly due to friction of breaking strands.

Inaugural reuse of the first stage

On 30 March 2017, Flight 32 launched the SES-10 satellite with the first-stage booster B1021, which had been previously used for the CRS-8 mission a year earlier. The stage was successfully recovered a second time and was retired and put on display at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Zuma launch controversy

Zuma was a classified United States government satellite and was developed and built by Northrop Grumman at an estimated cost of US$3.5 billion. Its launch, originally planned for mid-November 2017, was postponed to 8 January 2018, as fairing tests for another SpaceX customer were assessed. Following a successful Falcon 9 launch, the first-stage booster landed at LZ-1. Unconfirmed reports suggested that the Zuma spacecraft was lost, with claims that either the payload failed following orbital release, or that the customer-provided adapter failed to release the satellite from the upper stage, while other claims argued that Zuma was in orbit and operating covertly. SpaceX's COO Gwynne Shotwell stated that their Falcon 9 "did everything correctly" and that "Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false". A preliminary report indicated that the payload adapter, modified by Northrop Grumman after purchasing it from a subcontractor, failed to separate the satellite from the second stage under the zero gravity conditions. Due to the classified nature of the mission, no further official information is expected.

Falcon Heavy test flight

The maiden launch of the Falcon Heavy occurred on 6 February 2018, marking the launch of the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V, with a theoretical payload capacity to low Earth orbit more than double the Delta IV Heavy. Both side boosters landed nearly simultaneously after a ten-minute flight. The central core failed to land on a floating platform at sea. The rocket carried a car and a mannequin to an eccentric heliocentric orbit that reaches further than the aphelion of Mars.

Maiden flight Crew Dragon and first crewed flight

On 2 March 2019, SpaceX launched its first orbital flight of Dragon 2 (Crew Dragon). It was an uncrewed mission to the International Space Station. The Dragon contained a mannequin named Ripley which was equipped with multiple sensors to gather data about how a human would feel during the flight. Along with the mannequin was 300 pounds of cargo of food and other supplies. Also on board was Earth plush toy referred to as a 'Super high tech zero-g indicator'. The toy became a hit with astronaut Anne McClain who showed the plushy on the ISS each day and also deciding to keep it on board to experience the crewed SpX-DM2.

The Dragon spent six days in space including five docked to the International Space Station. During the time, various systems were tested to make sure the vehicle was ready for US astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken to fly in it in 2020. The Dragon undocked and performed a re-entry burn before splashing down on 8 March 2019, at 08:45 EST,  off the coast of Florida.  SpaceX held a successful launch of the first commercial orbital human space flight on 30 May 2020, crewed with NASA astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken. Both astronauts focused on conducting tests on the Crew Dragon capsule. Crew Dragon successfully returned to Earth, splashing down in the Gulf of Mexico on 2 August 2020.

Booster reflight records

Most records  were set during launches of Starlink satellites.

On 3 December 2018, Spaceflight SSO-A  launched on B1046. It was the first commercial mission to use a booster flying for the third time.

See also
 List of Falcon 1 launches
 List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters
 List of SpaceX Dragon 1 missions
 List of SpaceX Dragon 2 missions
 List of Starlink flights
 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

Notes

References

Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy

Falcon 9
Articles containing video clips
2010s in spaceflight
SpaceX related lists


Solid wood french patio doors impressive design » Patios are a functional and beautiful addition to your house and offer great flexibility as to the size, condition and material that it's designed with. Patios are extremely popular in the Australian culture, as they provide welcome shade during our hot summers and safeguard from damp weather in the cooler weeks. Patios come in all shapes and sizes and are only limited by the area available. Probably the most attractive patios are designed using timber, as they wthhold the wood's natural beauty. Timber patio rooftop trusses are visually stunning. They give that unique "webbed" look to your patio roof that will have all of your friends talking. Solid Wood French Patio Doors areMuch more attractive, compared to cold steel.
Solid wood french patio doors impressive design » Garden furniture has advanced from the old basic plastic lawn recliners and desks that most of us used to have whenever we grew up. Garden furniture styles have advanced with new technology for outdoor furniture. For the new demand in garden furniture has garden furniture manufacturers now increasing the development of new materials for your deck garden furniture with new styles and prices that is at reach of anybody's budget. As the climate and your personal style in patio furniture should be studied into consideration you also have to decide on how the outdoor furniture will be used. Might it be used for pools, conversation or kitchen? This is the basic starting place for your outdoor patio furniture design. By choosing functional comfortable patio furniture for your back garden will give your family and friends a great outdoor patio experience.
Solid wood french patio doors impressive design » You might go from a bistro veranda table for a little quaint dinner for just two or developing a extension and deck table that have folding chair for simple storage and will give you overall flexibility with a huge gathering of people. Whether you're preparing indoors or having al outdoor barbecue on your terrace it might be relaxing if you were to dine a fresco. When it seems to be a little cooler out finding a sunny spot is a great way to take pleasure from outdoor patio furniture. When it gets hot under the sunlight you might want some color and covering which you could use an outdoor patio umbrella or a rectangular veranda awning with respect to the outdoor furniture style that you want. Solid Wood French Patio Doors by researching and locating the perfect deck garden furniture for your surroundings you'll want to pay more time from your deck, porch and even in your garden area for a long time to come.
Solid wood french patio doors impressive design » The fast and occupied lifestyles seem to surround everyone in this point in time insurance firms a destination to relax and evade to belong to everyone by having patio furniture on your deck, porch and can give you your outdoor soothing oasis.
Solid wood french patio doors impressive design » Terrace deck furniture costing may be one of your concerns but the most crucial consideration could be the comfort and quality that you are looking for in patio furniture. @[If you|@[In the event that you|If you anticipate spending a lot of time on your outdoor furniture you'll want some great leisure furniture that will fit within your outdoor decoration and looks great. By spending Solid Wood French Patio Doors a little extra time exploring your deck furniture plan will pay off in the foreseeable future whether you're looking for a wood teak patio furniture or a wrought flat iron garden furniture your outdoor room will perhaps you have feeling laid back and comfortable. So research a good garden furniture arrange for your decor that best suits your preferences.


Spray foam insulation is a highly technical product and requires extensive training and experience to do the job right the first time. For these reasons, it is not customarily the type of home improvement that handy homeowners and building owners can do proficiently and safely themselves. Although it may look easy to suit up and start spraying foam on walls, it really is a bit more complicated than that.
The foam materials are contained inside large drums which are transported to a job site in a truck or van. This is also where the equipment is located. The materials are pumped through hoses that heat them as they flow through each hose on their way to the spray gun. Mixing the chemicals in improper proportions or at the wrong heat can result in a botched spray foam installation and create problems going forward. Spraying the foam materials incorrectly or leaving gaps and voids will also negate the reason for using foam in the first place. It is a superior insulating product if it is installed correctly.
So how do you know what contractor to choose for your spray insulation project?
Professional spray foam installers have extensive manufacturer training and certification in the proper use of their formulas. You will want to find an experienced installer and company that knows spray foam and which formulation will do an optimal job of insulating the exact areas you want to address. Not all foam formulas are the same and you want the best one. A trained foam installer will know the exact formula you will need and know the proper way to dispense the foam. Just any construction crew that does spray foam occasionally is not the crew you want to do your project. Manufacturers of spray foam spend a great deal of time and resources on training installers to do the job right. Since most have a lifetime guarantee, they want their installers properly trained so that claims are minimized. So if you don't have a certified crew do your spray foam installation, make sure your manufacturer's warranty is still valid.
Other decision criteria you should use to select a contractor are checking references, time in business, and whether or not they have insurance. Make sure that they know the reason a particular foam formulation was chosen for your job and can explain it to you so that it is easily understandable to you. Reputable foam installers will be able to give you a free quote once they have visited your job site.
The spray foam contractor you choose should be in good standing with the manufacturer they work with so that they can receive the support and technical assistance they might need for any unusual job conditions that may occur. If your contractor has the ongoing support of a manufacturer, it is a good indication that they are reputable and will be around for a while should any issues arise with your installation.


text:
HomeGenesisG80News
Genesis Electrified G80 Shows Solar Roof, Other Features On Camera
US details coming later this year.
Genesis officially unveiled its first all-electric production vehicle in April this year. The Electrified G80 may not be built from scratch on a dedicated EV platform but it's still a very decent attempt with stylish looks, proper specifications, and nice features. The guy from the Asian Petrolhead channel on YouTube is here to show us more about the zero-emission sedan.
Unfortunately, this is not a thorough review of the vehicle as the video was shot during an art flare in South Korea where Genesis had the Electrified G80 displayed for the visitors to check out. The small exposition was pretty crowded and the host had to deal with some awkward moments with other vloggers and visitors.
Gallery: Genesis Electrified G80
Nevertheless, this is our first real-life look at the electric sedan and it basically confirms our initial impressions of a solid electric vehicle. Again, the connection between the combustion-powered G80 models and the Electrified G80 is clearly visible even at a glance, but a number of important changes turn this no-tailpipe luxury car into one of the more desirable large sedans on the market.
Obviously, the all-electric powertrain is the highlight here. It's an all-wheel-drive EV powertrain with a peak output of 365 horsepower (272 kilowatts) and an instant max torque of 516 pound-feet (700 Newton-meters). When in Sport mode, the dual-motor system enables a sprint from a standstill to 60 mph (0-96 kilometers per hour) in just 4.9 seconds. The battery is located inside the vehicle's floor and this has a slightly negative effect on the interior room, though it surely compensates by lowering the G80's center of gravity.
From Prototype Testing To Reality:
Genesis Enters EV Era With Electrified G80 Featuring Solar Roof
⠀ Electrified Genesis G80 Spied With Closed-Off Grille, No Tailpipes
One particular feature Genesis seems to be very proud of is the optional solar roof. You can either go for a traditional sunroof or pay extra for the solar roof, though we don't know how much energy can be generated with the latter. As a more general explanation, Hyundai promises a few hundred miles of range could be added every year.
Source: Asian Petrolhead

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Join the Royal Doulton Collectors Club To Sell Your Items Online for no charge Listing a single item with photo and text is only $2.50. Members pay less.
We do not charge any membership fee. The only fee we charge you is to upload the item(s). Our fee is $15.00/per hour, or $2.50 per item.
1. A photo of the object in jpg format. Most cameras take photos in jpg format. Please take a few photos head-on and also one of the bottom.
2. Description of the item. It must be extremely accurate as if the item is not as described, the buyer has a right to return it to seller.
3. Size of the item.
4. Condition of the item. If the item is used, you can describe it as 'As Is'. That way there can be no mis-understanding as to its condtion.
5. Price: Your price in U.S. Dollars.


Cronos Group is seeking a Junior Extraction Technician who will work within the Production & Operations Departments and report to the Operations Manager. As the Junior Extraction Technician, you will be responsible for the coordination and execution of all activities within the Extraction department. The position will focus on processing dried plant material into oils and other formulations using supercritical carbon dioxide extraction techniques. The ideal candidate must be highly motivated, energetic and able to work as part of a team and at a fast pace.


Phipps & Phipps, Harve H. Phipps, Sr., Harve H. Phipps, Jr., Spokane, Wash., for appellants.
Cooley, Crowley, Gaither, Godward, Castro & Huddleson, John H. Wallace, Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr., William W. Godward, San Francisco, Cal., Hamblen, Gilbert & Brooke, Philip S. Brooke, Spokane, Wash., for appellee.
Milton and Everett Dam appeal from a motion for summary judgment granted in favor of General Electric Company by Judge Sam M. Driver in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
The Dam Brothers brought suit against General Electric alleging that General Electric had breached an oral contract made with the Dam Brothers in 1913, whereby it was agreed that these two parties would exploit the Priest Rapids area on the Columbia River in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs, Dam Brothers, were interested in the Priest Rapids area for an irrigation project, while General Electric was interested in the area for the development of hydro-electric power. There were obstacles to both plans, so they decided to join forces and develop the area jointly. The terms of the enterprise were allegedly worked out in New York during 1913 with many former executives of General Electric all of whom had died by 1944. The result of these negotiations was that there was an agreement for joint development of Priest Rapids. An attempt was to be made to secure additional land and sites in the area, and to secure passage of favorable water power legislation by Congress which would make it feasible to develop the Priest Rapids site. General Electric was to reward the Dam Brothers by giving them stock of considerable value in a number of corporations which were to be formed upon the passage of favorable legislation. These corporations were to be the vehicles by which the entire area was to be developed.
The records of the Federal Power Commission revealed that the Washington Irrigation and Development Company, pursuant to the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, 16 U.S.C.A. § 791a et seq. applied for a permit for a power project on the Columbia River at Priest Rapids. The trial court assumed for the purpose of the motion for summary judgment that Washington Irrigation was a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric. A license was issued Washington Irrigation in 1925 with the proviso that construction must be commenced before March 1, 1929. The license was revoked in June of 1929 because construction had not begun as required, and an application for a new license was denied in July of 1930. Thereafter, nothing was done to develop this area, and the Dam Brothers allege that this was because of the generally depressed conditions during the 1930's and the world conflict that followed. However, in 1951 when the Dam Brothers allegedly learned that General Electric had disposed of certain lands in the Priest Rapids area through one of its subsidiaries, a letter was written to General Electric demanding that they perform the joint venture agreement. When there was no response to this demand, this suit was initiated.
It is claimed by the Dam Brothers that because General Electric has failed to fulfill its part of the contract of 1913 that they have been damaged in the amount of $8,500,000. They plead in the alternative also that the defendant General Electric has been unjustly enriched in the same amount.
To all this, General Electric answered and denied all the material allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint, and further alleged by way of affirmative defenses the statute of limitations and/or laches. On the basis of these affirmative defenses, they founded their motion for summary judgment which was granted.
The Dam Brothers as appellants allege many grounds for reversal, but basically their claim is that it was error to grant the motion for summary judgment in favor of General Electric, the appellee, because there were many issues of material fact that remain unresolved, and that there should have been a full hearing with witnesses called. The Court considered several affidavits submitted by both sides before granting the appellee's motion for summary judgment. From the evidence before the Court on this motion, the most that appears is that certain efforts were made to secure a license to construct a dam; the license was revoked in 1929, and its renewal denied in 1930. Appellants offer no counter-affidavit to rebut appellee's showing that none of the corporations that were supposed to be created in the furtherance of this joint enterprise were ever formed or ever did business in Washington. As far as appears from the record before the trial court, the last discernible effort was made in 1930. Some twenty-two years later this action was brought, and the only explanation offered by appellants is that conditions were depressed during the 1930's; the war followed, and appellants believed that appellee would perform. The trial court felt that it was clear that after 1930 nothing was ever done by General Electric in the furtherance of this alleged contract, and that sometime shortly after 1930, the contract was breached. We are compelled to agree.
In regards the application of summary judgment procedures to this situation, this court has recognized that summary judgment may be used effectively in the area of affirmative defenses, and specifically when the affirmative defense pleaded is the statute of limitations. It is not often that this defense involved a question of material fact, and insofar as summary judgment was used by the trial judge here, it was used properly. Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, 9 Cir., 170 F.2d 569; Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated v. Borax Consolidated, 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 196. See also 6 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d Edition, 2261-63. Appellants protest mightily but point to no genuine issue of material fact that was before the trial court.
"It is difficult to imagine a litigant being put to more serious disadvantage than to be called upon to defend against an eight and a half million dollar lawsuit based on a 39-year-old oral contract, when the only witnesses who could possibly testify in behalf of the defendant as to whether or not the contract was actually made, and, if so, as to what were its terms and conditions, have been dead for eight years or more."
See Teeter v. Brown, 130 Wash. 506, 228 P. 291; Kilbourne v. Kilbourne, 156 Wash. 439, 287 P. 41.
After long study, I concur in the result reached by the opinion of Chief Judge Stephens, solely because plaintiffs cannot recover in any event. It is extremely difficult to find that either count of the complaint could have stated an actionable claim. It is impossible to find basis for a cause of action on the theory of resulting trust. The facts which were of necessity alleged negative any possible recovery. The motions to dismiss should have been sustained.
But the trial court, instead of granting a motion to dismiss, allowed a motion for summary judgment based upon supposed laches and estoppel set up in the answers. But such defenses require the trial of the state of mind of both plaintiffs and defendants. Genuine issues of material fact were thus tried upon affidavits over objection. This is a perversion of the summary judgment procedure.
This case offered a splendid opportunity for disposal on the merits by use of discovery and pretrial conferences. Instead, the weary round of motions and amended pleadings was followed for more than four years. The culmination was a summary judgment upon an untenable ground. The suspicion might arise that the final disposal was on technical grounds and not on the merits. The legal profession and the courts suffer from such suspicions even if these are unfounded.
Because the record shows clearly that plaintiffs could never prevail on the merits, the result reached saves further unnecessary litigation.


This air hose is tough and flexible. It is lightweight for easy mangement. Use this air hose for Finish Carpentry and Roofing jobs.
Can I control how deep my BT1855K brad nailer drives the brad?
Yes, the tool has a Dial-A-Depth fastener control feature. The fastener control adjustment allows from flush to work surface to shallow or deep countersink.
The DIAL-A-DEPTH™ Fastener control adjustment feature provides close control of the fastener drive depth: from flush with the work surface to shallow or deep countersink.
on page 4, then use the DIAL-A-DEPTH™ fastener control adjustment to give the desired depth of drive.
See attached for further instructions.


text:
Q: Force a merge in TFS after conflicts have been resolved TFS 2010, VS 2010
We have a situation in TFS where a developer has not been following proper merge procedure.  When I run a compare of his developer directory against trunk, I get a number of files marked as either different or not in trunk at all.  The last merge/check-in to trunk was by him on 2011-05-26, and his last check-in to his dev branch was 2011-05-25.

I believe two things are going on:

*

*He isn't updating his dev branch from trunk properly (we require developers to merge trunk -> dev branch and compile before merging dev -> trunk)

*He isn't resolving merge conflicts correctly

The problem is that once he's marked conflicts as resolved, subsequent merges ignore those differences.  I need to force a merge that revisits the differences from the whole file so that I can manually update every change he's made.
How can I do this?

A: You need to go to the command line and use tf merge /force e.g. tf merge $/TeamProject/DevBranch $/TeamProject/Trunk /force This should do what you want.
for more info try tf msdn which will open a browser and take you to the online help for the tf command tools.
/recursive fixes all and displays the GUI for conflicts.

A: I found your answer and comments most helpful. I wanted to add that I needed to remove the /preview option to finally open the conflict resolution UI.
tf merge /recursive /force /version:C5367 "$/Source" "$/Target"

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


33 years, retiring in 1988. March 16.
of Chicopee. Was an MTA field representative for many years, primarily working with locals in the western part of the state. Assisted in negotiating contracts, handling grievances and strengthening union relationships. July 16.
Frank P. Conte, 66, of Millis.
Joan Cormack, 82, of Ludlow, Mass., and Vero Beach, Fla. Taught in East Longmeadow, Hampden and Springfield for more than 29 years.
of East Hampstead, N.H. Taught social studies in Andover for 30 years.
Was a first-grade teacher in Quincy and served as regional director of the South Shore Remedial Reading School Program. March 21.
Mary Frenning, 87, of Wellesley.
Was a guidance counselor for the Weston school system for 25 years.
Elizabeth A. Fyrberg, 67, of Rutland. Was a teacher and guidance counselor in the Worcester school system. April 15.
Eileen P. Kenary, 65, of Teaticket. Was an elementary teacher in the Worcester school system for 34 years, retiring in 2005. April 11.
Roberta Kreplick, 73, of Salem.
Taught at Marblehead Middle School and in the Masconomet Regional School District for 30 years. May 5.
Joseph F. McHugh, Jr. 71, of Hopedale. Taught in the Medfield school system for 38 years before his retirement in 2002. April 26.
Claire Mulready, 81, of Milford.
Taught in Brockton and Weymouth for 11 years and then was a bilingual teacher in Hudson and Marlborough for 20 years. June 15.
Patricia C. O'Neill, 78, of South Hadley. Taught for 39 years in the Marshfield, Springfield and Granby schools, retiring in 1995. May 19.
Patricia C. Powers, 79, of Holyoke. Taught in Chicopee for 30 years. July 24.
Albert J. Romano, Jr., 79, of Worcester and Fitchburg. Was a teacher and principal in Fitchburg for 30 years before retiring in 1989. June 3.
Doris Stockdale, 88, of Webster.
Taught mathematics in Webster, Oxford and Lee City, Fla., before retiring in 1986. June 7.
John E. Wheeler, 69, of Worcester. Was a mathematics and computer teacher for more than 30 years in Northbridge. July 2.
George Yianakes, of North Reading, Mass., and Saco, Maine. Taught and was a basketball coach at North Reading High School before retiring. April 28.


text:
Pakistan Women Under-19s vs Rwanda Women Under-19s | 5th Match, Group B | ICC Women's Under-19 T20 World Cup
January 15, 2023 | 1:00 pm (PST)
RWA-W
Match Pakistan Women Under-19s vs Rwanda Women Under-19s
Status January 15, 2023 | 1:00 pm (PST)
Series/Tournament ICC Women's Under-19 T20 World Cup
Format Woman T20
Venue Senwes Park, Potchefstroom
Start Time 1:00 pm (PST) 8:00 am (UTC)


text:
Reflections on influence, leadership and legacy of the people who make a difference, and the moments that matter most.
October 6, 2016 Justin
Business Problem:
Although business was growing for Hotels.com in 2009, the brand hadn't fully committed to a robust social media strategy that would add a new source of traffic to their site in the years to come. We were tasked with designing an innovative way of engaging with new customers online, growing our fanbase on social channels to generate new leads, and garnering press to expand impressions and reach for the brand.
We saw an opportunity to leverage and expand upon our existing brand campaign, which featured a series of claymation-animated TV spots, Print and OLA. Through a contest dubbed "Clay Yourself," we encouraged fans to "audition" for a chance to be a part of the next Hotels.com TV commercial, by creating their own unique claymation avatar at ClayYourself.com.
Execution:
A robust and engaging microsite offered users thousands of unique combinations to create their own personal claymation avatar, and enter for a chance to be a part of the brands next TV spot. With a voting component baked into the program, users would solicit votes from their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, by easily adding their claymation avatar as their new profile picture.
Within six weeks the brand saw over 1,000,000 site visits, a 100% increase in Facebook followers (in addition to 40,000 clay avatars uploaded to Facebook), over 200,000 contest entries and 1,000,000 votes cast. The site was awarded the FWA Site of the Day award (February 18, 2011) and the contest earned millions of additional impressions for Hotels.com through PR outreach coinciding with the launch of the program and the announcement of the contest winner.
My Auschwitz Experience
Tribute To A 'Grit Paragon'
My Unlikely Benefactor
Reconciling Privilege, and Finding Purpose Through Vulnerability
George Bailey and my Christmas GOAT


text:
Q: How do I edit my staged file? I used patch mode to add a file.  It took a good while to add only the changes I wanted in this commit.  But then I realized I had made a mistake.  There was one block of code I don't want in this commit.
Is there a way I can edit the staged change set without changing my working directory and not repeating the long process of git add -up somefile?

A: Yes, just use git reset -p to selectively unstage patches.


text:
Karol I Wittelsbach (ur. 4 września 1560 w Neuburg an der Donau, zm. 16 grudnia 1600 w Birkenfeld) – hrabia palatyn i książę Palatynatu-Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld.

Syn księcia Palatynatu–Zweibrücken Wolfganga i Anny Heskiej. Jego dziadkami byli: Ludwik II i Elżbieta Heska oraz landgraf Hesji Filip i Krystyna księżniczka saksońska.

Po śmierci Wolfganga w 1569 roku, jego ziemie zostały podzielone między jego pięciu synów. Filip Ludwik otrzymał Palatynat-Neuburg, Jan Palatynat–Zweibrücken, Otto Henryk Palatynat-Sulzbach, Fryderyk Palatynat-Zweibrücken-Vohenstrauss-Parkstein a Karol Wittelsbach Palatynat-Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld.

23 lutego 1586 roku ożenił się z Dorotą, córką księcia Lüneburga-Celle Wilhelma Młodszego (1570-1640), para miała czwórkę dzieci:
 Jerzego Wilhelma (1591-1669) – hrabiego palatyna i księcia Palatynatu-Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld
 Zofię (1593-1676) – żonę księcia Krafta VII von Hohenlohe-Neuenstein-Weikersheim
 Fryderyka (1594-1626)
 Christiana (1598-1654) – hrabiego palatyna i księcia Palatynatu-Birkenfeld-Bischweiler

Linki zewnętrzne
 Genealogia Karola

Urodzeni w 1560
Zmarli w 1600
Wittelsbachowie
Władcy Palatynatu
Ludzie urodzeni w Neuburg an der Donau


Do you provide barbacks and servers as well?
Yes. We highly recommend having a bar-back with our bartender when you have more than 70 guests. This is important to keep your bar running smoothly. The Barback will keep the bar fully stocked and the surrounding areas. You are free to hire a barback from anywhere but the benefit of hiring from us is that they have worked together before. AND Yes, We can also provide one or more cocktail servers for your party.
How long does it take the bartender to set up?
Usually it takes the bartenders about 45-60 minutes to set up the bars (depending on what kind of event it is).
What do the bartenders / mixologists bring with them?
Each bartender has their own bar kit. They will have all the equipment they need to bartend. Their kit includes, speed pours, shakers, bottle openers, spill mats, an ice bin, and a garnish tray.
What is included in the garnish?
Different packages include different garnishes. Basic Garnishes– lemons, limes. olives, cherries. Premium Garnishes– this set includes lemons, limes, cherries, olives & any garnishes needed for the specialty cocktails, for example pineapples, cucumbers, mint, peaches, mangoes,, marshmallows, chocolate or whatever the cocktails garnishment requires.
What is the customized cocktail menu?
The customized cocktail menu is a customized drink menu that we can create for you. For example, if you are having a party and you have a favorite fruit, lets say mango, we'll create a cocktail with mango for the occasion. We can create up to 3-4 drinks per event.
Yes we are licensed and insured. Some venues required General AND Liquor liability insurance and we can provide ours for a small fee.
Yes! Our Bartenders our insured, but your event is not! For an additional fee ($40) your event can be insured upto $2 million.
Yes, because of high demand during special holidays, rate is going to bit higher than usual prices.
Check, Cash, Apple Pay, Venmo or Paypal (as friend & Family).
Do you need a deposit to hold on to a date?
Yes. We ask for a 25% non-refundable deposit.
Service Charge: Tip Jar or Host Gratuity?
Depending on the event and guests, we may add AUTOMATIC GRATUITY to the total. If you have more than 70 guests you will get an option of either getting host gratuity or guest gratuity. If the host do not want us to display a tip jar, we will add a service charge to the total cost.
Host Gratuity: This option permits a tip jar on the bar.
Guest Gratuity: There will be no tip jar on the bar; the host must pay a minimum of $2.50- $3 per guest.
Looking to book us at your next event?
Mint Bartending has always been committed to maintaining the accuracy, confidentiality, and security of your personal and corporate information. We have established Privacy Principles to govern our use of customer information.
Mint Bartending does not sell, share or distribute Customer Information to any third party organization.
Accountability – Mint Bartending is responsible for maintaining and protecting customer information under its control.
Identifying Purposes – The purposes for which customer information is collected shall be identified before or at the time the information is collected.
Consent – The knowledge and consent of the customer are required for the collection, use or disclosure of customer information except where required or permitted by law.
Limiting Collection – The customer information collected must be limited to those details necessary for the purposes identified by Mint Bartending Information must be collected by fair and lawful means.
Limiting Use, Disclosure and Retention – Customer information may only be used or disclosed for the purpose for which it was collected unless the customer has otherwise consented, or when it is required or permitted by law. Customer information may only be retained for the period of time required to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected.
Accuracy – Customer information must be maintained in as accurate, complete and up-to-date form as is necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it is to be used.
Safeguarding Customer Information – Customer information must be protected by security safeguards that are appropriate to the sensitivity level of the information.
Openness – Mint Bartending is required to make information available to customers concerning the policies and practices that apply to the management of their information.
Customer Access – Upon request, a customer shall be informed of the existence, use and disclosure of their information, and shall be given access to it. Customers may verify the accuracy and completeness of their information, and may request that it be amended, if appropriate.
Handling Customer Complaints and Suggestions – Customers may direct any questions or inquiries with respect to the privacy principles outlined above or about our practices by contacting the designated person(s) accountable for privacy at Mint Bartending.
It is the sole responsibility of the client to read our Terms as well as our FAQs so that they will be informed about our company and what to expect upon ordering our company.
Simply making any kind of inquiry on our website by email, the request form, the contact us form, etc. will not create any kind of binding catering contract. Our service will only be secured when we receive the booking fee, and you receive a booking confirmation from us.
In order to secure an event, a non-refundable booking fee of 20-25% of the estimated total bill.
Final Payment must be received at the end of the event. IMPORTANT: if for some reason the client would like to pay later, a contract must be signed at the end of the event to make sure Mint Bartending gets paid within 3-5 days.
There are no cancellations due to weather and the booking fee is non-refundable. We will provide service rain or shine. Moreover, the FULL booking fee is non-refundable for events cancelled within the 5 days prior to the event.
We will provide service regardless of weather conditions (ex – rain or shine, high winds, extreme heat or cold, etc) and inclement conditions will not result in any discounts, abatements or price reductions. In the event of inclement weather, customers with outdoor events shall provide overhead shelter for the set up area. We reserve the right to stop or cancel service should the weather pose a potential danger to the crew, the bar or guests. Every effort will be made to continue service, including taking extra reasonable breaks in the event of extreme heat. However, safety is paramount in all decisions. No contractual obligations, including compensation, will not be affected by such cancellation.
In the event of cancellation within 2 weeks of the event, it is within our exclusive discretion to reschedule the date and time and/or apply deposit money already paid. In most cases we will not reschedule.
Guest count must be finalized 10 days prior to the event date. After that time, you are welcome to add items to your order and we will do our best to accommodate your requests depending on time and product constraints. But, no reductions will be allowed after the final payment is processed.
We charge a Service Charge (depending on amount of staffing needed) on every event in order to cover labor and administration fee. At the client's discretion, any extra tips or gratuity will go directly to the service staff.
In order to offset the cost of transportation, our invoices and proposals will include a travel fee which may vary depending on current fuel costs and distance traveled.
Items or checks returned unpayable will be assessed a $25.00 per item charge.
We will be ready to serve at the start time agreed upon (Not one minute earlier). We advise permitting access to the venue at least 30-60 minutes before the scheduled service time and 30 minutes after for clean up and breakdown.
– Unless agreed otherwise, we will provide at least 3 hours of service.
The customer is responsible for making sure a reasonably safe, secure, level and spacious area will be made available for, and accessible by Mint Bartending. All permit requirements for outdoor service (ie. parks, beaches, public areas) are the customer's responsibility.
If on the day of the event additional hours are requested that exceed the contracted time frame, the customer will be charged $60 per hour, payable the day of the event. Whether or not the additional time is granted is completely within our discretion and may be denied if it's deemed to be not feasible.
Customer shall provide safe and appropriate working conditions. This includes at least a 6′ x 6′ work area and that a reasonably safe, secure, level and spacious area will be made available for, and accessible by our bartenders and staff. If there are ANY undisclosed steps (regardless of number, size or width) along the pathway to access the setup area, we reserve the right to either charge a $10 per step fee or cancel the service altogether. All booking fees are non refundable.
If at any time there is any threat or implied threat of injury or harm to any of our staff or any equipment we reserve the right to cease service. If the customer is unable to resolve the threatening situation within a maximum of 30 minutes, we reserve the right to cease service all together. Customer shall be responsible for payment in full, regardless of whether or not the situation is resolved or whether or not we resume service. In order to prevent equipment damage or liability arising from accidental injury to any individual attending this event, we reserve the right to deny any guest service.


text:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 268 › Banton v. Belt Line Ry. Corp.
Banton v. Belt Line Ry. Corp., 268 U.S. 413 (1925)
Banton v. Belt Line Railway Corporation
Argued March 11, 12, 1925
Decided May 25, 1925
1. Where an order of the New York Public Service Commission establishing joint street railway routes with a maximum joint fare, long in force, became confiscatory as to one of the companies concerned, and remained obligatory under the state law notwithstanding an application for relief pending before the commission on rehearing, held that the company was not bound to await final action by the Commission and to serve in the meantime without just compensation before suing in the federal court for an injunction. P. 268 U. S. 415.
2. The right of a street railway company to enjoin enforcement of such an order, made by a state Commission having power to establish equal and nonconfiscatory rates, is not affected by the facts that another company, whose railway may benefit from the injunction through diversions of traffic from competitors, owns all the stock of the plaintiff and does not itself seek to have the order enjoined. P. 268 U. S. 417.
3. Mere acceptance and putting into effect by a street railway company of an order of the New York Public Service Commission fixing a rate obligatory by the state law and which presumably was valid at the time was not an agreement by that company to abide by the rate should it subsequently become confiscatory, nor is such consent to be imputed to a successor corporation because it was incorporated and acquired the first company's property while the order was in effect, where the acquisition was through foreclosure of a mortgage antedating the order, and under which the franchises of the first company passed unimpaired to the second, and where there is nothing in its certificate of incorporation or in the laws under which it was incorporated imposing on the second company an obligation to continue to serve for the fare fixed by the order. P. 268 U. S. 417.
4. The power of a state to require street railways to provide reasonably adequate facilities and services even though compliance may be attended by some pecuniary disadvantage cannot justify an order enabling passengers, by transferring from one line to
another, to ride on both for a fare so low as to deprive a company of any return on the value of the property used by it to perform the service; the state may not, under guise of regulation, compel the use and operation of a company's property for the public convenience without just compensation. P. 268 U. S. 419.
5. The evidence in this case justifies the conclusion that resumption by the plaintiff street railway company of transfer business under an order establishing joint routes and a joint 5� fare, would require additional operating expenses in excess of the resulting increase of revenue, and that the company's fair share of the joint rate would be substantially less than the operating expenses and taxes justly chargeable to that business -- hence, the rate is confiscatory. P. 268 U. S. 420.
6. In determining whether a rate fixed for transfer passengers constituting only part of the traffic of a street railway line is confiscatory, the cost of the transfer business is not the amount by which total operating expenses would be diminished by eliminating, or increased by adding, the transfer passengers, for those operating expenses which are incurred on account of all passengers carried, and incapable of allocation to any class, should be attributed to the transfer passengers in fair proportion with others receiving like service. P. 268 U. S. 421.
7. While a carrier has no constitutional right to the same rate of return on all its business, the state may not select any class of traffic for arbitrary control and regulation. P. 268 U. S. 421.
8. In a suit to enjoin enforcement of a rate fixed by a competent state Commission, the presumption is that the order was based on sufficient evidence and the burden is on the plaintiff to establish its invalidity. P. 268 U. S. 422.
9. A commission or other legislative body, in its discretion, may determine to be reasonable and just a rate that is substantially higher than one merely sufficient to justify a judicial finding in a confiscation case that it is high enough to yield a just and reasonable return on the value of the property used to perform the service covered by the rate; rates substantially higher than the line between validity and unconstitutionality properly may be deemed to be just and reasonable, and not excessive or extortionate. P. 268 U. S. 422.
10. A finding by a state commission that a street car rate is, by reason of changed operating conditions, "unjust, unreasonable, and insufficient to render a fair and reasonable return for the service furnished," plainly imports that the rate is confiscatory. P. 268 U. S. 422.
Appeal from a decree of the district court enjoining, enforcement of an order establishing joint street car routes and a maximum joint fare. See 273 F. 272.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was commenced December 16, 1920, by appellee to enjoin the enforcement of an order of the New York Public Service Commission, First District (succeeded by the Transit Commission) made October 29, 1912. The order established joint routes on street railways in New York City, and prescribed five cents as the maximum joint fare. Appellee's street railway formed a part of some of such routes. The complaint alleged that the order deprived appellee of any return on the value of its property used to perform the service covered by the joint fare complained of, and violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and prayed injunction against the enforcement of the order in respect of certain lines with which its railroad connected. A temporary injunction was granted by a court of three judges. Section 266, Judicial Code; 273 F. 272. A master took the evidence and reported that the order was confiscatory. The district court confirmed his findings and entered decree as prayed. Appeal was taken under § 238, Judicial Code.
1. Appellants contend that when this suit was commenced, the ratemaking process was not completed, and that the appellee had not exhausted its legal remedies in the state tribunals. The point is without merit. The order complained of had been in force for more than eight
years. The laws of the state required it to be obeyed, and prescribed penalties for failure to comply with it. See § 56, Public Service Commission Law; c. 48, Consolidated Laws New York. May 11, 1920, the receiver of the New York Street Railways Company applied to the Commission to be relieved from the requirements of the order, and, May 18, appellee joined in that application and prayed for the elimination of the joint fare between its lines and the lines of other companies, except those of the Third Avenue Railway Company and the Forty-Second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company. May 22, appellee filed with the Commission a revised joint tariff, to take effect June 22, eliminating the joint fare of five cents. But, on June 18, the Commission suspended this tariff, and so compelled appellee to continue to comply with the order of October 29, 1912. July 9, the Commission found the fare of five cents too low, and prescribed in its stead a joint fare of seven cents, to take effect September 13. Appellee, on July 23, applied for a rehearing under § 22 of the Public Service Commission Law. It alleged that the joint fare of seven cents would be confiscatory, and that the evidence submitted had no reference to a joint or through rate of seven cents. August 28, the receiver also applied for a rehearing. August 31, the Commission granted a rehearing to commence November 5, and postponed the taking effect of the joint fare of seven cents until such time as the Commission might fix at or after the termination of the rehearing. On November 5, the rehearing was commenced, and the testimony was closed November 10. There has been no determination of the matter by the Commission, and so the order fixing joint fares at seven cents never took effect. Neither the original application nor the petition for rehearing relieved appellee of the burden of compliance with the order of October 29, 1912. No application to the Commission for relief was required by the state law. None was necessary
as a condition precedent to the suit. See Prendergast v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 262 U. S. 43, 262 U. S. 48; United States v. Abilene & So. Ry. Co., 265 U. S. 274, 265 U. S. 282. On the point under consideration, it must be assumed that the joint fare of five cents was confiscatory, as alleged. The continued enforcement of that rate would operate to take appellee's property without just compensation and to compel it to suffer daily confiscation. Notwithstanding the matter was pending on rehearing, the appellee had the right to sue in the federal court to enjoin the enforcement of the rate. It was not bound to await final action by the Commission, and, if the rate was in fact confiscatory, to serve in the meantime without just compensation. See Pacific Telephone Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U. S. 196, 265 U. S. 204; Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 261 U. S. 293; Love v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 185 F. 321, 326.
2. Appellants complaint that appellee has not sought injunction against the operation of the order as to the lines of the Third Avenue Company -- which owns the stock of the appellee -- and asserts that a diversion of traffic from other lines to that company has resulted from the injunction. The lines as to which the order was enjoined are relieved by the decree from the obligation of dividing the joint fare of five cents. If the rates enjoined are confiscatory, appellee is entitled to relief notwithstanding its obedience to the order in respect of other lines and fares. It was not bound to attack the prescribed rates as to all the routes. It is not suggested that the Commission is without power to prescribe equal and nonconfiscatory rates. The effect of the injunction on the business of the Third Avenue Company and its competitors is not involved in this suit, nor are they complaining.
3. Appellants insist that the appellee voluntarily assumed the obligation to carry transfer passengers pursuant
to the order of October 29, 1912, for two cents each, and, having been incorporated and having acquired its property subsequent and subject to such order, it is not entitled to complain of the order as an infringement of any constitutional right.
The Commission had power to establish through rates and fix joint fares. The law required street railroad corporations to comply with every order made by the Commission, and prescribed penalties to enforce such orders. See subd. 3, § 49; § 56, Public Service Commission Law, supra. The Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company, appellee's predecessor, accepted the order, and put in effect the prescribed joint fare of five cents. There is no suggestion that it was not bound to do so, or that the order was not then valid and binding on the company. A rate that is just and reasonable when prescribed subsequently may become too low, unreasonable, and confiscatory. See Bluefield Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U. S. 679, 262 U. S. 693; Galveston Electric Co. v. Galveston, 258 U. S. 388, 258 U. S. 400. That company did not agree to serve for the prescribed joint fare of five cents, and was not bound to do so if the rate was found to be, or if thereafter it should become, confiscatory. It did not surrender the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Central Park Company, many years before the order of October 29, 1912, was made, gave a mortgage on all its property, rights, and franchises. November 14, 1912, one Cornell purchased at foreclosure sale. December 24, 1912, under § 9 (now § 96) of the Stock Corporation Law, c. 59, Consolidated Laws New York, Cornell and others became incorporated as the Belt Line Railway Corporation, the appellee. That corporation, through such sale and by virtue of the provisions of § 9, succeeded to
"all the rights, privileges and franchises which at the time of such sale belonged to, or were vested in the corporation
last owning the property sold,"
and became "subject to all the provisions, duties and liabilities imposed by law on that [the predecessor] corporation." The franchise of the mortgagor was not destroyed. People v. O'Brien, 111 N.Y. 1, 41 et seq. The rights of the mortgagee and of the purchasers were inviolable. People ex rel. Third Avenue Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 203 N.Y. 299, 308. There is nothing in appellee's certificate of incorporation or the laws under which it was organized that imposes upon it any obligation to continue to serve for a portion of the joint fare of five cents. The Commission's order constitutes no part of the charter of appellee, and we find no agreement by appellee, expressed or implied, to comply with the order. The district court rightly held that Interstate Railway Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U. S. 79, does not apply.
4. It is asserted that the transfer order was not confiscatory, because it was a reasonable service requirement and also because the additional expense which would be involved by a resumption of transfers would not exceed the additional revenue which would be derived from transfer passengers.
The order was made under subd. 3, § 49, Public Commission Law, supra. Its purpose was to enable a passenger, by making a change from the car of one company to the car of another, to ride on the lines of both for a single fare of five cents. The service was not affected by the order. Change of cars remained necessary. The designation of transfer points and the requirement that transfer tickets be given and received by carriers were for the purpose of giving to the passenger the additional transportation without additional payment. The amount of the fare prescribed was not essential, and had no relation to the use of connecting lines for a continuous journey. The state has power to require street railways and like utilities to provide reasonably adequate
facilities and services, even though compliance may be attended by some pecuniary disadvantage. Railroad Commission v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 264 U. S. 79, 264 U. S. 85, and cases cited. But that rule is not applicable here, and the cases referred to do not support appellant's contention. The Commission, under the guise of regulation, may not compel the use and operation of the company's property for public convenience without just compensation.
The evidence sustains the finding of the master and the district court that the joint fare of five cents is confiscatory.
At the time of the foreclosure, appellee's predecessor, the Central Park Company, operated a street railway across town on Fifty-Ninth street and up and down town on the east side and on the west side of Manhattan Island from Fifty-Ninth street to the Battery. The order required the company to exchange transfers with the lines on First, Second, Third, Lexington, Madison, Sixth, and Seventh Avenues, Broadway, and Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Avenues. In October, 1919, and February, 1920, the receiver of the New York Railways Company returned the leased lines on Eighth, Ninth, and Madison Avenues to their owners, who were not named in or bound by the order. This eliminated some of the through routes. June 3, 1919, with the approval of the Commission, appellee abandoned the line on the east side, and March 24, 1921, abandoned the line on the west side. This left operated by appellee only the Fifty-Ninth street line from First Avenue to Tenth Avenue, and south on Tenth Avenue to Fifty-Fourth street. It then exchanged transfers at intersections of Fifty-Ninth street and First, Second, Third, Lexington, Sixth, and Seventh Avenues, Broadway, and Tenth Avenue. The decree, following the prayer of the complaint, enjoins the enforcement of the order except as to transfers at First and Third Avenues, Broadway and Tenth Avenue.
There is involved only the rates applicable to a part of the company's business. In this respect, the case is similar to Northern Pacific Railway v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585; Norfolk & Western Ry. v. West Virginia, 236 U. S. 605, and Northern Pacific Railway v. Department of Public Works of Washington, 268 U. S. 39. The applicable law is plain. The state is without power to require the traffic covered by the fare enjoined to be carried at a loss or without substantial compensation over its proper cost. And such cost includes not only the expenditures, if any, incurred exclusively for that traffic, but also a just proportion of the expenses incurred for all traffic of which that in question forms a part. The cost of doing such business is not, and properly cannot be, limited to the amount by which total operating expenses would be diminished by the elimination of, or increased by adding, the transfer passengers in question. It would be arbitrary and unjust to charge to that class of business only the amount by which the operating expenses were, or would be, increased by adding that to the other traffic carried. Outlays are nonetheless attributable to transfer passengers because also applicable to other traffic. Operating expenses which are incurred on account of all passengers carried, and which are not capable of direct allocation to any class, should be attributed to the transfer passengers in question in like proportion as such expenses are fairly chargeable to other passengers receiving like service. While the carrier has no constitutional right to the same rate or percentage of return on all its business, the state may not select any class of traffic for arbitrary control and regulation. Broad as is its power to regulate, the state does not enjoy the freedom of an owner. Appellee's property is held in private ownership, and, subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest, the management and right to control the business policy of the company belong to its owners. Northern Pacific Railway v.
North Dakota, supra, 236 U. S. 595-596; Norfolk & Western Ry. v. West Virginia, supra, 236 U. S. 609; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago G. W. Ry., 209 U. S. 108, 209 U. S. 118.
It does not appear whether the Commission, when making the order, acted without or upon sufficient evidence. Northern Pacific Railway v. Department of Public Works of Washington, supra. But the presumption is that the order was reasonable and valid, and the burden was on appellee to establish its invalidity. It is well known, and the court will take judicial notice of the fact, that the purchasing power of money has been much less since 1917 than it was in 1912, when the order was made, and that the cost of labor, materials and supplies necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of street railways has greatly increased. In the preamble to its order of July 20, 1920, prescribing a joint fare of seven cents instead of five cents, the Commission stated:
"The Commission, after a careful consideration of the testimony and briefs submitted by counsel, being of the opinion that the convenience of the traveling public necessitates the continuance of the said transfers, but that the maximum joint rate of five cents fixed in the said order of October 29, 1920, [1912] is, by reason of the changed conditions under which the said railroad companies are operating, unjust, unreasonable, and insufficient to render a fair and reasonable return for the service furnished, it is ordered, . . ."
etc. Appellants argue that this does not amount to a finding that the joint fare of five cents is confiscatory. But clearly the language properly may be taken to mean that the rate is too low, and violates the Constitution. That is the plain import of the words used. A commission or other legislative body, in its discretion, may determine to be reasonable and just a rate that is substantially higher than one merely sufficient to justify a judicial finding in a confiscation case that it is high enough to yield a just and reasonable return on the value of the property
used to perform the service covered by the rate. The mere fact that a rate is nonconfiscatory does not indicate that it must be deemed to be just and reasonable. It is well known that rates substantially higher than the line between validity and unconstitutionality properly may be deemed to be just and reasonable, and not excessive or extortionate. Trier v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 30 I.C.C. 352, 355; Holmes & Hallowell Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co., 37 I.C.C. 625, 635; Dimmitt-Caudle-Smith Live Stock Co. v. R. Co., 47 I.C.C. 287, 298; Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Michigan Railroad Commission, 203 F. 864, 870. But the language above quoted does not show, and there is nothing to suggest, that the Commission had in mind or intended any such distinction.
About the time the order of October 29, 1912, became effective, the carriers agreed upon a division of the joint fare. There was assigned to the appellee two cents and to the other carriers three cents out of each fare. This apportionment was accepted by the master and district court. It is not challenged by any assignment of error, and it does not appear that appellee was entitled to more.
The evidence shows that, upon the authorization of the Commission, appellee issued capital stock to the amount of $734,000, bonds for $1,750,000, and a note for $73,091.53. The total is $2,557,091.53. But, because of abandonments, changes, and lack of supplementing evidence, this figure is not a good indication of the cost or of the value of the property in use at the time of the trial. At the trial, appellee called a valuation engineer who, in May, 1921, had been employed by the Commission to make a valuation of all the street railroads in New York City. His estimate of the cost of reproduction of appellee's property in 1921 was $2,859,754. He deducted from this $77,000 on account of errors in the inventory and $128,246, his estimate of the cost of putting the property in first class condition, leaving $2,654,508. There
was other evidence of value. The master and district court found the value to be $2,600,000. Appellants contend that this finding is not sustained by the evidence. In the view we take of this case, it is not necessary to determine the value of the property, or whether total revenue exceeds total operating expenses and taxes by a sum sufficient to pay a reasonable return on the value of all the property. However, we are satisfied by the evidence that a fair and reasonable return on the value would be in excess of $91,154.58, the annual interest at 5 percent on the indebtedness of $1,823,901.53, evidenced by the bonds and note.
There follows a statement showing by fiscal years, ended June 30, and for three months ending September 30, 1922: (1) the number of passengers carried at five cents each; (2) the number of joint rate passengers carried at two cents each; (3) the average revenue per passenger, exclusive of free transfer passengers; (4) the average cost per passenger, including operating expenses and taxes, but excluding any amount for depreciation or interest; (5) the average cost per passenger, exclusive of depreciation, but including interest at 5 percent on the company's bonds and note.
1918 6,450,687 13,512,033 2.9� 2.75� 3.20�
1919 5,440,766 12,817,674 2.89� 2.49� 3.00�
1921 8,119,325 7,948,148 3.5� 3.52� 4.10�
1922 8,100,009 5,720,102 3.68� 2.92� 3.58�
* 1,690,229 1,426,923 3.6� 3.03� 3.77�
* Three months ended September 30, 1922.
These figures show that the operating expenses and taxes, both before and after the injunction, substantially exceeded two cents, the amount received by appellee per transfer passenger. Exclusive of any allowance for a depreciation reserve or for interest, the average cost per
passenger has been from about 24 percent to about 51 percent in excess of two cents, and, if interest on the debt at five percent be included, it appears that the excess has been from about 50 percent to 105 percent. And the record shows that, for some time prior to the injunction, the total revenue from all sources, including revenue for transportation, advertising, rentals and interest on deposits, was less than a sum sufficient to cover operating expenses, taxes, and interest on the debt, and also shows that, both before and after the injunction, such total revenue was not sufficient to yield a reasonable return on the value of the property after paying operating expenses and taxes.
The master found that a resumption of the transfer traffic enjoined would result in an increase of revenue of $46,326.72 per year, and of operating expenses of $105,900 per year. These findings were not confirmed. The district court found that the revenue would be increased by about $42,000 per year and operating expenses about $46,000 per year.
The evidence undoubtedly justifies the conclusion that a resumption of such transfer business would require additional operating expenses in an amount in excess of the resulting increase of revenue, and that appellee's fair share of the joint rate would be substantially less than the operating expenses and taxes justly chargeable to that business. It follows that the rate is confiscatory. We need not determine the value of the property attributable to the traffic in question, or what would constitute a reasonable rate of return.


All Health Tips | Biggest Culprits | Celiac, Gluten-free | Digestive Health | Myths | Natural Sweeteners | Obesity | Optimizing Health | Paleo Diet | Sweets with no sugar rush or weight gain! | What is the Paleo Diet?
By Jane Barthelemy. I love all brownies! But hey, they're never what they claim to be. I analyzed three brownie recipes to see which is best. All of them taste great. But which one is healthiest? We believe Paleo brownies are always low-carb and healthy. Right? Nope. Not always. These Nutrition Facts will shock and surprise you!
The SECRET to low-carb health and weight control is to limit carbs and sugars. Modern foods are often high in refined sugars and carbs, which are by far the leading suspects in our epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and other diseases. Many people are looking to the Paleo diet as a guide to a healthy ancestral diet. So in these recipes I wanted to measure carbs and sugars.
Recipe #1 is the Ultimate Brownie from Betty Crocker, with Gold Medal white flour and sugar.
Recipe #2 is a popular Paleo recipe made with dark chocolate, coconut flour, and honey.
Recipe #3 is from my new book Paleo Desserts, with shredded coconut, chicory root, and cacao.
#1 Betty Crocker brownies are very high in carbs and sugars. An invitation to weight gain!
#2 the Popular Paleo brownies are high in carbs, with more sugars than Betty Crocker! Uh oh!
#3 My Paleo Desserts brownies are extremely low in both carbs and sugars. Aha! Finally!
Why are #1 and #2 so high in carbs and sugar?
#1 Everybody knows Betty Crocker brownies are high in carbs and sugars – this way of eating is part of what's making us fat. Diabetes and obesity are epidemic, and we want to stop this trend.
#2 But why are the Popular Paleo Brownies so similar to Betty Crocker? I'll tell you. Look at the ingredients. Dark chocolate is sweetened with sugar. How Paleo is that? Coconut flour is refined, defatted with chemicals and heat, then pulverized with the brown husk and hull. That's why it is darker and high in carbs (71%). How Paleo is that? But it's mostly the sugar in the honey that's driving the numbers up. Honey tastes delicious, and is a true Paleo food, however it is extremely high in sugars (50% fructose, 44% glucose). Fructose is especially hard for the liver to digest, and has been linked to diabetes and insulin resistance. Our Paleo ancestors certainly enjoyed honey, but probably not daily. Since there are no Paleo Police, you're free to choose.
#3 My brownie recipe is rich and delicious, made with all hunt-and-gather ingredients – the "flour" is shredded coconut with only 27% carbs. The sweetener is natural chicory root fiber with 0% carbs and 0% sugar. It's easy to see why this recipe is so low in carbs and sugar. You can compute these nutrition facts for yourself online at Calorie Counter.
The SECRET to low-carb health and weight control is to limit carbs and sugars.
If a food is truly Paleo, then it will be low in refined carbs and sugars. It's easy to read the labels and compute the carbs for yourself. For homemade sweet snacks on the Paleo Diet, consider changing to a zero-carb, natural sweetener. Check out Just Like Sugar Table Top natural chicory root. It tastes delicious, and it is expensive – but then so is an illness. I don't sell it, I just love the difference in how my body feels. You can experiment with any sweetener you choose in my recipes, however you may miss out on the low-carb benefits. Read more about this in my articles Paleo Sweeteners, and 325 Sweeteners, Which is Best?
For the past few years I've been like a mad scientist in my test kitchen, working to re-invent yummy low-carb desserts that are true to the hunt-and-gather diet of our ancestors. I studied hundreds of sweeteners and dozens of flours to find the most natural, healthiest, and delicious. The results of the research is my book Paleo Desserts, 125 Delicious Everyday Favorites, Gluten and Grain-free. ALL the recipes are luscious and incredibly low in carbs, not just the brownies! Here's the complete brownies recipe, a free online preview from the book. Here's a list of the many free Paleo Desserts recipes on this site. For a complete selection of all your favorite sweets in low-carb form, check out my book and taste them for yourself!
FABULOUS BROWNIES AND NO SUGAR RUSH!


I've ordered a Grizzly uke kit, and can't wait to get started. I gave my Lanikai soprano to my daughter, and so need another soprano.I've never really built anything out of wood before, and am a bit nervous.
I have a question on the directions: Is it really necessary to do the finishing of the body _before_ attaching the bridge? Can't you just glue the bridge down, and then apply the stain and finish?
I'm worried about the finish leaking onto the bridge location, as it warns in the directions. It seems to me it would be simpler just to put the bridge on first.
I used a bit of painters tape cut the the same shape as the bridge but a bit smaller. I put 4 cans of laquer over it with no trouble with leaks under it. Y ou will have to cut the laquer before you pull the tape.
You can seal the painters tape with a layer (equally cut to size) of electrical tape. That will probably do the trick and keep it from bleeding through. For the most part, I think you will be good if you don't use overly thick coats of lacquer.
Have you done any builing? If so I would love to see some pictures.
I don't mask the bridge area before finishing. Just scrape off the finish before gluing.
No, no building as of yet when it comes to instruments. I do a lot of wood work in other areas. Though, I have a lot of resources on lutheir work and that would have been my approach. I like ksquine's too.
Success! I finished the kit today. It's not the prettiest--I think I could have chosen better finish than I used, but it is done and _plays in tune_! Hooray!
I've been playing John King's "Famous Solos and Duets for Ukulele" with it all morning. It has a nice, cheery tone with the Aquilas I put on it.
Great! post some pictures we would all love to see it.
Okay, here's a video of the ukulele. I'm pleased that it was succesful. My wife thinks I'm a little crazy, though, since this is ukulele number 3 for me.
Yes. I've got lots of trumpets too, although I don't get to play much anymore. Children and work get in the way, not that I'm complaining.
Okay... whew! My first thought was "That is a trumpet mute", but then the more I thought about it the more I thought I was nuts!
Very nice job on building it and nice ukulele playing as well.
Could you please share with me which kind of finish did you use and where did you get it?
I also just ordered a grizzly kit and I am trying to gather all the necessary tools or materials to build this kit.
Sure. Minwax Polyshades Stain and Polyurethane in 1 step, Classic Oak Gloss 470. It was easy, since it contains stain and polyurethane, but I must have done something wrong because I have drips. I'm not too upset, because my woodworking experience is close to zero.
You need some clamps, and some way to strap the neck to the body. I used a 24" flat bungy cord.
Hi! Byzkari, did you use any grain filler?
No grain filler. I'm just a rookie, and wanted to keep it simple.
Although I just ordered a Tusq bridge and saddle. I want it to be a little louder.
Just finished a Grizzly hybrid (I used a cigar box and made a bird feeder out of the body)...was pretty stoked on how it all went together. I chose to modify the Grizzly neck to bolt on (bullet proof kid and camping machine)- planning on ordering another kit today after hearing yours, SOUNDS GREAT!
do you mind if I ask where you buy the Tusq saddle? I am also interested in geting those.
I was hoping it would arrive today. Alas! Actually, I screwed up the factory nut trying to lower the action (short-term solution: piece of an index card under the nut), and I took the opportunity to upgrade. I will try to post a before and after video.
Dang you Chris. You beat me.
Hi! Could you please share with me how did you find the position for the bridge? How exactly did you mark the center of the body?
I felt that I couldn't really find a good way to do that.
The exact center doesn't really matter. What matters is that the bridge is in the correct position relative to the fretboard, since that determines intonation. So, don't overthink it. I think I measured a bit and made a light pencil line to determine the center, but it really doesn't matter too much.
For the bridge, I got a good ruler and measured the center and both sides to make sure that I was at exactly 170mm. A surveyor's trick: if you move the ruler back and forth, the _lowest_ number you get will be the true distance between two points.
But I couldn't understand the surveyor's trick you mentioned.
Could you please explain a little bit more? Thank you ..
Sure. You want to find the distance between a point and a line, say the midpoint of the 12th fret, and the line of the front of the bridge. But you aren't sure if your ruler is 90 degrees to the fret. So, you gently move the ruler back and forth, holding the zero directly on the point. The shortest reading you get at the line of the front of the bridge is the actual distance.
Hmm. This would be easier if I could show you. It's a simple concept, but not so simple to write in words.
Where you position the bridge is primarily a function of how the neck is set. If the neck is set true to the body, it's centerline will also follow the centerline of the sound board seam (if you don't have a sound board seam, draw one in with a pencil). Hopefully, you have the sound hole centered and that your body is true to your mold. With the neck attached to the body, lay a straight edge on the neck and determine where the two outside strings will lay, follow those lines down to the bridge area and mark the locations. Hopefully, the marks will show the same distance to the edges of the lower bout. If not, you need to reset the neck.
Hmmm, you're right byzkari. It's easier to demonstrate than explain!
you're right byzkari. It's easier to demonstrate than explain!
Thanks. I understand completely now.
I have tried my best to located the bridge using very similar method and found that my bridge is not centered. So, that probably means that the neck is not centered either.
I did put on strings (worth BM) to see whether the intonation is good or not. Sadly, the intonation is only accurate on the A string all the way to 12th fret, but the other three strings are not accurate at all. So, byzkarl, did you encounter this issue? or the intonation on your uke is great?
SO, i guess my question is, how do I take the bridge and neck off the body? I glued them on with titebond original wood glue.
PS, sorry byzkarl, i didn't mean to steal your thread. My own thread didn't have too much traffic there.
I don't know how you are going to unglue the stuff. Before you do that, try it with different strings; sometimes irregularities in the strings make them play out of tune. If the A is in tune, do they get more out of tune the further from the A string you get? Then the bridge might be crooked. Try measuring accurately from the twelfth fret to each side of the bridge. Do you get the same number?
I'm really pleased with my Grizzly, especially with the Tusq saddle I installed.
So, for your Grizzly uke, are all four strings in tune all the way to 12th fret?
I am going to so some more measuring on mine as soon as get off work.


If you're terrible at flipping your omelets in the skillet like I am, you'll love these Omelets in a Bag!
Whether on a family camp out or dining at home, these omelets in a bag are sure to please! Not only are they easy to make, they are also easy to customize to everyone's liking. Best of all, you can eat these right out of the bag, which makes meal clean up so simple!
Meanwhile, cut and prepare the fillings you'd like in your omelet.
Break two eggs into a baggie, then add the fillings of your choice.
Seal the bag with as little air as possible and mix the ingredients together by gently kneading or shaking the bag.
Remove the bag from the water with the tongs.
Grab a fork and eat right out of the bag, or serve on a plate and enjoy!
CLICK HERE to see a video tutorial of this step-by-step process!