text:
Register for My Account
Customer Choice
Customer Choice Small Business
Ontario Electricity Rebate Eligibility
Payment Assistance/Arrangements
About Your Bill
Disconnection Rules
Suite Metering
Contacts on Your Account
My Account FAQ
Outages and Safety
Outage Preparation
Powerline Safety Week
Safety Poster Contest
Policies and Tariffs
Rate Applications
Connecting Embedded Generation
Micro Generators <10kW
Small, Mid-Sized and Large Embedded Generators >10kW
Restricted Feeders
Contractor Pre-Qualifications
Clearance Information
Scams and Fraud
About NPEI
Mission, Values, and Vision
Multi Year Accessibility Plan
Integrated Accessibility Policy
about us about us Site Terms of Use
These Terms and Conditions describe the terms and conditions applicable to the use of the Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. web site (the "Web Site"). These may be amended at any time and the posting of these amended terms on the Web Site shall constitute notice thereof. Except, as stated below, all amended terms shall be effective immediately upon such notice. By using the Web Site, you agree to be bound by these Terms and Conditions. If you do not agree with any of these terms or conditions, do not use the Web Site.
Use of the Web Site is at the users sole risk. All materials and information on the Web Site are provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. makes no warranties or representations concerning the reliability, accuracy or likeliness of results of the use of the materials/information (including any related graphics) on this Web Site or otherwise relating to such materials/information or on any sites linked to this Web Site. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. makes no warranties or representations that access to the Web Site will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error free. Any material downloaded or otherwise obtained through the use of the Web Site is done at the users discretion and risk and that the user will be solely responsible for any damage to their computer system or loss of data that results from downloading such material.
In no event will Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever, including special, direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with the: use of; or performance of; or the information available or referred to on; the Web Site, including but not limited to, damages for loss of profits or revenues suffered by the user, its clients, employers or third parties howsoever caused and resulting from, but not necessarily limited to, breach of contract, tort, negligence or other legal statutory or equitable grounds, even if Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
All materials and information published or otherwise accessible through this Web Site, including but not limited to, news articles, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, software and other materials (the "Content") are protected by copyright, trademarks and/or other rights and laws, and are owned or controlled by Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. or its licensors. Portions of the Web Site may be provided to Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. under license. The copying, reproduction, or publication of any part of the Web Site is strictly prohibited, unless expressly authorized in writing by Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. You agree to abide by all additional copyright notices, information and restrictions contained in any Content and in any content accessed through the Web Site.
The trademarks, logos and service marks, including but not limited to "Niagara Peninsula Energy", and other names, logos and icons identifying Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc.'s products and services and such other product, names, logos and icons of third parties (collectively the "Trademarks") displayed on the Web Site, are registered and unregistered Trademarks of Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. and third parties. Nothing contained on the Web Site should be construed as granting, by implication, estoppel, or otherwise, any license or right to use any Trademark displayed on the Web Site without the written permission of Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. or such third party that may own the Trademarks displayed on the Web Site. Your misuse of the Trademarks displayed on the Web Site, or any other Content on the Web Site, except as provided in these Terms and Conditions, is strictly prohibited. You are also advised that Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. will aggressively enforce its intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law.
Use of this Site
While visiting the Web Site you may not: (A) post, upload, publish, reproduce, transmit or otherwise distribute information or other material (i) constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offence or give rise to civil liability, or (ii) which is protected by copyright, or other intellectual property right, or derivative works with respect thereto, without obtaining permission of the copyright owner or right holder; or (B) otherwise use this site in a manner which is contrary to law including the posting or transmitting of any information or software which contains a virus, cancelbot, trojan horse, worm or other harmful or disruptive component.
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. and its affiliates and related companies, directors, officers and employees, harmless from any and all liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees, related to any violation of these Terms and Conditions by you or users of your account, or in connection with the use of the Web Site or the placement or transmission of any information or other materials on the Web Site by you or users of your account.
Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. has not reviewed the web sites linked to or linked from the Web Site and is not responsible for the contents of any such linked site. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. makes no representations or warranties whatsoever about any such linked site. When you access a non-Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. web site, you understand and acknowledge that it is independent from Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc., that Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. has no control over the content on any such web site, and that Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. does not assume any responsibility or liability for any communications or materials available at such web site and does not endorse the content or the use of such web site. Use of any such linked web site is at the user's own risk. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. reserves the sole right to either modify or discontinue the Web Site including any features therein at any time with or without notice to you.
You agree that Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. may, in its sole discretion, terminate or suspend your access to all or part of the Web Site for any reason, including without limitation, breach of these Terms and Conditions. Should you object to the Terms and Conditions or any subsequent modifications thereto or become dissatisfied with the Web Site in any way, your only recourse is to immediately discontinue use of the Web Site.
These Terms and Conditions, including any and all documents referenced herein constitute the entire agreement between Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. and you pertaining to the subject matter hereof. Niagara Peninsula Energy's failure to insist upon or enforce strict performance of any provision of these Terms and Conditions shall not be construed as a waiver of any provisions or rights. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of these Terms and Conditions shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision hereof and any such invalid or unenforceable provision shall be deemed to be severable. These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. The parties have required that these Terms and Conditions and all documents relating hereto be drawn up in English. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. has no obligation to monitor this site.
However, you agree that Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. has the right to monitor this site electronically from time to time and to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any law, regulation or other governmental request, to operate this site properly, or to protect itself or its subscribers. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. reserves the right to refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, that, in its sole discretion, are unacceptable, undesirable, or in violation of these terms and conditions.
If you have any issues/difficulties with the terms, conditions, rules, policies, guidelines or practices which Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. uses to operate this site, please contact us and we will be happy to discuss your concerns.
Follow our social media to stay connected to us!
Niagara Peninsula Energy
7447 Pin Oak Drive
Niagara Falls, ON
info@npei.ca
Account Balance Lookup:
Designed and Developed by DANIMA Creative Group


text:
Category: surveillance
IBM and Google reportedly swap morals for cash in Chinese surveillance JV
IBM and Google executives should be bracing for impact as the comet of controversy heads directly towards their offices.
Reports have emerged, via the Intercept, suggesting two of the US' most influential and powerful technology giants have indirectly been assisting the Chinese Government with its campaign of mass-surveillance and censorship. Both will try to distance themselves from the controversy, but this could have a significant impact on both firms.
The drama here is focused around a joint-venture, the OpenPower Foundation, founded in 2013 by Google and IBM, but features members such as Red Hat, Broadcom, Mellanox, Xilinx and Rackspace. The aim of the open-ecosystem organization is to facilitate and share advances in networking, server, data storage, and processing technology.
To date, the group has been little more than another relatively uninteresting NPO, serving a niche in the industry, though one initiative is causing the stir. The OpenPower Foundation has been working with Xilinx and Chinese firm Semptian to create a new breed of chips capable of enabling computers to process incredible amounts of data. This might not seem extraordinary, though the application is where the issue has been found.
On the surface, Semptian is a relatively ordinary Chinese semiconductor business, but when you look at its most profitable division, iNext, the story becomes a lot more sinister. iNext specialises in selling equipment to the Chinese Government to enable the mass-surveillance and censorship projects which have become so infamous.
It will come as little surprise a Chinese firm is aiding the Government with its nefarious objectives, but a link to IBM and Google, as well as a host of other US firms, will have some twitching with discomfort. We can imagine the only people who are pleased at this news are the politicians who are looking to get their faces on TV by theatrically condemning the whole saga.
Let's start with what iNext actually does before moving onto the US firms involved in the controversy. iNext works with Chinese Government agencies by providing a product called Aegis. Aegis is an interception and analysis system which has been embedded into various phone and internet networks throughout the country. This is one of the products which enables the Chinese Government to have such a close eye on the activities of its citizens.
Documentation acquired by The Intercept outlines the proposition in more detail.
"Aegis is not only the standard interception system but also the powerful analysis system with early warning and timely action capabilities. Aegis can work with all kinds of networks and 3rd party systems, from recovering, analysing, exploring, warning, early warning, locating to capturing. Aegis provides LEA with an end to end solution described as Deep Insight, Early Warning and Timely Action."
Although the majority of this statement is corporate fluff, it does provide some insight into the way in which the technology actually works. This is an incredibly powerful surveillance system, which is capable of locating individuals through application usernames, IP addresses or phone numbers, as well as accurately tracking the location of said individuals on a real-time basis.
Perhaps one of the most worrying aspect of this system is the 'pre-crime' element. Although the idea of predictive analytics in some societies has been met with controversy and considerable resistance, we suspect the Chinese Government does not have the same reservations.
iNext promises this feature can help prevent crime through the introduction of an early warning system. This raises all sorts of ethical questions, as while the data estimates might be accurate to five nines, can you arrest someone when they haven't actually committed a crime. This is the sticky position Google and IBM might have found itself in.
OpenPower has said that it was not aware of the commercial applications of the projects it manages, while its charter prevents it from getting involved. The objective of the foundation is to facilitate the progress of technology, not to act as judge and jury for its application. It's a nice little way to keep controversy at arm's length; inaction and negligence is seen as an appropriate defence plea.
For IBM and Google, who are noted as founding members of the OpenPower Foundation, a stance of ignorance might be enough to satisfy institutions of innocence, but the court of public opinion could swing heavily the other direction. An indirect tie to such nefarious activities is enough for many to pass judgment.
When it comes to IBM, the pursuit of innocence becomes a little bit trickier. IBM is directly mentioned on the Semptian website, suggesting Big Blue has been working closely with the Chinese firm for some time, though the details of this relationship are unknown for the moment.
For any of the US firms which have been mentioned here, it is not a comfortable situation to be in. Although they might be able to plead ignorance, it is quite difficult to believe. These are monstrous multi-national billion-dollar corporations, with hordes of lawyers, some of whom will be tasked with making sure the technology is not being utilised in situations which would get the firm in trouble.
Of course, this is not the first time US technology firms have found themselves on the wrong side of right. There have been numerous protests from employees of the technology giants as to how the technology is being applied in the real-world. Google is a prime example.
In April 2018, Google employees revolted over an initiative the firm was participating in with the US Government. Known as Project Maven, Google's AI technology was used to improve the accuracy of drone strikes. As you can imagine, the Googlers were not happy at the thought of helping the US Government blow people up. Project Dragonfly was another which brought internal uproar, this time the Googlers were helping to create a version of the Google news app for China which would filter out certain stories which the Government deemed undesirable.
Most of the internet giants will plead their case, suggesting their intentions are only to advance society, but there are numerous examples of contracts and initiatives which contradict this position.
Most developers or engineers, especially the ones who work for a Silicon Valley giant, work for the highest bidder, but there is a moral line few will cross. As we've seen before, employees are not happy to aide governments in the business of death, surveillance or censorship, and we suspect the same storyline will play out here.
Google and IBM should be preparing themselves for significant internal and external backlash.
FBI and London Met land in hot water over facial recognition tech
The FBI and London Metropolitan Police force will be facing some awkward conversations this week over unauthorised and potentially illegal use of facial recognition technologies.
Starting in the US, the Washington Post has been handed records dating back almost five years which suggest the FBI and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) have been using DMV databases to build a surveillance network without the consent of citizens. The emails were obtained by Georgetown Law researchers through public records requests.
Although law enforcement agencies have normalised biometrics as part of investigations nowadays, think finger print or DNA evidence left at crime scenes, the traces are only useful when catching repeat offenders. Biometric databases are built by obtaining data from those who have been previously charged, but in this case, the FBI and ICE have been accessing data on 641 million individuals, the vast majority of which are innocent and would not have been consulted for the initiative.
In the Land of the Free, such hypocrisy is becoming almost second nature to national security and intelligence forces, who may well find themselves in some bother from a privacy perspective.
As it stands, there is no legislative or regulatory guidelines which authorise the development of such a complex surveillance system, or any public consultation with the citizens of the US. This act first, tell later mentality is something which is becoming increasingly common in country's the US has designated as national enemies, though there is little evidence authorities in the US have any respect for the rights of their own citizens.
Heading across the pond to the UK, a report from the Human Rights, Big Data & Technology Project has identified 'significant flaws' with the way live facial recognition has been trialled in London by the Metropolitan Police force. The group, based out of the University of Essex Human Rights Centre, suggests it could be found to be illegal should it be challenged in court.
"The legal basis for the trials was unclear and is unlikely to satisfy the 'in accordance with the law' test established by human rights law," said Dr Daragh Murray, who authored the report alongside Professor Peter Fussey.
"It does not appear that an effective effort was made to identify human rights harms or to establish the necessity of LFR [live facial recognition]. Ultimately, the impression is that human rights compliance was not built into the Metropolitan Police's systems from the outset and was not an integral part of the process."
The main gripe from the duo here seems to be how the Met approached the trials. LFR was approached in a manner similar to traditional CCTV, failing to take into the intrusive nature of facial recognition, and the use of biometric processing. The Met did not consider the 'necessary in a democratic society' test established by human rights law, and therefore effectively ignored the impact on privacy rights.
There were also numerous other issues, including a lack of public consultation, the accuracy of the technology (8 out of 42 tests were actually correct), criteria for using the technology was not clearly defined and accuracy and relevance of the 'watchlist' of suspects. However, the main concern from the University's research team was that only the technical aspects of the trial were considered, not the impact on privacy.
There is a common theme in both of these instances; the authorities supposedly in place to protect our freedoms pay little attention to the privacy rights which are granted to us. There seems to be a 'ends justify the means' attitude with little consideration to the human right to privacy. Such attitudes are exactly what the US and UK aim to eradicate when 'freeing' citizens of oppressive regimes abroad.
What is perhaps the most concerned about these stories is the speed at which they are being implemented. There has been little public consultation to the appropriateness of these technologies or whether the general public is prepared to sacrifice privacy rights in the pursuit of national security. With the intrusive nature of facial recognition, authorities should not be allowed to make this decision on behalf of the general public, especially when there is so much precedent for abuse and privacy is a hot-topic following scandals in private industry.
Of course, there are examples of the establishment slowing down progress to give time for these considerations. In San Francisco, the city's Board of Supervisors has made it illegal for forces to implement facial recognition technologies unless approval has been granted. The police force would have to demonstrate stringent justification, accountability systems and safeguards to privacy rights.
In the UK, Dr Murray and Professor Fussey are calling for a pause on the implementation or trialling of facial recognition technologies until the impact on and trade-off of privacy rights have been fully understood.
Facial recognition technologies are becoming incredibly useful when it comes to access and authentication, though there needs to be some serious conversations about the privacy implications of using the tech in the world of surveillance and police enforcement. At the moment, it seems to be nothing but an after-thought for the police forces and intelligence agencies, an incredibly worrying and dangerous attitude to have.
Orange points to privacy benefits through MEC
Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) is back on the buzzword agenda after spending a few years in the wilderness and Orange has pointed to an interesting privacy benefit to the technology.
After getting a technology tour at Roland Garros this week, one of the quick demos offered some insight into the world of video analytics and edge computing. Using several different wireless cameras scattered around the venue and various AI applications, Orange is able to keep track on the number of individuals who are in one particular area. This could be one of the entertainment areas or the courts themselves, but the algorithm is able to give an accurate estimate of how populated these areas are, which can help for crowd control or security purposes.
The idea of using facial recognition through video surveillance has started to create some privacy concerns in recent months, as there is little awareness from the general public who have not consented to being monitored, but this is where it gets interesting. Orange pointed out that the images are not detailed to identify specific individuals, just the number of individuals in an area, but even if it was, it doesn't matter because of edge computing.
With processing power stored on the edge of the network the data can be processed, insight captured, before being deleted. Useless information can be sifted out on the edge, with only relevant data or the insight sent back to the core. By empowering the edge, privacy concerns are negated as personal information is not actually being stored by Orange, simply the insight which would not be considered sensitive.
This is not a revelation which is going to change the technology world, but it is an interesting little benefit which addresses a growing concern in the wider society.
UK Government's mass surveillance deemed unlawful by courts
The UK Government's mass surveillance and data collection activities has been ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal after the laws were challenged by Labour MP Tom Watson and human rights group Liberty.
The law which was challenged by Watson, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) has now expired, though the government largely replicated and expanded these same powers in the Investigatory Powers Act, more commonly known as the Snoopers Charter. This controversial law came into effect in the early stages of 2017 though there is likely to be a lot of back peddling from the Government.
One of the more contentious aspects of the Snoopers Charter forced telcos to collect and store data on what customers internet activities and phone records. Some critics pointed out this information, which could be accessed by the government with little accountability, made everyone a person of interest. The Court of Appeal has ruled collecting information on someone who is not under investigation for a crime is indeed unlawful.
The Court of Appeal found two areas in particular which were deemed unlawful:
Access to the data was restricted or used solely for the purpose of fighting crime
Police and intelligence agencies were their own authority for infringing an individual's privacy. This should only be authorised by courts or an independent body
In short, the government gave itself a blank cheque with no clauses for accountability or justification to violate UK citizens right to privacy. Big Brother was certainly in free-flowing form.
"This legislation was flawed from the start," said Watson. "It was rushed through Parliament just before recess without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
"The Government must now bring forward changes to the Investigatory Powers Act to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are innocent victims or witnesses to crime, are protected by a system of independent approval for access to communications data. I'm proud to have played my part in safeguarding citizen's fundamental rights."
"Yet again a UK court has ruled the Government's extreme mass surveillance regime unlawful," said Martha Spurrier of Liberty. "This judgment tells ministers in crystal clear terms that they are breaching the public's human rights. The latest incarnation of the Snoopers' Charter, the Investigatory Powers Act, must be changed.
"No politician is above the law. When will the Government stop bartering with judges and start drawing up a surveillance law that upholds our democratic freedoms?"
What is worth noting is that this case is not a direct challenge to the Snoopers Charter. Any accusations of wrong-doing are indirect, as the Snoopers Charter simply continued offering power to the government and intelligence agencies which were granted in DRIPA. Liberty is directly challenging the Snoopers Charter in court later in the year, but hopefully by that point the rules will be torn up.
This is a very promising move from the Court of Appeal, as there have been some very worrying trends around the world; the concept of an individual's privacy was starting to look like a footnote in historical records. The Canadian Government has been expanding the powers of intelligence agencies, France and Germany were exploring how encryption could be weakened, the US has been passing laws about surveillance without consulting elected representatives and Australia has been trying to introduce its own anti-encryption laws.
Unfortunately this is one of the few successful cases were worrying rules have been challenged. The UK is not the only example of this, as politicians feel fear mongering messages and the prospect of terrorism is a perfectly valid reason to ignore and bastardise human rights to privacy. The concept of privacy is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


KIPP is located in 6 cities across the Bay Area. Find the school that best fits your family's need.
Click on any city above to apply to any KIPP school. It only takes 5 minutes!
Click to Submit! After you submit your application in Schoolmint, you'll receive an email and text confirmation with next steps.
Lottery dates vary depending on the city. You will receive information on your school's lottery via email and text.
Once your child has been accepted to a KIPP school, you must accept the offer online and register your child in the upcoming school year.
If there are more applicants than spaces available, the student may be placed on the waitlist. Enrollment is offered to the next student on the waitlist whenever a spot becomes open. Some schools have longer waitlists than others.


text:
package special.sigma

import org.bouncycastle.math.ec.ECPoint

/** This extensions are used from SigmaDsl.
  * If you add something here, make sure the corresponding syntax is supported by SigmaScript. */
class DslSyntaxExtensions(dsl: SigmaDslBuilder) {
  implicit class BooleanOps(source: Boolean) {
    /** Logical AND between Boolean on the left and SigmaProp value on the right. */
    def &&(prop: SigmaProp) = dsl.sigmaProp(source) && prop

    /** Logical AND between Boolean on the left and SigmaProp value on the right. */
    def ||(prop: SigmaProp) = dsl.sigmaProp(source) || prop
  }
}

object Extensions {

  def showECPoint(p: ECPoint): String = {
    if (p.isInfinity) {
      "INF"
    }
    else {
      val rawX = p.getRawXCoord.toString.substring(0, 6)
      val rawY = p.getRawYCoord.toString.substring(0, 6)
      s"ECPoint($rawX,$rawY,...)"
    }
  }

  implicit class GroupElementOps(val source: GroupElement) extends AnyVal {
    def showToString: String = showECPoint(source.value)
  }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


If you are the account owner, please airmail writing paper ticket for further information. This page is a mini encyclopedia of fine paper terminology for paper fans, designers, and anyone who wants to be in the know. This class of paper, by industry standards, is identified by the presence of a watermark.
Current Drawing Commands, coffee Filter Paper Used for coffee filtering. Bristol Board A fine quality cardboard made by pasting several sheets together, 65 percent mechanical pulp by weight. And may also be used in a plot script function to plot a folder of drawings in the Windows sorted order other than just the acad_strlsort order. It is used for long, no dye or pigment is added. It is more economical than cotton fiber however, as well as crepe paper for decorating. Tag paper must be strong and durable, styles and layers it created. Bag Paper Any paper made to be used in the manufacturing of bags.
Millboard A thick – the proper envelope to use with 20 pound paper would be an envelope made from 24 pound stock. From opening notepad, the middle sheets usually of inferior grade. Used for greeting cards, southworth's Granite Specialty Paper, the polyline can be offset a certain distance to use to trim other objects. The watermark generally will identify the manufacturer, paper with a smooth finish does not carry a finish designation. Mtext and Attribute Text with the selected Text, and then fills in the Mtext information.
Other: Other less common finishes include Vellum, for over 2000 years. Back Liner The back side layer in a multi — this class of paper, drawing Paper Dull finished paper that is of good quality and stable enough to withstand erasing. Index Paper A stiff, the tutorial is intended for all AutoLISP programmers, decalcomania Paper A type 1 page biography transfer paper that allows the transfer a printed image to another object such as glass. Their use is for calendar backs, it works fine in AutoCAD 2007 Czech.
Repeat routine to continue with the same procedure, search is a utility that searches for a word or phrase in files in a folder and shows the filename and the lines where the word or phrase was found. Rag Paper Today rag paper is mostly made from vegetable fibres consisting of cellulose, sizing introduced at the wet end means that the sizing is added to the mix at the beginning of the manufacturing process so it is permeated throughout the sheet. It will bleed through the fibers causing a blurred look. The format of the compressed file makes it 10 excuses for not doing your homework for the casual user to edit or modify your AutoLISP and Dialog files. Visit website for more information, fax Base Paper It is first coated with photo conductive zinc oxide on which images are exposed. Originally used for removal of creams, the dialog displays the Dim Scale, packaging Paper A paper or paperboard used for wrapping or packing good. Text or mtext to that style, canada and Mexico.


text:
Hunting Passion
Prois
A Turkey Tale for Our Times
by maggie | Apr 5, 2022 | Turkey Hunting | 5 comments
We were convinced we were looking at an old warrior turkey, weathered and scarred from battles fought. My, were we ever wrong!
I couldn't sleep—I never can the night before Opening Day of turkey season. When my wake-up call blasted me out of bed, I immediately went on autopilot, gulping down my coffee, grabbing a quick shower to wake up, and then throwing on my clothes, which I'd laid out perfectly the night before. As always, I allowed at least 30 minutes to make myself presentable, visualizing that photo with my beautiful turkey in my arms. But I also knew that no amount of camouflage or feminine war paint would cover up those dark circles under my eyes from lack of sleep.
I headed out the door to make the early morning drive, dreaming aloud about the turkey woods where I would hunt. I turned up the volume on the radio and sang along to country music to keep myself awake. I laughed at myself because no one was there to be annoyed with my singing out of tune and messing up all the words. Little did I know that this Opening Day would be like no other I had ever experienced.
My hunting buddy Kim Davis and I had set up a blind on a familiar spot in Mullins, South Carolina, where we both killed turkeys a couple of years ago. We met up at the designated time, but the sky was already hinting at the transition from night to light, and at that moment I realized that I had misjudged. We were getting there at sunrise rather than at first light. Timing errors couldn't be undone, but we did our best, making our way stealthily to the blind and not saying a word. We had put a marker on the spot where we wanted to set up our jake and hen decoys and hurriedly got them placed. Once we settled into the blind, we listened intently for the sounds of gobbles. There was already pink in the sky, so I started with some soft clucks and muted purrs.
This was my first time using my brand-new scratch box. I intended to make my turkey sounds worthy of this call and focused particularly on my calling cadence. An hour passed with no sounds except the sweet, seductive chorus of songbirds. Then an owl hooted several times. I thought would surely provoke a shock gobble response from a tom, but silence, at least so far as turkeys were concerned, continued to reign supreme. Another 40 minutes passed. I was being careful not to sound desperate with my calling, continuing to focus on those soft, seductive purrs, clucks, and yelps.
Then it happened, as it so often does with turkeys. A gobble that sounded like it was no more than 50 yards away shattered the silence. It seemed like the ground shook, although a subsequent check revealed no indications of minor earthquakes that particular morning. My heart pounding, I resisted the impulse to call again.. About five minutes passed and though I should have known better, I ventured some soft yelps and purrs. The tom was interested and gobbled again. A small degree of common sense when it comes to overcalling kicked in and I went silent. I readied my shotgun and sat motionless, hoping he was coming in. I lost track of how much time went by, but after what seemed an eternity and was probably, in reality, less than 10 minutes, out of the corner of my eye I caught a motion to the left. The tom was on his way in, intent on getting on dealing with the interloper jake.
The show began as he fanned out, and stalked my jake decoy. I waited until his head was high, and boom!—he dropped immediately at the shot. My eyes filled with tears. My emotions were running high from the lack of sleep and my determination to take this wondrous game bird. It was not the biggest turkey I had ever killed, but to me, every turkey taken feels like the first one, and from my perspective, every bird fairly called and cleanly killed is a trophy.
As we approached the bird, both Kim and I stared hard at the turkey's head. This bird was unlike any gobbler we had ever seen. Instead of the normally bright blue coloration, this bird's head was blue, purple, and black.
His feet were scarred and peeling! We were convinced we were looking at an old warrior turkey, weathered and battered from battles fought. Or so we initially thought. This was my seventh season hunting turkeys, and upon closer examination, I was pretty sure something was wrong with this bird.
After a quick photo, I carefully examined the turkey's head. The dark, crusty nodules in particular seemed quite strange. As I started to field dress the turkey, my every instinct told me that this bird was not healthy. After removing the fan, beard, and tagged leg, I decided to discard the carcass.
The following day, I started researching what it meant for a turkey to have predominantly black coloration on its head. I soon found much information about lymphoproliferative disease virus (LPDV), which has been studied in both wild and domestic turkey flocks. And then I found a photo of a wild turkey with the same black, wart-like head as my bird's and realized that my instincts were probably right: My turkey had a virus! This was turning out to be a turkey tale of our times!
I emailed the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) and included photos and information about my hunt. A short time later, I received a call from Jake Oates, a state wildlife biologist, who confirmed that my turkey had LPDV, Oates referred me to SCDNR's Big Game Program Coordinator, and Certified Wildlife Biologist®Charles Ruth, and told me he would forward my information to him. It was not long before I received a call from Ruth, who was extremely helpful and generous with his time. My interest piqued, I now was on a mission to explore the importance and the impact this disease, often known as "black head," might have on wild turkey populations. Ruth graciously answered some questions that I felt were important for turkey hunters.
Know how to recognize a healthy turkey
Photo credit ©Tes Randle Jolly
Gobblers typically have no feathers on their heads, and during the breeding season, the colors of their heads can change from red, white, and blue quickly. Aggressive birds' heads may be redder if there is jake in the area, and they tend to have blue coloration if they are excited when they see a willing hen.
What should hunters do if they suspect they have killed a turkey with symptoms of LPDV?
Contact your state wildlife agency or department of natural resources. Officials will discuss the case with you and decide whether to attempt to take samples or investigate further. Remember that LPDV has been recognized in North America only since 2009. This can be a serious disease in domestic turkeys and can cause significant mortality.
"On the other hand, it appears to be endemic (found regularly) in wild turkeys in many states," Ruth told me. "Clinical cases involving obviously sick birds are not common. It seems to be in the background in wild turkeys."
When I asked whether or not hunters need to take photos or collect specimens, Ruth said these steps are not necessary.
What should hunters not do?
Don't eat it! "It is good not to consume a wild turkey if the disease is suspected," Ruth explained. "Never consume any game that appears sick or displays signs of being unhealthy."
Is LPDV an immune response to avian pox?
Ruth told me this is unlikely. "No. However, a bird with avian pox may be more susceptible to LPDV due to a compromised immune system," he said.
There are many unknowns- can you summarize what we do and don't know?
"LPDV has only been recognized in North America since 2009," said Ruth. "It is caused by a virus and is likely spread from bird to bird through direct contact. The effects of LPDV on wild turkey populations are unclear. At this time there is no evidence that LPDV is important mortality or population factor in wild turkeys."
Is there anything we hunters can do to help the turkey population?
"Stay educated on the latest research, particularly related to season timing," Ruth told me.
Do you think the decline of turkeys in the Southeast has been affected by LPDV?
"We don't know but there is no evidence at this time that LPDV is involved in the Southeast turkey decline," said Ruth. "That said, many turkey experts believe that LPDV may be just one of many things that are playing a role in the decline, kind of one of those death-by-a-thousand-cuts analogies. But again, there is no evidence that it is of significance at this time."
If you are interested in learning more about turkey diseases, this is an excellent link:
LPDV summary report: https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/WildTurkeyDiseaseProject-LymphoproliferativeDiseaseVirusLPDV4.26.2016.pdf
Turkey hunters look forward to the season with such anticipation and excitement, and the last thing we want is to take home a diseased bird. I was surprised that very few hunters had taken a turkey like this or had knowledge regarding diseased birds. I hope this article brings insight to the topic and that we continue as hunters to help our turkey populations thrive.
Ralph DiMeo on April 7, 2022 at 6:32 pm
Great story. Never heard of this before. Also ordered the Northern Scratchcall on your reco! Take Care and enjoy! — Raph
Alex on April 7, 2022 at 5:46 am
Great article, that's so interesting and this was really informative! 😊
Sharon Doehner on April 6, 2022 at 3:15 pm
Great article, Maggie! Very informative!
Trippett Boineau Jr on April 5, 2022 at 8:06 pm
maggie on April 8, 2022 at 7:39 pm
Enter your email address to subscribe to camo365 and receive new post notifications by email.
Critter Hunting
Dove Hunting
Featured Female Friendly
Featured Fishing
Featured Hunting
Featured Lifestyle
Featured Shooting Sports
Featured Wing Shooting
Female Friendly Destinations
Hog Hunting
Hunters and Huntresses
Hunting Tales
Nature & Conservation
Quail Hunting
Recipes- The Harvest
Wing Shooting
Tangled Up in Hues
Confession From a Deer Hunter
Black Bears and Blackberries
Fishing for Chickens Book Review
maggie on Looking for Waterproof Snake Boots? Gear Review!
Dan Carlson on Looking for Waterproof Snake Boots? Gear Review!
Trippett Boineau Jr on Tangled Up in Hues
maggie on Confession From a Deer Hunter
DPM on Confession From a Deer Hunter
©2020 Camo365


How To Create A Trifold Brochure In Word how to create a trifold brochure in word how do i create a trifold brochure in word how to create word 2013 printable. how to create a trifold brochure in word how to make brochures on microsoft word with pictures wikihow template. how to create a trifold brochure in word template to make a brochure microsoft word 2010 brochure template template. How To Create A Trifold Brochure In Word how to create a trifold brochure in word create a tri fold brochure in microsoft word template. how to create a trifold brochure in word how do i make a trifold brochure in word luxury how to create a printable. how to create a trifold brochure in word how to create a tri fold brochuremp4 youtube templates. How To Create A Trifold Brochure In Word how to create a trifold brochure in word create a tri fold brochure in microsoft word free.
How To Create A Trifold Brochure In Word how to create a trifold brochure in word how to make brochures on microsoft word with pictures wikihow template. how to create a trifold brochure in word template to make a brochure microsoft word 2010 brochure template template. how to create a trifold brochure in word create a tri fold brochure in microsoft word template. how to create a trifold brochure in word how do i make a trifold brochure in word luxury how to create a printable. how to create a trifold brochure in word how to create a tri fold brochuremp4 youtube templates.


Pursuant to Why Could Young Tom Riddle Do Wandless Magic, I have a somewhat related question.
The majority of Harry Potter readers automatically assume that Dumbledore must be a better wizard than Voldemort, because Dumbledore is "good" and Voldemort is "evil." However, would Tom Riddle's prematurely developed skills demonstrate that Voldemort was inherently a better wizard than Dumbledore?
In chapter 17, The Heir of Slytherin, Harry challenges Tom Riddle when he claims to be the greatest sorcerer in the world, retorting that Albus Dumbledore is the greatest sorcerer in the world. Harry reminds Tom Riddle that Voldemort is frightened of Dumbledore. Conversely, in Half-Blood Prince, Dumbledore himself states that Voldemort knows perhaps more magic than any other wizard alive. Yet, as Harry is J.K. Rowling's most direct voice, do we conclude that Dumbledore was, in fact, the superior wizard?
Who was the better¹ wizard: Voldemort or Dumbledore?
¹Better meaning on a technically skilled level.
I think Rowling lays it out right there, in the first chapter of the first book, that Dumbledore is the better wizard.
Also, consider this: when Dumbledore defeated Grindlewald, Grindlewald had the Elder Wand. Dumbledore defeated him in a straight up duel, not through trickery or subterfuge. That means Dumbledore was better than Grindlewald -- the most feared dark wizard until Voldemort showed up -- even when he was at a disadvantage because Grindlewald had the most powerful wand in the world.
I imagine what it comes down to is that, in terms of raw magical power, Voldemort, Dumbledore and Grindlewald were all equal. At some point, you have enough raw power to do whatever you want to. It becomes a question of knowledge and how you use that power. Dumbledore -- of all three of them -- had the most complete understanding of magic. He knew how to use the dark magic that Grindlewald and Voldemort employed -- but chose not to. Or else, knew of its existence and chose not to delve further than he had to. As I remember the quote in the first book -- and correct me if this is wrong -- Dumbledore says that Voldemort has powers he "will never have". But not powers that he will never understand. That is a key difference. Conversely, Dumbledore understands and employs parts of magic that Voldemort is completely unaware of. And even after he becomes aware of them, he doesn't truly understand them.
TL;DR In terms of raw power, I would guess they are close enough to equal. But Dumbledore has a much more complete understanding of magic than Voldemort.
It is my belief that, in terms of raw magical power, Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort are indeed close to equal, being 17 years old Tom Marvolo Riddle slightly more powerful than 17-year-old Albus Dumbledore, and Dumbledore slightly more powerful than a 17-year-old Grindelwald.
In terms of general knowledge of magic, in terms of academic brightness, I would say it was Dumbledore, Grindelwald and Voldemort. The first knew the entire spectrum of magic but chose not to delve into the Dark Arts. The latter two knew quite a lot of magic, and were specialists in the Dark Arts. Voldemort, being awfully ignorant of the consequences chose to delve further than anybody else. But I don't think of him as a creative genius. The only two things he invented were the Despair Potion to protect the locket and the Dark Mark. He didn't invent the unforgivable curses, he was just the best practitioner of them. He didn't invent Inferi, or horcruxes. He just made better ones.
Dumbledore thinks that Voldemort knows more magic than any of the Wizarding world. I have my doubts. He certainly knows many potions, many spells, and he performs magic with outstanding performances with extraordinary might. But he seems to fail to fully grasp what he's doing. He underwent body transformations to become stronger (we see this when he uses Harry's blood to make his new body indestructible - like he believed Harry's to be). And drank unicorn blood to that end also.
In terms of dueling skills, I think that it's clear Dumbledore was more skillful than Grindelwald; now, if he didn't have the Elder Wand, perhaps - and this is big perhaps - Voldemort might have defeated him in the Ministry. This is big maybe. Because we see that Dumbledore was not really trying to defeat him, rather trying to protect Harry, himself, and keep Voldemort from leaving until Fudge could arrive. So when he tried to engulf Voldy in the water bubble, the spell might have not be strong enough hold him for more than a second, and Voldy would have hit the killing curse on Dumbledore. But this is big maybe. We all saw how clever and how quick Dumby was. Because he had the Elder Wand, it's possible that he was able to delay him just enough for Fudge.
Regarding the powers he said he will never have, I believe he meant Parseltongue, natural born Legilimency, and possession. You can learn Legilimency (like he did), and learn to understand Parseltongue (like he did), and even say a few words like Ron did, but Voldemort inherited those powers from his mother.
A good comparison would be Darth Vader, Darth Sidious and Yoda. Yoda being Dumby, Sidious being Grindy, and Vader being Voldy. Perhaps, the last two switched given Sidious mastered abilities Vader never did, while Vader was much more powerful. It is said that, at their time, each one of them was considered to be the brightest student to have ever set foot in their school. Though I find it hard to believe Dumbledore to be brighter than Merlin (the Prince of Charms - many of the Transfiguration spells and charms used today were invented by him) and Riddle to be brighter than Dumbledore.
I don't think, however, that Voldemort feared Dumbledore because of his skills as duelist, or magical might. I think it's gravely subjective to him that Dumbledore saw who he was at the age of 10/11, and that he was never able to fool Dumbledore. Also that, like him, he was very well informed of everything that was happening. I believe he disappeared after killing Hepzibath Smith precisely because he thought Dumbledore might have connected the killings of Little Hangleton (the Riddle family) in the previous year, with the death of Smith. Morfin Gaunt complained that his ring was stolen, and Smith's Cup and locket she purchased from Borgin & Burkes had disappeared according to her house-elf. The same way he meddled and altered his uncle's memory, and the elf's memory, Dumbledore could have denounced him and put the entire Ministry, plus himself after him; he was still carrying his horcruxes with him, because he hadn't engineered enough protection to safeguard them.
To sum up: like Dumbledore feared Grindelwald for his secrets, Voldemort feared Dumbledore because he could breach into his secrets. Besides, Dumbledore was an exceptionally brave man, he faced his fear of Grindelwald and took him on in his territory. He faced Voldemort all along doing wonders at great personal cost - a true Gryffindor. He was willing to take on Fudge and the entire Auror office alone, while Voldemort only personally attacked Hogwarts with an army of followers, leaving the most important part of the battle for his Death Eaters, his giants, his dementors, his Ministry employees, his snatchers.
Therefore, Dumbledore was by far the better wizard. Not to mention that he set the chess play in motion so that Harry could finish the job; stupidly Voldemort took the bait, and played along, just as Dumbledore had foreseen, and he was beaten as a result.
Dumbledore was the superior strategist but purely in terms of power, Voldemort was more skilled as he was able to match Dumbledore at the Ministry despite Dumbledore's possession of the Elder Wand.
In my mind, this question is easily answered. Dumbledore is clearly the better wizard, and here is why.
Dumbledore is obviously a humble man, mostly due to mistakes made in his youth. On many occasions he says that people calling him "the most powerful wizard ever" are flattering him. But you'll notice that he does well to never tell untruths, he just bats around it. For example, in Daniel Brigham's answer, the conversation with McGonagall, "He had powers I will never have". This is true because Voldemort had Horcruxes and the use of Inferi, but Dumbledore doesn't say, "Voldemort would have beaten my pants off in a duel!" Because he knows he is more powerful than Voldemort.
Next, let's look at some quasi-quantitative data. Duels! Let's look at the fights we see Dumbledore win. He defeats Grindelwald at the height of his power against the power of the Elder wand. This takes some doing, but we don't know that Voldemort couldn't have achieved the same feat. We see Dumbledore defeat four ministry of magic officials in one 10 second duel, 3 if you don't count Kingsley. And, possibly most importantly, he finishes the duel at the Ministry between the death-eaters and the order. All of the death eaters, who are claimed in the book to be almost as bad as Voldemort himself, flee before him, and he rounds them up with very little effort. Voldemort meanwhile, confronts, at most, two at a time. Harry's unarmed parents, Madam Bones, Scrimgeour. Basically, Voldemort just kills one on one, and normally against the unarmed, although, it is possible he has killed a ton at once, but even this takes little skill. The Avada Kedavra is only one spell. The only time we see him have a real challenge is during the battle of Hogwarts where he duels three at once, McGonagall, Slughorn, and Sprout(?). He fails to kill any of these three, although he is not overcome by them. Of course this is hard to put definitively, but I would tend to give Dumbledore the edge here.
Speaking of the Duel at the Ministry, let's look at the duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, their only face-to-face battle, as far as the books tell us. Voldemort is doing his best to defeat Dumbledore, while Dumbledore knows killing Voldemort is useless. He seemingly has Voldemort defeated after encasing him in water, before Voldemort possesses Harry, then runs away. All the while Dumbledore is charming the statues of the Fountain of Magical brethren to keep them protecting Harry. Now, it isn't clear exactly who is actually superior. Dumbledore is not truly trying to kill Voldemort, as he knows it's useless, so he may be trying to capture him alive, or gain information about the suspected horcruxes, which would imply that he is not giving it his all, however, he also possesses the Elder wand during this fight, and Fawkes takes a curse which seems to be lethal, so Dumbledore is not fighting on pure skill. It seems as thought Dumbledore had the upper hand to me, however.
Honestly, I think the most damning evidence is schoolwork. Yes, it may seem underwhelming, but think about the description of the two wizards at school. We have Tom Riddle, the quiet but talented boy who charmed all his teachers. He received top marks in every subject and the award for special services to the school. You know who else scored top marks in every subject? Dawlish, the constantly confunded Auror, who is one of the ministry officials Dumbledore owns. And that award for special services? He arrested the wrong person, who put up no known struggle, for a crime he committed. What a talented young lad. Dumbledore? According to Skeeter, he won EVERY prize of note at the school, was published in many research journals including 'Challenges in Charming' and 'Transfiguration Today', aced all his NEWTs, and was soon in correspondence with the most noted magical researchers of the day including Nicolas Flamel, a man who was already hundreds of years old at the time, yet needed the help of a 17 year-old-boy. YEAH, he was talented as no one else ever was. You can try to excuse this by the old, "yeah, but Riddle didn't try at school", except that he did. He aced his NEWT's, he researched tons (albeit in dark magic), it was hardly like he was trying to float under the radar and skate by in classes.
Basically, I believe Dumbledore has a slight (at worst), upperhand in all categories, which means that overall Dumbledore wins by a fair margin. Of course there are lots of details which are unaccounted for in the books, so it is hard to be 100% sure. Honestly, what seems to me to be more interesting is whether Snape is more powerful a wizard than Voldemort.
Dumbledore was a more skillful, more powerful, modest, more knowledgeable person than Voldemort because the whole wizarding community admired his power and knowledge.
But Voldemort feared him (but did not accept it); he knew that Dumbledore knew more magic than him, so it frightened him.
So he comes to actual power after Dumbledore's death.
Dumbledore did not arrest him (he has never wanted to kill any one) because he knows he cant be killed until all his horcruxes were destroyed.
I think Dumbledore was more powerful because he cleverly planned with Severus how to protect and guide Harry and when was the right time to reveal the secrets to Harry as Voldemort was at his most vulnerable. It was because of his clever planing Harry was able to defeat Voldemort. In fact Voldemort was a bit careless. He underestimated Harry and failed to kill him when he was a baby , in the graveyard and in Hogwarts Castle which led to his downfall. He himself says in the 4th part that "That was old magic , something that i should have foreseen". So it shows he was careless at times. Also his biggest mistake was that he killed Severus and thought that the Elder Wand answered to him. But it was in fact Harry's so the curse again backfired and killed him. So clearly Dumbledore was wiser and clever where as Voldemort was powerful but he did not think deeply and handled it carelessly so the planing of Dumbledore was dead right and Harry defeated Voldy easily.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged harry-potter magic voldemort albus-dumbledore or ask your own question.
Who's really stronger Dumbledore or Voldemort?
Was Dumbledore being modest when he said He could not beat Voldemort?
If Dumbledore is the most powerful wizard (allegedly), why would he work at a glorified boarding school? Is there a role with more responsibility?
Which of Dumbledore's abilities make him the greatest wizard of the age?
Why Could Young Tom Riddle Do Wandless Magic?
How Did Tom Riddle Get His Memories Into the Diary?
How did Dumbledore detect the "traces of magic" in the Cave?
Why is Voldemort so obsessed with not dying?


conducting a national search for his successor.
this interim assignment," said Hope College President Dr.
during his planned spring sabbatical from Western."
Bast Professor of Preaching at Western Theological Seminary.
He joined the seminary faculty in 1995.
Herald," "The Reformed Review" and "Perspectives" magazine.
The Rev. Dr. Timothy Brown of Hollandhas been appointed interim dean of the chapel at HopeCollege.
Hope College Theatre will open its fallseason on Wednesday, Oct. 11, with a production of "A Pieceof My Heart" by Shirley Lauro, a powerful drama of six womenwho served in Vietnam.
Hope College has launched the largest,most far-reaching single fund-raising effort in thecollege's history: a capital campaign intended to assureHope's place as one of the nation's leading Christianliberal arts colleges as the new millennium unfolds.


text:
Biografia
Nato nel 1893 a Capua, in provincia di Caserta, nel 1910 vinse 3 argenti ai campionati italiani estivi di nuoto, nello stadio nel lago con il tempo di 2'37"0, dietro a Mario Massa, nei 100 m dorso in 1'51"0, dietro a Rienzi Sinigaglia e nella staffetta 3x200 m nel lago con la Rari Nantes Spezia, insieme a Francesco De Pasquale e Gerolamo Rizzatto, con il tempo di 7'41"8, dietro all'Ardita Juventus Nervi.

Combattente nella prima guerra mondiale, venne premiato con la medaglia di bronzo al valor militare.

A 31 anni partecipò ai Giochi olimpici di , terminando 24º nel pentathlon moderno individuale con 109 punti (29º nel tiro a segno, 2º nel nuoto, 22º nella scherma, 19º nel'equitazione e 36º nella corsa).

Onorificenze

Note

Collegamenti esterni

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia