text:
Home / federal trade commission
The Remaining Apple/Google Common Director Resigns from Google's Board
Category: Antitrust, FTC Actions, Section 1 (Sherman Act)
Tags:Antitrust, apple, arthur levinson, clayton act, eric schmidt, federal trade commission, ftc, google, interlocking directorates, matthew wild, section 1, section 8, sherman act
Google announced today that Arthur D. Levinson resigned from its board of directors. However, Mr. Levinson remains on Apple's board of directors. Mr. Levinson was the remaining common director on the Google and Apple boards. As reported in the June 3, 2009 Post, Eric D. Schmidt, Google's CEO, resigned from Apple's board amid antitrust concerns raised by the FTC. The June 3 Post noted that it was unclear whether the FTC would require Mr. Levinson's resignation from one of the boards. Apparently, the FTC did just that as FTC Chariman Jon Leibowitz said, "Google, Apple and Mr. Levinson should be commended for recognizing that overlapping board members between competing companies raise serious antitrust issues, and for their willingness to resolve our concerns without the need for litigation." Chairman Leibowitz further warned, "[b]eyond this matter, we will continue to monitor companies that share board members and take enforcement actions where appropriate." It seems that the FTC is warning corporations that it plans to take an increased interest in enforcing section 8 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits interlocking directorates among competitors under some circumstances. That statute has not been enforced with much frequency. Nevertheless, antitrust practitioner always have to be concerned that the existence of common directors could be used as evidence of a conspiracy between the two corporations in violation of the Sherman Act because it provides an opportunity to conspire. Accordingly, antitrust practitioners know to advise against such overlaps among corporations vulnerable to Sherman Act litigation without regard to section 8 of the Clayton Act.
FTC and DOJ Urge Reversal in American Needle v. NFL
Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : September 30, 2009
Category: Antitrust, FTC Actions, Immunity, Rule of Reason, Section 1 (Sherman Act), U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)
Tags:aai, american antitrust institute, american needle, Antitrust, Antitrust Division, consumer federation of america, copperweld, Department of Justice, federal trade commission, ftc, headwear, licensing, logos, matthew wild, national football league, nfl, reebok, section 1, section 2, sherman act, team names
As noted in the June 29, 2009 Post, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit's decision in American Needle v. Nat'l Football League. As explained in the September 4, 2008 Post, American Needle applied the Copperweld doctrine to a sports league's joint licensing scheme for the first time. In so doing, it affirmed summary judgment in favor of the NFL, its teams and Reebok in an antitrust challenge to an exclusive license of team names and logos to Reebok for use on headwear. (The decision is linked to the September 4 Post). As explained in Wild, et al., "Private Equity Groups Under Common Legal Control Constitute a Single Enterprise Under the Antitrust Laws," 3 NYU Journal of Law and Business 231, 237 and n.31 (attached under articles above), that doctrine treats two or more firms that are under common ownership or have a unity of interest in a common course of action as a single firm incapable of conspiring or otherwise acting collectively under the antitrust laws.
In their amici curiae brief, the government urges reversal. It argues that the Seventh Circuit extended the Copperweld doctrine in a manner inconsistent with prior precedent — e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to a price-setting joint venture and NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), in which the Supreme Court applied a "quick look" to a NCAA restriction on each individual college's right to broadcast their football games. While the government conceded that the league should be entitled to Copperweld immunity under circumstances in which the teams need to cooperate such as to produce games, the licensing of NFL team logos is not one of them. Indeed, the government observed that the NFL joint licensing scheme was similar to the type of scheme under review in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1 (1979). In BMI, the Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to a joint venture in which composers created a clearinghouse to sell a blanket license to works by more than one of them. The American Antitrust Institute and Consumer Federation of America also filed a brief as amici curiae urging reversal. Their brief and the government's brief are linked below. DOJ and FTC Brief; AAI Brief
Google Director Resigns from Apple Board Because of Competition Concerns
Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : August 3, 2009
Tags:, Antitrust, apple, arthur levinson, clayton act, eric schmidt, federal trade commission, ftc, google, interlocking directorate, matthew wild, section 1, section 8, sherman act
Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, resigned today from Apple's board of directors because the increased competition between Google and Apple raised conflicts for him that precluded his participation in many of Apple's business decisions. It is unclear whether his resignation was in response to an inquiry by the FTC into Google's and Apple's interlocking directorates first reported on May 5, 2009 by the New York Times. Section 8 of the Clayton Act forbids competitors from having common directors and has been interpreted broadly. Nevertheless, it is a toothless statute that is rarely enforced and imposes no penalties for violations. The offending director must simply resign from one board. In this case, it is unclear whether the FTC has undertaken to enforce the statute as Arthur Levison remains on the boards of Google and Apple. His presence on both boards would seem to violate Section 8. It should be noted, however, that the genuine issue that can arise from interlocking directorates is that it can provide circumstantial proof of a conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. If the two firms engage in parallael conduct, for example, plaintiffs might allege that the companies had an opportunity to conspire through the common directors. Thus, antitrust practitioners advise companies to avoid interlocking directorates where meaningful competition between the two companies exists.
FTC Settles Challenge to Whole Foods' Acquisition of Wild Oats
Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : March 6, 2009
Category: Antitrust, Consent Decrees, FTC Actions, Intellectual Property, Relevant Markets, Section 7 (Clayton Act)
Tags:administrative proceedings, Antitrust, clayton act, consent decree, consent order, divestiture, due process, federal trade commission, ftc, matthew wild, preliminary injunction, rescission, scheduling order, section 7, supermarkets, whole foods, wild oats
Today the FTC announced a settlement with Whole Foods that requires Whole Foods to divest 32 supermarkets in 17 geographic markets. The FTC also required to Whole Foods to transfer Wild Oats' intellectual property, including the "Wild Oats" name. The divestiture, which will have to be an FTC approved buyer, is intended to restore competition between these stores that was adversely affected by the acquisition. The FTC press release, agreement containing consent order and analysis to aid public comment are attached — FTC Press Release (Whole Foods), Whole Foods Consent Order, Whole Foods Analysis to Aid Public Comment.
The remedy in this case illustrates how rescission rather than divestiture is rare. The preference is to put the assets in the hands of a firm that is eager to run the business as opposed to a firm seeking to exit. Thus, it is in the seller's interest to force consummation of the transaction as soon as legitimately possible. (Note that there are certain limited circumstances that will justify rescission where although legal, the parties gamed the system, see, e.g., FTC v. Elders Grain, 868 F.2d 901 (7th Cir. 1989 (Posner, J.)).
This merger has resulted in considerable litigation. Whole Foods defeated the FTC federal action for a preliminary injunction. That decision was reversed (see July 29, 2008 Post). Then on Whole Foods' application for rehearing en banc, the original panel amended its decision to make clear that one judge did not join the opinion reversing the order below. With one judge dissenting, there was no opinion of the Court, which would have been binding on future panels, and thus there was no need for en banc review (see December 1, 2008 Post). The FTC had also imposed a harsh expedited schedule for its administrative proceeding and took the unusual step of appointing an FTC commissioner as the presiding judge. Whole Foods unsuccessfully challenged this process as a denial of due process in a plenary lawsuit it brought in federal court (see December 11, 2008 Post).
FTC Seeks Hold Separate Order on Remand Against Whole Foods
Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : January 13, 2009
Category: Antitrust, FTC Actions, Mergers and Acquisitions, Section 7 (Clayton Act)
Tags:Antitrust, clayton act, federal trade commission, ftc, hold separate, matthew wild, remand, section 7, whole foods, wild oats
On January 12, 2009, the FTC sought a hold separate order against Whole Foods on remand from the D.C. Circuit's reversal of the lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction. During the pendency of its administrative proceeding, the FTC seeks an order that enjoins Whole Foods from further integration of Wild Oats' assets, rebranding of former Wild Oats stores and appointment of an independent trustee and management team to run the former Wild Oats stores. (Whole Foods Remand) It is questionable whether such relief would be effective to restore competition if for example, Wild Oats lost key employees, a loyal customer base and a distribution network. Prior coverage of the Whole Foods litigation appears on the July 29, 2008, December 1, 2008 and December 11, 2008 Posts. This remand proposal is likely to spark Whole Foods to seek expedited relief in its lawsuit against the FTC challenging the fairness and integrity of the FTC's administrative process. (See December 11, 2008 Post) On December 12, 2008, the FTC has moved to dismiss the Complaint in that action contending that only a U.S. Court of Appeals has subject matter jurisdiction because Congress only granted those courts the power to review the FTC's actions. (FTC Motion to Dismiss)
Whole Food's Sues FTC to Enjoin Administrative Proceedings
Category: Antitrust, FTC Actions, Section 7 (Clayton Act)
Tags:administrative proceedings, Antitrust, clayton act, due process, federal trade commission, ftc, matthew wild, preliminary injunction, scheduling order, section 7, supermarkets, whole foods, wild oats
On December 8, 2008, Whole Foods brought an action in federal court claiming that the FTC's administrative process is unconstitutional as applied to it. (Whole Foods Complaint) Whole Foods claims that the FTC has prejudged the FTC's challenge to its merger with Wild Oats. Whole Foods also claims that the Scheduling Order entered in the administrative proceedings is so expedited that it is impossible for it to complete discovery and be ready for trial and therefore represents a denial of due process. Whole Foods seeks to have the FTC's challenge heard in federal court and bypass the administrative process. One would think that Whole Foods is ensured of due process because it can file a petition for review of an adverse administrative decision before any United States Court of Appeals and if it was denied due process, the administrative decision would be vacated. This is the latest saga in the Whole Foods litigation. While Whole Foods defeated the FTC's federal court action for a preliminary injunction in aid of the administrative process to enjoin consummation of the merger, the D.C. Circuit reversed. The transaction had closed but the D.C. Circuit remanded to the action to the district court to inquire whether there was any way to restore competition notwithstanding consummation. After Whole Foods sought reharing en banc, the original panel amended its decision to make it on behalf of a single judge with one judge concurring in the result and the other judge dissenting. This effectively mooted any need for en banc review because there was no decision of the Court which would have been binding on future panels. See Posts of December 1 and July 29, 2008 for more coverage of FTC v. Whole Foods.
Whole Food's Denied Rehearing But D.C. Circuit Amends Its Earlier Decision
Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : December 1, 2008
Tags:Antitrust, clayton act, federal trade commission, ftc, matthew wild, preliminary injunction, section 7, supermarkets, whole foods, wild oats
On November 21, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc in FTC v. Whole Foods with Judge Kavanaugh dissenting. Judge Kavanaugh had dissenting in the original decision. The original opinion is linked to the July 29, 2008 Post, which also analyzes it. On November 21, the court also issued a revised and amended decision. The revision and amended decision is particularly interesting because it clarifies that Judge Tatel concurred only in the judgment and not in Judge Brown's opinion. (Whole Food's Amended Decision ) As a result, it has become clear that Judge Brown's opinion has no binding affect on the rest of the Court. Judges Ginsburg and Sentelle voted against rehearing en banc "because, there being no opinion for the Court, that judgment sets no precedent beyond the precise facts of this case. See King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (en banc) ('without implicit agreement' among a majority of the judges 'we are left without a controlling opinion')." (Whole Food's Rehearing Denial)
D.C. Circuit Reverses Decision Denying Preliminary Injunction in Whole Foods/Wild Oats Merger
Tags:acquisition, Antitrust, clayton act, dc circuit, federal trade commission, ftc, matthew wild, merger, preliminary injunction, remedy, whole foods, wild oats
Today, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's decision that denied a preliminary injunction in the Whole Foods/Wild Oats merger. FTC v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc., No. 07-5276 (D.C. Cir. July 29, 2008) (Whole Foods decision). Crucial to the decision was the D.C. Circuit's holding that the FTC might have been able to establish a submarket consisting of premium natural and organic supermarkets.
The case was remanded to the district court and one of the questions was whether there was some remedy available during the pendency of the FTC administrative proceedings. The D.C. Circuit noted that the FTC complained of adverse effects on competition in only eighteen different local markets. The D.C. Circuit also noted that neither party discussed whether sufficient distribution facilities were available for Wild Oats to remain a viable competitor and if only one Wild Oats store can re-open that would be better than nothing. The D.C. Circuit suggested a hold separate order, which seems to imply that the assets would be carved out and transferred from Whole Foods to a trustee. This begs the question, however, of who would (and could) manage the store(s) independent of Whole Foods.
Ultimately, it seems like Whole Foods can expect to lose the administrative proceedings. If it does, Whole Foods may have to divest stores in these markets. The Supreme Court long ago held that divestiture is the preferred remedy. Neither the courts nor the agencies favor rescission.
Hospitals Abandon Merger During Pendency of FTC's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Tags:Antitrust, clayton act, federal trade commission, ftc, hospital merger, Inova, matthew wild, Prince William Health System
On June 6, 2008, Inova Health System announced that it is has abandoned its merger plans with Prince William Health Systems. The FTC had commenced an action in the United States District for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 12, 2008, in which it sought a preliminary injunction to block the merger during the pendency of its adminstrative proceeding. After the motion for a preliminary injunction had been submitted, the hospitals' abandoned their merger plans. Abandoning merger plans after litigating through a preliminary injunction hearing is rare. The parties must have incurred millions of dollars in legal fees and a decision on the injunction was due in only a month. If the hospitals had prevailed in district court and merged, it is possible that the FTC would have dropped its administrative challenge. The administrative proceedings in this case also were unusual because the FTC appointed one of its Commissioners (Thomas Rosch) to act as the administrative judge.


text:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
    <title>SLF4J</title>
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="css/site.css" />

SLF4J Mailing Lists

A mailing list is an electronic discussion forum that anyone can
  subscribe to. When someone sends an email message to the mailing
  list, a copy of that message is broadcast to everyone who is
  subscribed to that mailing list. Mailing lists provide a simple and
  effective communication mechanism. With potentially thousands of
  subscribers, there is a common set of etiquette guidelines that you
  should observe. Please keep on reading.

Respect the mailing list type

The "User" lists where you can send questions and comments about
  configuration, setup, usage and other "user" types of questions.
  The "Developer" lists where you can send questions and comments
  about the actual software source code and general "development"
  types of questions.

Some questions are appropriate for posting on both the "user" and
  the "developer" lists. In this case, pick one and only one. Do not
  cross post.

Please do your best to ensure that you are not sending HTML or
  "Stylelized" email to the list. If you are using Outlook or Outlook
  Express or Eudora, chances are that you are sending HTML email by
  default. There is usually a setting that will allow you to send
  "Plain Text" email.

slf4j-announcements list

     Low Traffic:
     Subscribe |
     Unsubscribe

     Archives:
     Pipermail |
     MARC |
     Nabble

The announcements list is reserved for important SLF4J API
   related announcements. As such, the traffic on this list is
   guaranteed to be very low.

Given that implementations are expected to statically bind with
   the SLF4J API, we recommend that any implementor of the SLF4J API
   be subscribed at least to the announcements list.

slf4j-user list

     Medium Traffic:
     Subscribe |
     Unsubscribe

     Archives:
     Pipermail |
     Gmane |
     MARC |
     Nabble |
     MailArchive

This is the list for users of slf4j. It is also a good forum for
   asking questions about how slf4j works, and how it can be
   used. SLF4J developers are usually subscribed to to this list in
   order to offer support.

slf4j-dev list

     Medium Traffic:
     Subscribe |
     Unsubscribe

     Archives:
     Pipermail |
     Gmane |
     MARC |
     Nabble |
     MailArchive

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
On June 9, 2008, I wrote a post titled Fantastic Four: Nadal Matches Borg's French Open Streak that contained this declaration (emphasis added): "For quite some time, people have been trying to anoint Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time but despite his impressive accomplishments it makes no sense to confer that title on him when it is not even certain that he will be considered the best player of the current era: his main rival Nadal owns an 11-6 head to head record against him and has come much closer to beating him on the grass at Wimbledon than Federer has come to defeating him on the clay at the French Open. Considering that Nadal is almost five years younger than Federer it is entirely possible that he will eclipse what Federer has done; after all, five years ago Federer had just won his first Grand Slam, while Nadal already owns four Grand Slam titles, beating Federer along the way each time."
For years, SI has blithely declared that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time, ignoring the mounting evidence to the contrary that I cited in the above post (and in several other posts at this site, dating all the way back to a July 1, 2007 post that asserted that Bjorn Borg should still be considered to be a greater all-around player than Federer).
Now, though, SI has apparently seen the light; in an article titled The Takedown that appears in the May 18, 2009 issue of SI, S.L. Price asks rhetorically, "How can Federer be deemed the best ever when he might not be the best of his own era?"
That is an excellent question and apparently my writing would be more popular in the "mainstream" if I only had the decency to wait to make such rhetorical queries until the rest of the world can figure out that they are valid. Alas, there is little reward for foresight, as Cassandra ruefully discovered many centuries ago.
Labels: Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Sports Illustrated
madnice said...
Thats why SI, ESPN, and everyone else is tough to listen to and watch. They are always into the best ever this and the best that. You cant take it seriously.
Its so difficult to compare tennis players from different era. Shouldnt you have a major win on every surface to be the best ever? I know Federer finally beat Nadal on clay yesterday but I dont think he will beat Nadal at the French. Im sure Federer is more confident because of his results yesterday though.
Monday, May 18, 2009 11:15:00 AM
Madnice:
It is OK to try to figure out who the best ever might be but my point is that some kind of rational, objective standards should be used. Since Nadal is younger than Federer and has enjoyed the head to head advantage for quite some time it never made sense to me to crown Federer as the greatest of all-time unless/until he showed that he could best his contemporary Nadal. Frankly, as I've indicated, I would still take Borg as the greatest Open Era player.
I don't know that you have to have a major win on every surface to be the best ever, depending on what else you have on your resume. Borg dominated two completely different surfaces--grass at Wimbledon, clay at French--and that is unprecedented; I find that to be more meaningful than winning the Australian or even the U.S. Open, though the latter failure is the one and only legitimate blemish on Borg's resume.
Perhaps Federer gained some confidence by beating Nadal on clay but Nadal was coming off of a long match and is battling a lingering injury. Anyway, the number two player should be able to beat the number one player once in a while--when Nadal was number two he was beating number one Federer more often than Federer was beating him. Now, if Federer beats Nadal at the French and/or wins that title then that adds something different to the equation but it still does not refute my fundamental point, namely that Federer had been crowned prematurely as the greatest of all-time. In other words, even if Federer goes on to prove this to be the case--which I don't expect him to do--that does not make it right to crown him two or three years ago when Nadal had already established a winning head to head record against him.
Just a little something to think about...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f276c082-46ff-11de-923e-00144feabdc0.html
Borg said: "People say it was because of John coming up, but it was not because of John. It was because I was losing my interest, my fun, my enjoyment. Federer still has the motivation. Even today I regard he is the best tennis player ever to play the game."
Nice article though
That is an interesting article. I have no problem with saying that Federer is a candidate for the GOAT title if he wins the French Open--but he has not won the French Open and he has a losing record against his main contemporary rival; my point all along is that Federer was prematurely crowned, not that he is not a great player or that he could not ultimately earn GOAT status.
First of all, Federer does not need a French Open title to be considered the GOAT. At Roland Garros, he has won 25 (probably soon up to 28) consecutive matches against everyone other than the clay court GOAT (Nadal). Federer has not even been extended to 5 sets during that streak. Prime Federer was a top 10 all-time clay courter without a doubt, probably top 5. Borg understands that. Federer is the only player to beat Nadal twice on clay since Nadal's clay court dominance began.
Federer is the best grass court player of all time. The only match Federer has lost in the past six years on grass was the greatest match of all-time while recovering from mono. During Federer's 40 match winning streak at Wimbledon he lost 8 sets (0.2 spm), whereas Borg lost 21 sets (0.5 spm) in his 41 match winning streak. That does not take into account the increased depth and talent of the game today, which I am sure Borg takes into account in his reasoning for Federer as the GOAT.
Hard court GOAT? Federer already has more hard court majors than anyone. Hard courts are a very important and neutral surface, no less important than clay. Borg's US Open woes are much greater than that of Federer at the French when you consider that he fell to four different guys at the US Open during his prime (1977-80) (not all on hard courts, none of whom are legitimate GOAT candidates).
From reading your articles on other topics, I can tell that you are a brilliant guy, but your analysis of tennis is not in line with the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Laver, Wilander, etc. Not one of them still calls Borg the open era GOAT over both Federer and Sampras. What does that tell you?
Raymond Lee's analyses are purely statistics based. % of career matches won (or more recently % of games won in a year) is a pretty meaningless statistic for more than a handful of reasons. If you want to hear them, then ask.
I think you could definitely be more mainstream, but the Federer-Nadal H2H argument must be dissected. Nadal is and has always been the better clay court player (9-2). Most former players acknowledge that Nadal is the clay court GOAT. But on other surfaces, there have not been enough matches for the stats to be significant. During Federer's prime (2004-07), he won both of the Wimbledon encounters and was 3-2 on hard courts.
It is more than a little ironic that you have emerged to offer a slight disagreement with me at a time when even SI is conceding the original point that I made, namely that Federer was prematurely crowned.
I don't understand the significance in this discussion of a French Open winning streak against everyone except the one current player who has surpassed Federer; if Federer is not greater than Nadal then how can he be the GOAT?
That pretty much sums up the issue by itself without even getting into Borg, let alone someone like Laver who you did not even mention. Even if my ranking of Borg places me in the minority--and I am not the only person who still considers him to be the greatest Open Era player--I still contend that it has always been premature to elevate Federer before his rivalry with Nadal became more clarified; Nadal is a younger player who has consistently enjoyed a head to head advantage and that advantage has become more pronounced (both in terms of the record and the number of surfaces involved) as time has passed.
I am not convinced that Federer is facing tougher competition today than Borg did. In sheer numbers there may be more pro players but Borg went against arguably two of the top 10 players of all-time (Connors, McEnroe), plus several outstanding players who were specialists on particular surfaces.
Borg's simultaneous dominance of Wimbledon and the French Open is unmatched, his winning percentage in Grand Slams is stupendous and his Davis Cup record is also off of the charts. Borg is far too modest to tout his own accomplishments but he definitely still merits being placed in the conversation with Sampras and Federer.
good article on nadal's loss
http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6633578
Sunday, May 31, 2009 5:02:00 PM
Yes, that was a stunner. This is why I did not crown Nadal as the greatest player, either. People are impatient and want definitive answers now but I still say that Borg is the greatest Open Era player; in his prime he was untouchable at both Wimbledon and the French, a dominance that neither Federer nor Nadal has yet managed to establish.
nadal lost know he is still one of the best but he isnt better yet than ferderer he 23 now and in his prime but federer is probably going to get number 14 this year and nadal isnt playing at the same level now he was last year. federer is comeing back nadal is small guy and a little burned out right now
Marcel:
Nadal still retains his world #1 ranking even after this loss.
The point of my various articles about Federer, Nadal and Borg is not to definitively say that Nadal is better than Federer but rather to say that Federer was prematurely crowned by some people as the greatest of all-time. I consider Borg to still be the greatest player of the Open Era. It is too soon to say whether or not Nadal will surpass Federer's career achievements (in terms of total Grand Slams and week at #1) but Nadal owns the head to head advantage and has already won at both Wimbledon and the French Open.
There is no guarantee that Federer will ever win that elusive 14th Slam. However, Nadal's ouster leaves the path open to Federer to finally win the French, so what he does there this year can either improve or diminish his legacy. Capturing the French title would be a feather in his cap, even though he would not have beaten Nadal--but if Federer cannot win the French even with Nadal out of the field this would diminish Federer's legacy.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:45:00 AM
you see the other four guys number 14 for roger nadal is better right now but he is a little burned out and is a small guy by nature.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:30:00 PM
Nadal is not a "small guy" for a tennis player. He goes about 6-1, 190 and is muscular.
http://blog.tennisweek.com/?p=594
in this article, bjorn borg makes the statement that federer is the greatest to ever play the game
Friday, June 19, 2009 11:01:00 AM
I would expect nothing less from the always classy Borg. Do you really think that Borg is going to thump his chest and say, "I am the greatest"? For one thing, if the career Grand Slam mark had been that important to him then he would have played in Australia more than once and he would not have retired when he could have easily won more French Opens and probably more Wimbledons (yes, McEnroe beat Borg at Wimbledon in '81 but it's not like McEnroe dominated Wimbledon after that even without Borg on the scene).
Also, my articles about Borg, Federer and Nadal did not say that under no circumstances should Federer ever be considered the greatest Open Era player; I merely argued that he was crowned prematurely and I stand by that point. Federer certainly added to his resume by winning the French but let's be honest: we all know that Nadal was not at full strength and we also can be pretty sure that Federer would not beat Nadal at full strength in the French Open. Kudos to Federer for finally winning the French Open and tying Sampras' mark but the elephant in the room is still the question of how can Federer be the greatest of all-time when he has a losing record against a contemporary player?
Friday, June 19, 2009 3:14:00 PM
Tufts Doc said...
What do you think of Pat Cash's dissent in the June 15, 2009 SI? How can Federer be the GOAT, when he is the 2nd GOAT to Nadal on clay and the 2nd GOAT to Sampras on grass? Do you think it is fair for everyone to be calling him the GOAT now or does he need to equal the seven Wimbledons of Pete Sampras? So far, he has yet to equal Pete at Wimbledon, the most prestigious major. Thanks.
Tufts Doc:
I agree with most of what Cash said, though I am not convinced that Federer is the second greatest clay player of all-time. Borg completely dominated that surface for years and I see no reason to believe that Federer could touch him on that surface. When Borg retired at 26 he had won the last four French Opens and likely could have kept that streak going for some time.
Federer has obviously already accomplished a lot during his career but the GOAT stuff is premature. If Federer is the GOAT then he should be able to beat Nadal when Nadal is fully healthy and we have not seen Federer do that in quite some time; it is clear that Nadal was not 100% when he lost in the French Open or when he lost to Federer in a tournament shortly before the French Open.
Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:53:00 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/nick-bollettieri-holy-goat-he-is-the-greatest-of-all-time-1732783.html
i think it's pretty clear now that fed is the greatest player since the open era. Each era is distinct with a difference in racket technology, and surfaces, but it's definitely not premature now to claim that fed is the greatest player since the open era. All the legends and former players have stated it, and even the great nick bollettieri, who has coached champions, has made the claim. There's nothing left for federer to accomplish now, besides possibly winning all 4 grandslams in the same calendar year. He has now won the French, and the French and Wimbledon back to back. The fact that Nadal is injured and couldn't participate, shouldn't take anything away from Federer's accomplishments. Injuries are part of any sport, and the fact that Nadal is injured to the extent that he couldn't participate in the most prestigious grandslam, illustrates how serious the injury is, and that too, at the young age of 23. Like Bud Collins said recently, " i don't think we will see the same nadal again" This is troubling, as it would be devastating for the sport. But this also further highlights how spectacular the statistic of reaching 21 consecutive semifinals in grandslams is. Most players don't even participate in that many consecutive grandslams.
Bjorn borg never won the US Open, and he reached the finals a countless amount of times. That in my opinion, diminishes his legacy. He never won a grandslam on hard courts. The fact that he retired at the age of 26, shouldn't accentuate his feats, but rather, in my view, diminish his legacy further since he didn't have the required motivation to succeed at that level. In my opinion, having the motivation, is the makeup of a truly great player. Speculating that Borg would have won more grandslams if he had not retired, is weak analysis, because these hypotheticals do not validate anything. To speculate that Rod Laver would have won more grandslams makes more sense, since he did the grandslam before the 5 year break, and did the grandslam again after the 5 year break, so for Mats Wilander to comment that "if laver had played during those 5 years, he possibly could have won 10 more grandslams" makes more sense.
In the little article that you cited, all Bollettieri does is gush like a fan. I don't question his expertise about tennis but in that particular piece he hardly provided any real analysis to prove that Federer is the greatest player of all-time.
I think that it is very classy for the legendary players to praise Federer--but what would it sound like if those guys answered these leading questions by saying, "No, I am the greatest of all-time"? Those players are in a "no win" situation because everyone is praising Federer, so they don't want to sound like they are stuck up or living in the past.
Clearly, Federer deserves to be mentioned in any discussion of the greatest players of the Open Era. However, although winning the French and capturing a 15th career Slam title are both impressive accomplishments, the massive elephant in the room is the undeniable fact that Federer has been dominated by a contemporary, a player who repeatedly beat him in Grand Slam Finals last year and took away the number one ranking. Do you honestly think that a healthy Nadal would not have beaten Federer in both the French and Wimbledon this year? Federer was literally reduced to tears after playing Nadal last year. How can Federer be the greatest player of all-time when his main contemporary rival dominates him?
You can call Federer the most "accomplished" player of all-time because he holds the career Grand Slam mark but that is not the same as being the best player. Borg played in an era when the Australian Open was an afterthought for most of the top players. In Borg's prime he dominated the two most prestigious Slams and he had to face two of the greatest players of all-time, Connors and McEnroe.
It is a great injustice to Borg to say that he lacked motivation. You don't know tennis history. Borg wanted to play primarily in the Slams, the way that Tiger Woods plays a limited schedule built around his sport's majors; Borg always felt that the year round tennis schedule was too grueling and that players needed a break. The fools who ran the sport said that if Borg did not play in enough smaller events then he would have to participate in qualifiers in order to play in the Slams. Can you imagine making Borg play in qualifiers as if he were some kind of amateur? That stupid ruling played a big role in Borg's retirement. As I said in an earlier post, Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis; Koufax is not the most accomplished pitcher ever in terms of career statistics but he is viewed as arguably the greatest left hander of all-time.
In Borg's last full year on the tour he won the French--for the fourth straight year and sixth time overall--and reached the Finals at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. As usual, he did not even play in Australia. Had Borg played for a few more years he certainly would have added more French Open titles to his resume and possibly more Wimbledon titles as well (Borg had been dominating Connors, who won the 1982 Wimbledon when Borg did not play). Much like Federer finally won the French this year, Borg could have eventually won the U.S. Open, too. When Borg retired he had won more Slams by age 25 than anyone in history. Do you really think that if he had kept playing he would not have won multiple Slams? That is just silly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/skills/6221710.stm
I do know my tennis history. Read the article, clearly you haven't been following borg's comments. He clearly stated, not just in this article, but many other times, when asked why he retired, that the reason why he retired is because he lacked the required motivation to succeed at the top level. Scroll down to the very end of the article, and borg reinforces my point:
"I lost my motivation a little bit when I lost to John McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.
I still played good tennis but I did not have the same focus that I had for many years. I always gave 100% and loved to win and hated to lose but if you lose that little bit of an edge it is very difficult to do well.
Something was missing and for me as a person that is not right"
Similarly, Federer could have also retired after last years wimbledon final or this years australian open final after two major losses to a contemporary player, like Borg did against Mcenroe, but he didn't, he maintained his focus and rebounded, and as a result, has won the French-Wimbledon back to back. Like I mentioned in the previous post, having the required motivation after a critical juncture in your career is what separates Federer from Borg.
Secondly, the fact that Borg did retire and not continue his career, should not accentuate his feats like i said. It's silly to extrapolate his achievements and conclude that he would "eventually win a grandslam on hardcourts" when he clearly struggled to win the US Open, after reaching the finals countless amount of times. Federer eventually won the french because he persevered, unlike Borg who did not. So claiming that Borg would "eventually win" is like saying "kobe bryant would have eventually won 3 or 4 more championships with shaq if they had stayed together" It can't be proven, and it is just pure speculation, so it should not be used when making an honest evaluation of a player's accomplishments. As a basketball analyst, can you honestly say that you would use "kobe would have won more championships with shaq if they had stayed together" to argue that Kobe is a great player?
Thirdly, I would take Nick Bollettieri's expertise, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, John Mcenroe, Boris Becker, Andre Agassi, Tim Henman, and Greg Rusedsksi's understanding of the game over any sport journalist. No disrespect to you or SL Price, but they are coaches, legends and former players who know more about the game than me, you, or any sport journalist for that matter. So it's not a coincidence that all of them have consistently stated that Federer's the best player of the open era.
The reference to knowing tennis history specifically meant the situation regarding having to play in qualifiers. Without that stipulation it is likely that at the very least Borg would have played in some Slams in 1982. Borg feuded with the tennis leadership over that issue. There is also the matter of the death threat that he received during the 1981 U.S. Open, which is why he rushed off of the court and did not stay for the awards ceremony.
Did Michael Jordan's 1993 retirement reflect poorly on his motivation? When Jordan first talked to Phil Jackson about retiring, Jordan said that he wanted to only play in the playoffs and not go through the regular season grind, much like Borg simply wanted to play in a few select tournaments; of course, it is much more reasonable and realistic for a tennis player (or a golfer like Tiger Woods) to play a shorter schedule than for someone in a team sport to do this.
Federer won the French and Wimbledon back to back because Nadal is hurt--period. I will not believe otherwise until Federer defeats a healthy Nadal. Nadal beat Federer in their last three Grand Slam Finals and owns a crushing head to head advantage (the Borg-McEnroe rivalry stood at 7-7).
It certainly makes more sense to think that Borg could have eventually won a U.S. Open--given his all-time best winning percentage in Grand Slam events--than to think that Federer would have won the French and Wimbledon this year versus a healthy Nadal. Borg won events on hard courts; he did not have a problem playing on any particular surface.
Do you really think that it is reckless speculation to say that Borg would have been a huge favorite to win the 1982 French, considering that Borg was the four-time defending champion there when he retired?
Considering that the Australian was played on grass for at least part of Borg's career, do you really think that it is reckless speculation to say that the man who dominated Wimbledon in that era would not have won multiple Australian titles had he cared to do so? Sampras and Federer both padded their Grand Slam totals by winning an event that was deemed insignificant during Borg's era. Borg's winning percentage--11 victories in 27 Grand Slam events entered--is unparalleled, as is his record for making it to at least the quarterfinals in 21 of those events and his match winning percentage of 89.8 in Grand Slam events.
Borg's sparkling Davis Cup record also should not be ignored.
I mean no disrespect to Federer, who is obviously a great champion. All I have said--and will continue to say until Federer improves his results against a healthy Nadal--is that there has been a rush to judgment to proclaim Federer to be the greatest Open Era player and/or the greatest player of all-time. Borg's accomplishments, winning percentages (particularly in Grand Slams) and skill set all place him ahead of Federer. Look at it this way: Pete Rose is the all-time hits leader but does anyone believe that he is the greatest baseball player--or even the greatest hitter--of all-time? Federer has set the record for most Grand Slam titles but that does not mean that he is better than Borg--or Laver, for that matter.
I agree with those who think that it was wrong of McEnroe to delve into the "greatest ever" discussion with Borg, Sampras and Laver right after the Federer-Roddick match. Was it really necessary to "decide" the issue right at that moment? For that matter, does struggling to beat Roddick--holder of one career Slam title--really change Federer's place in history?
I am really sorry to ask this, because I am a fan of your articles, but have you ever actually watched tennis?
Andy Roddick is an incredible tennis player. If not for playing with the GOAT he would have 6 or 7 slams right now.
Not that Roddick is greater than Borg from a historical standpoint, but if they were to play at Wimbledon in their primes with the modern equipment, Roddick would kill him. Borg was not even 6 feet tall, which is now a necessity to be in the top 5 in the world.
Roddick is a definite hall of famer. Please do not disrespect one of the all-time greats. Before this Wimbledon, I held Sampras and Federer on equal footing at Wimbledon, but Federer took down three monsters in Soderling, Karlovic, and Roddick with nearly unbreakable serves on this year's grass. Roddick played the best match of his career against Federer and Federer still won playing subpar.
Borg says Federer is the GOAT even when nobody asks him and he is not required to say anything... and so do 70-80 percent of people on most worldwide polls. The physically strongest tennis player ever in Nadal had to sacrifice his knees and shorten his career in order to compete with a mono-plagued, bad backed Federer at majors other than the French Open. Fans pray that Nadal will even be able to be able to compete at Federer's age (27).
Most of the 20-30 % of people who do not consider Federer the GOAT by now are just die-hard Laver, Sampras, or Borg fans.
The only thing that changed in the past two months is that Nadal got hurt and Federer won two Slams that he would not have won had Nadal been healthy. There is no reason yet to say that Nadal has "shortened" his career or to say that playing Federer specifically has "shortened" Nadal's career. Nadal has been dominating Federer almost from the beginning and he thoroughly dominated Federer last year; he literally had Federer in tears.
Federer is a great player but he has not even proven that he is the best player of the current era, let alone the greatest player of the Open Era or the greatest player of all-time. Federer has yet to match Borg's winning percentage in majors or to even come close to achieving the multi-surface dominance that Borg attained from 1978-80 by winning Wimbledon and the French Open each year. When Borg retired he held the record for Wimbledon titles and French Open titles--and he was just 26 years old! As I wrote in an earlier post, Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis.
For most of his career, Roddick has been a one dimensional player. In fact, although the bottom portion of the draw is deeper now than it was in the 1970s, you can make a good case that Borg faced better players at the top of the draw (Ashe, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, etc.) than Federer has during his career (other than Nadal, of course).
I don't really care what the "polls" say. SI is hilarious--first they prematurely crown Federer years ago, then they recant (as I noted in this post), then Nadal gets hurt, Federer wins two titles that he never would have won versus a healthy Nadal and now Federer is suddenly the GOAT again.
As for Roddick playing Borg, if you put them against each other in their primes in the same era with the same equipment (either in the 1970s with Borg's equipment or in the 2000s with modern equipment), Borg would kill Roddick--Borg was savvier, had better shots, was in much better shape and was much more mentally tough (check out Borg's career record in five set matches).
My last reply:
"The only thing that changed in the past two months is that Nadal got hurt and Federer won two Slams that he would not have won had Nadal been healthy."
That is a very bold hypothetical statement with no backing. Sampras picked Federer to win Wimbledon even prior to the French Open. I trust his opinion more and it is based on actual tennis knowledge.
http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-05/22/content_7928094.htm
"Federer has yet to match Borg's winning percentage in majors."
Borg never won 6 out of 7, 8 out of 10, 10 out of 14, or 11 out of 16 slams. He won 11 in a stretch of 21 played, while Federer won 13 out of 21. If you look over any number of matches (best 50 match period, best 100 match period, best 150 match period...) at majors, Federer has a much higher winning percentage than Borg. Federer was a late starter, but more dominant in majors at his best. i.e. Since Federer won his first major he has been 154-10 in slams. Borg was never quite as dominant at the majors.
Multi-surface dominance? Federer has won majors on four surfaces (grass, clay, DecoTurf, and rebound ace), whereas Borg won on two.
"When Borg retired he held the record for Wimbledon titles and French Open titles--and he was just 26 years old! As I wrote in an earlier post, Borg is the Sandy Koufax of tennis."
True. Is Sandy Koufax your pick for baseball GOAT then?
"As for Roddick playing Borg, if you put them against each other in their primes in the same era with the same equipment (either in the 1970s with Borg's equipment or in the 2000s with modern equipment), Borg would kill Roddick--Borg was savvier, had better shots, was in much better shape and was much more mentally tough (check out Borg's career record in five set matches)."
How about we take the opinion of Rosewall on this one?
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/tennis/whos-the-greatest-laver-or-federer-who-better-to-ask-than-muscles-rosewall--20090703-d6od.html
"I believe the players of days-gone-by would find it very, very difficult to compete against the players of today even with this new equipment."
"But, on the other hand, if you gave Roger Federer the old wooden racquets we used, I think he would still be very, very good. I would say the level of his play at the moment is at the highest standard you could hope to get."
No more from me. If you actually watched footage of Borg playing on a screen next to Roddick like I have, you would probably laugh at your comment. Tennis is a far more athletic game now. There weren't nearly as many players over 6 feet tall in Borg's day and players are much stronger now. But regardless, I put Borg in the top four players in history because he was ahead of his time. The real debate is over 2nd between Laver, Sampras, and Borg.
I see you say the French Open was the second most prestigious slam when Borg played. That is simply not true. The US Open is the second most prestigious slam.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/columns/story?columnist=drucker_joel&id=4166600
Federer has dominated the two most prestigious slams like no one (5 consecutive at each). He is the GOAT. But please, he should let an Andy win the US Open this year. Borg was great though, I saw him play.
My backing for my "bold statement" is that a healthy Nadal beat Federer in 2008 in both the French and Wimbledon Finals. Nadal owns a significant head to head advantage over Federer already. Assuming that Nadal fully recovers, do you really expect the older player (Federer) to gain ground on a younger rival who has been beating him like a drum for years? If that is what you think, then you are the one who is being "bold."
Borg is still the youngest male player in history to win 11 Slams (age 25, nearly a full year younger than Federer was when he won his 11th Slam--and by that age Federer had played in 10 Australian Opens, winning three, while Borg only played in Australia once).
Borg won 11 out of the 27 Slams he entered (.407, an Open Era record). He won seven of the final 12 Slams that he entered and made the Finals in 11 of his final 12 Slams. His career match record in Slams is 141-16 (.898), the best such winning percentage in the Open Era. Borg's "triple double" (winning the Wimbledon and French titles in the same year three years in a row) is unprecedented in tennis history and will not likely be duplicated. Borg won three different Slam titles without losing a set, something no other player has done more than once.
At one time, Borg held the record for being youngest French Open champion, youngest Wimbledon champion, youngest Italian Open champion and youngest player to win a Davis Cup match (he still holds the latter record).
Borg is not a self promoter and he retired nearly three decades ago, so it is unfortunate that people do not really understand just how great he was--but you cannot call yourself a student of the game if you are either (1) ignorant of the facts cited above or (2) willfully ignoring these facts.
I don't want to go off on a baseball tangent when you still don't have the tennis info straight, but, yes, many people do indeed consider Koufax to be the greatest left handed pitcher of all-time based on his dominance over a short but illustrious career. That is precisely why I made the analogy between Borg and Koufax.
Roddick is not more athletic than Borg was. Roddick serves harder than Borg, thanks to changes in racquet technology. Put Borg in a time machine and give him the chance to play with the same equipment and he would beat Roddick just like he beat Roscoe Tanner back in the day.
Borg is 5-11, Roddick is 6-2, Federer is 6-1 and Sampras is 6-1. Do you really think that two-three inches in height makes that much difference? Borg in his prime was quicker, more athletic and in better condition than any of those players.
Federer holds the all-time record with 15 Grand Slam titles but he has played in 41 Slams, for a .366 winning percentage (and he was stuck on .333 before Nadal got hurt). His career match record in Slams is 182-26 (.875).
As for the two articles you cited, it is well known that Sampras and Federer are good friends, so naturally Sampras would pick his good friend over his arch rival Nadal. In the other article, Rosewall made a general statement about older players trying to play with the new equipment but you missed the main theme of the story: despite being pressed repeatedly, Rosewall refused to say that Federer is greater than Laver--though, interestingly enough, that did not stop the writer from drawing that conclusion and trying to make it sound like Rosewall agreed. In fact, that article is precisely the kind of nonsense that got me started on this whole issue in the first place: why is everyone in such a rush to crown Federer as the greatest of all-time? That is all McEnroe wanted to talk about during the Wimbledon Finals. Federer is a great champion; no one is denying that--but he has not really matched (let alone surpassed) Borg in the key areas mentioned above and he has a contemporary player who owns a decided head to head advantage. Let's allow history to play itself out instead of rushing to judgment after every single match.
That sounds like a very American-centric opinion. A while ago, some guy from Australia passionately insisted in some comments here that the Australian Open is just as prestigious as Wimbledon and the French. I think that you are on more solid ground than he was--top pros skipped the Australian for years--but from a global perspective the French is a bit more prestigious than Wimbledon, though those are clearly the "Big Three" while the Australian is not nearly as significant.
could you please explain how "borg's skill set is superior to federer's"?
Borg was more mobile, more fit and better able to adapt his game to both the grass at Wimbledon and the clay at the French Open.
federer best ever if nadal played last tournament he would of been a tougher opponet but nadal wasnt playing as well now then he was last year david so you have to take that in account and injuries is poart of the game 15 slams since 03 21 straight semifinals he is the best ever without uestio borg was more of a clay court grass where federer all surfaces and is much stronger than borg is and was better striker.
federer rank number 1 againg he back expect 19 20 21 slams
TennHist said...
What do you have to say for Borg's comeback in 1991-3? Probably the most humiliating thing in sport's history. Going 0-12 certainly puts both of Jordan's comebacks to shame. Borg was fit for the 70s when players like McEnroe never spent a day in the gym... just ask McEnroe. Borg was one of the all-time great wood racquet players but could not generate nearly enough power to play the modern game.
Some research might help you see the light. Grand Slam prestige correlates with the age of the Slam. No culture bias.
1. Wimbledon- 1877
2. US Open- 1881
3. French Open- 1891
4. Aussie Open- 1905
2. Gonzalez
3. Laver
4. Borg
5. Sampras
Nadal was not playing well early this season because he was hurt, which is why eventually he stopped playing completely. I agree that injuries are part of the game but if we are talking about who is actually better--in terms of who would win a head to head showdown with all things being equal--Nadal clearly surpassed Federer last year and, in fact, owns a significant lifetime head to head advantage. Federer has not proven that he is the best player of the post-Sampras era, so it is more than a little premature to say that Federer is the greatest player of the Open Era or of all-time.
Federer has the career Slams record now but no one thinks that Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back ever or that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter ever just because Smith rushed for the most career yards and Rose tallied the most career hits. Borg has the best career Slams winning percentage--11 Slams won out of 27 entered. Borg's "triple double" (winning Wimbledon and the French in 1978-80) is unprecedented and will not likely ever be matched.
Federer's semi-final streak is nice but look at the whole record: Borg made the semis in 17 out of 27 Slams, made the quarters in 20 out of 27 and never lost in the first round; Federer made the semis in 23 out of 41 Slams, made the quarters in 25 out of 41 and lost in the first round six times. Federer's career Slams record is not nearly as dominant as Borg's.
Borg also had a sterling Davis Cup record.
Tenn Hist:
I say that Borg's short lived comeback has nothing whatsoever to do with what he accomplished during his prime, when he had a resting pulse rate in the 30s and was outperforming track stars in the multi-sport "Superstars" competitions. Borg's fitness level was extraordinary for any era. Maybe you know Tennessee history but you sure don't know tennis history if you really believe that Borg was not superbly conditioned.
The "power" of the modern game has a lot to do with the current equipment. If Borg were coming up as a youngster in this era then he would be comfortable with the equipment--but how would today's players do in the 1970s and 1980s if they actually had to hit good strokes and set up points strategically as opposed to just bombing away? If Federer is frustrated by dealing with Nadal--a fit, mobile player who is not intimidated by him--then just imagine the "fun" that Federer would have had with "Ice" Borg, the man who did not flinch if an opponent hit one good shot because he felt that you had to hit "2000" good shots to beat him; Nadal literally reduced Federer to tears last year and Borg would have done much the same.
We can all agree that Wimbledon is the most prestigious Slam and that the Australian is the least prestigious. I doubt that the U.S. Open is more prestigious than the French anywhere except for here in America; the toughest thing to do in tennis is to win both the Wimbledon and French yet Borg retired with the career record for titles in both events (five and six respectively; he still holds the French Open record). While Borg's record would be impeccable if he had managed to win at least one U.S. Open, he still set a standard that is unmatched in the Open Era, as I detailed in my previous comment.
bjorg didnt do it on all surfaces and federer 21 straight semi is more im pressive then 20 out of 27 he didnt make 7 fed made all 21 david 15 majors in 41 is incorrect 15 in 26 since he won his first in wimbledon 03 thats more impressive dominant than bjorg as well. federe is better career than nadal and sampras they werent as dominant as federer ive never seen a tennis player this good ever and i watched sampras and agassi not connors bjorg or mcenroe
federer is the best of his time without question and probavly all time bjorg had a short carrer he did a move soon as john mcenroe started to own in 81 82 so his percentage is better becuase he played less.
nadal was hurt now not at french or australian when he won that title going into the french he wasnt playing well anyway so fed had a good chance of winning both anyway fed beat rafa the week before french.
Borg won six French Opens in eight appearances and five Wimbledons in nine appearances, setting the career record for titles in both events (he still holds the French record). From 1978-80 he won both events in the same year, an unprecedented "triple double." That simultaneous mastery of clay and grass will not likely ever be equaled. Borg also won tournaments on carpet and on hard courts. He did not have a particular surface weakness; grass was supposedly his "weaker" surface but he shot that theory down by his record-shattering performances at Wimbledon.
It does not matter what is "more impressive" to you; Borg's Grand Slam percentages are better than Federer's in all categories: better winning percentage (11/27 versus 15/41), better semifinals ratio (17/27 versus 23/41), better quarterfinals ratio (20/27 versus 25/41) and better overall match winning percentage (.898 versus .875). Borg was more dominant than Federer in Grand Slam tennis--period.
At just 23 years old, Nadal already has won six Grand Slams and owns a vastly superior head to head record versus Federer, who had won just three Slams by age 23 (Borg won seven Grand Slams by age 23 and won 11 by age 25, which is still the all-time record for that age).
Nadal had been dominating Federer and the tennis circuit in general until knee tendinitis shut him down. You really think that Soderling would have beaten a healthy Nadal? Nadal tried to play through the injury at the French and that obviously did not work. There is absolutely no objective reason to think that Federer can beat a healthy Nadal on any surface; Nadal is younger, stronger and has been dominating Federer for years, to the point that he clearly got in Federer's head, so much so that Federer was crying after their matches.
Borg remains the best player of the Open Era, while Nadal has already accomplished more by age 23 than Federer did. Federer is a great player but I have never understood this rush to crown him as number one. It reminds me of when people insisted that Larry Bird was the greatest basketball player ever, even though he was not better than Chamberlain or Russell (or even Kareem) and even though Bird had a contemporary rival (Magic Johnson) who consistently enjoyed head to head superiority versus him; of course, by the time Jordan won six rings even Bird's most fervent advocates had to give up the ghost.
Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:13:00 PM
fact of the matter is, is that borg failed to win the US Open, and he participated in the grandslam many times. He never won a grandslam on hardcourts, and that will always be a major hole when looking at his accomplishments, end of discussion.
OK--and the "fact of the matter" also is that Borg has better overall Grand Slam statistics (as I demonstrated above) than Federer in every meaningful category: tournament winning percentage (11/27), percentage of appearances in the semifinals, percentage of appearances in the quarterfinals and match winning percentage. Borg also never lost in the first round, while Federer has lost in the first round six times. How can the supposed greatest player of all-time lose six times in the first round of Grand Slam events?
for some reason, you are always comparing him to federer, i never mentioned federer in my post. All i said is that not winning a grandslam on one of the major surfaces, is a gaping hole in his resume.
Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:50:00 PM
The whole point of this thread is that it is premature to crown Federer as the greatest player of the Open Era, let alone the greatest player of all-time. Borg has a better Slams resume than Federer (and a better Davis Cup record). I agree that Borg's resume would be even better had he won the U.S. Open but even without a U.S. Open title Borg has a better Grand Slam resume than Federer.
like i said, not comparing him to anyone, just saying that it is a gaping hole. He won many grandslams on grass and clay, but was unable to win a grandslam on the hard court surface.
I don't know if this is a "gaping hole." Obviously, Borg's resume would be even better if he had won just one U.S. Open title but his simultaneous Wimbledon/French dominance is unparalleled.
The fact that Federer has been dominated by a contemporary player is a far bigger "gaping hole" in Federer's resume, as is the fact that Federer lost in the first round at a Slam six times, while Borg never suffered a first round loss at a Slam.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Knockout.js - observable within obserable Searched all over stackoverflow & other sources - can't seem to find anything of much help.
I have a statistical table-like UI with data driven content. The data is a huge array/object serialised on the back-end.
I am then extracting the values within that array - which are set as observables - and outputting them on the page with data-bind attributes.
The table displays the top performing artist in a given category and the two related artists below.
The problem is that we need to dynamically change the data-bind attribute so that it is capable of looking at a variable property in the data.
For example, if the user filters by "Artist", we want to display the Artist's Name (i.e

BUT
if the user filters by "Genre", we want the same part of the HTML to be able to display the Track Length (or any other arbitrary observable property) (i.e )
Ultimately, I want to have a variable data-bind attribute, like
I know that I can achieve this using a potentially huge if statement, like so:

...etc
Surely there is a more efficient way...?

A: You'll have to bind the grid data to a function that will then return the data sorted / filtered by the desired field. Also, you'll have to bind that drop-down list to an observable in your view-model.
function GridModel(data)
{
      var self = this;
      self.RawData = data;
      self.SortedBy = ko.observable();

      self.GetGridData = function()
      {
           var ret = self.RawData();
           var sortingFld = self.SortedBy();

           if (sortingFld)
           {
               ret = ret.sort(function (a, b) {
                   a = ko.unwrap(a[sortingFld]);
                   b = ko.unwrap(b[sortingFld]);

                   return (a == b ? 0 : a < b ? -1 : 1) * 1;
                   });
           }

           return ret;
      }
}

HTML:

        Category
        Artist
        Track

The drop-down will then be able to change the SortedBy observable and automatically refresh the grid accordingly:
<select data-bind="value: SortedBy, options: ['Artist', 'Track']"></select>

(The code above only demonstrates ascending sorting, but you can easily expand it for filtering as well).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Healing Work
Introduction To Gnosis
"For anyone acquainted with religious phenomenology it is an open secret that although physical and spiritual passion are deadly enemies, they are never-the-less brothers in arms, for which reason it often needs the merest touch to convert one into the other. Both are real, and together they form a pair of opposites, which is one of the most fruitful sources of energy."
— C. G. Jung
Hierarchies that developed in the Gnostic magical pantheons were constructed on an etiology of a fallen, corrupted cosmos. Springing from a syncretic Hellenistic culture with Platonic, Oriental, Jewish and Christian influences, these cosmologies were extremely versatile.
For Plato, the true home of the soul was in the stars, and the object of human experience was to climb through the various planetary spheres and return the soul to its disembodied spiritual existence. This philosophy is now seen by many to be the origin of western dualism. In much Gnostic speculation, even the upper realms of the cosmos have been demonized.
Spiritual goodness is far above the heavens; it dwells beyond human thought in the realm of "depth and silence."
The human being, in most Gnostic cosmologies, cannot pursue the life of the earth and the spirit simultaneously and a recurring theme is how to balance transcendence and sexual power.
In general, the Hermetic and Kabalistic writings which evolved simultaneously and subsequently from Oriental Hellenism rejected the Gnostic theme of anti—cosmic dualism, affirming instead that the cosmos is an expression of the immanence of God, within which human beings stand in intermediary relationship, mediating microcosm to macrocosm..
However, modern scholars have sought to uncover the more redemptive aspects of Gnosticism, such as the role of women in the social and religious hierarchy as well as philosophical revelations which point to a more unified view of nature and cosmos, God and humans. The problem of Gnostic dualism is beautifully resolved in the Gospel of Philip.
(Excerpt from the Role of the Sacred Feminine in Gnosticism)
(Adobe Acrobat Reader is necessary to open the following files.)
Alchemy as a path to Integration.pdf
The Role of the Sacred Feminine in Gnosticism.pdf
The Introduction to the Nag Hammadi Library.pdf


text:
Nathan Wyburn wants art world to 'take him seriously'
By Max Evans
Image source, Nathan Wyburn
Nathan Wyburn with his pizza portraits, including one of David Beckham
For a man who's depicted the Queen in Marmite on toast and painted with his feet, it's perhaps unsurprising the art world is a little sniffy about Nathan Wyburn.
The Welsh pop artist is best-known for his celebrity portraits crafted from food and he's attracted commissions from brands like Starbucks, Hovis and Morrisons.
But he's also got topical edge - with one of his works on phone-hacking hitting the front page of a national newspaper in 2012.
So should the 25-year-old be taken seriously? He thinks so.
Mr Wyburn burst onto the scene after becoming an internet sensation on YouTube in 2010 with a toast portrait of X Factor judge Simon Cowell and gained a wider following after appearing on ITV's Britain's Got Talent in 2011.
It was at the inception of his cult status, while studying fine art at Cardiff School of Art & Design, that Mr Wyburn detected a slightly condescending attitude from some lecturers towards his work.
"I don't expect everyone to like it. But people that do, love it. I'm completely fine with it," he said.
Nathan Wyburn paints Miley Cyrus with his tongue
"I don't mind that it [his work] is going to get looked down upon. All of the pop artists were for so many years."
Mr Wyburn, who is originally from Ebbw Vale, Blaenau Gwent, may be unashamedly fixated on celebrity culture, but his work has also been recognised for its commentary on current affairs.
His portrait of Rupert Murdoch, made from 5,000 images of alleged phone-hacking victims, featured on the front page of The Guardian.
"It is current to current affairs and current to pop culture. I don't see why that should not be shown in a gallery, in the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery.
"I do strive to be taken seriously. It would be nice to get that sort of recognition," he added.
Mr Wyburn said he recently learned that he will be taught as part of the GCSE art curriculum in Wales and the possibility of him being mentioned in the same lesson as his hero Andy Warhol is "mind-blowing".
While his fascination for art began in school, Mr Wyburn believes there is little being done to inspire the next generation of artists in British classrooms.
Nathan Wyburn created a portrait of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Princess Charlotte
"I don't think there's enough of a push to believe you can have a career in art or to spur people on.
"In school, I didn't know I was able to have it as a career. I don't think many of the teachers would push you enough, encouraging you to be creative people.
"Creative people, in general, are dismissed as non-academic. That's not what it is at all.
"Without creative people, without music, without the arts…where would we be without culture?"
An unashamed purveyor of popular culture, Mr Wyburn has created images of football manager Fabio Capello from Bolognese sauce and pasta, singer Tom Jones from cassette tape and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson in motor oil.
Andy Warhol would have appeared on Big Brother if he had still been alive, according to Nathan Wyburn
He said that, not only was Warhol right to say everyone would one day be famous for 15 minutes, but also insisted the dead artist would have jumped at the chance to appear on celebrity TV.
"He was so obsessive about being on camera 24/7. He made himself a commodity, he made himself a piece of artwork. I think Big Brother would definitely be the one that he would do."
Mr Wyburn is currently looking forward to the release of his new book, Not That Kind Of Art, in the spring and has created a series of portraits from coffee for Macmillan Cancer Support.
But he is in no doubt about his dream project.
"I'm extremely proud of being Welsh," he said.
"I have always said I would like to go into the Millennium Stadium and, using either rugby shirts or rugby balls, make an incredibly large Welsh flag or a portrait of Sam Warburton."
Stella actress Ruth Jones rendered in Stella Artois packaging and Wizard of Oz star Judy Garland in Rainbow Drops
Childhood brings out toast taste
Your portrait from recycled plastic?
The artists who destroyed their own work


text:
Pilot Signal Design For Estimation Of Sparse Channels With Application To Cooperative Systems
mds72.pdf (881.0Kb)
Sharp, Matthew
In recent years, there has been a resurgence in the interest of using HF radio band (3-30 MHz) for military, government, and emergency applications. In order to allow for more reliable mobile HF radio networks, the use of distributed cooperative communication schemes is appealing. In fact, the large HF wavelength prevents one from obtaining diversity from antennae located on a single portable radio. Hence cooperative schemes can potentially bring the benefits of MIMO systems to portable HF radios, allowing for diversity gains as well as potential reductions in transmit power. Our work is focused on the receiver design for cooperative HF radios. The motivation for our work is as follows. Using distributed cooperative communication schemes in OTH-HF propagation environments introduces several additional complications in comparison with traditional MIMO systems. Different from a traditional MIMO system, there is additional overhead required to organize and synchronize the cooperative radios' transmissions. Our work focuses on the distributed cooperative communication scheme introduced in [82] which reduces the overhead by introducing randomization into the coding scheme, but does not solve the synchronization problem. In terms of efficiency, it is best to allow cooperative nodes to transmit concurrently, using space-time coding techniques, as done in the randomized protocol proposed in [82]. But several authors argue against such solutions, given the challenge of synchronizing the different cooperative radios participating in the transmission. Our work investigates the effects of imperfect synchronization among cooperative nodes, resulting in dispersive effects that can be captured by an equivalent MIMO channel. The key contribution is in proposing the use of compressed sensing (or sparse signal recovery) techniques to deal with these channels at the receiver. We first consider designs that are sufficiently informative for MIMO systems that can be appropriately modeled as sparse. After introducing noise and modeling error, we examine the performance of an ideal sparse channel estimation method, leading to a metric we call localized coherence, and modified training designs. These results are then applied to the asynchronous distributed cooperative communication scheme.
Channel Estimation; Cooperative Communication; Sparse Signal Recovery
Scaglione, Anna
Johnson Jr, Charles R.; Tong, Lang
Ph. D., Electrical Engineering


text:
set -x
# Echo commands
set -o xtrace

# Configurable nuggets
GUEST_PASSWORD=${GUEST_PASSWORD:-secrete}
STAGING_DIR=${STAGING_DIR:-stage}
DO_TGZ=${DO_TGZ:-1}
XS_TOOLS_PATH=${XS_TOOLS_PATH:-"/root/xs-tools.deb"}

# Install basics
chroot $STAGING_DIR apt-get update
chroot $STAGING_DIR apt-get install -y cracklib-runtime curl wget ssh openssh-server tcpdump ethtool
chroot $STAGING_DIR apt-get install -y curl wget ssh openssh-server python-pip git vim-nox sudo
chroot $STAGING_DIR pip install xenapi

# Install XenServer guest utilities
cp $XS_TOOLS_PATH ${STAGING_DIR}${XS_TOOLS_PATH}
chroot $STAGING_DIR dpkg -i $XS_TOOLS_PATH
chroot $STAGING_DIR update-rc.d -f xe-linux-distribution remove
chroot $STAGING_DIR update-rc.d xe-linux-distribution defaults

# Make a small cracklib dictionary, so that passwd still works, but we don't
# have the big dictionary.
mkdir -p $STAGING_DIR/usr/share/cracklib
echo a | chroot $STAGING_DIR cracklib-packer

# Make /etc/shadow, and set the root password
chroot $STAGING_DIR "pwconv"
echo "root:$GUEST_PASSWORD" | chroot $STAGING_DIR chpasswd

# Put the VPX into UTC.
rm -f $STAGING_DIR/etc/localtime

# Add stack user
chroot $STAGING_DIR groupadd libvirtd
chroot $STAGING_DIR useradd stack -s /bin/bash -d /opt/stack -G libvirtd
echo stack:$GUEST_PASSWORD | chroot $STAGING_DIR chpasswd
echo "stack ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL" >> $STAGING_DIR/etc/sudoers

# Give ownership of /opt/stack to stack user
chroot $STAGING_DIR chown -R stack /opt/stack

# Make our ip address hostnames look nice at the command prompt
echo "export PS1='${debian_chroot:+($debian_chroot)}\\u@\\H:\\w\\$ '" >> $STAGING_DIR/opt/stack/.bashrc
echo "export PS1='${debian_chroot:+($debian_chroot)}\\u@\\H:\\w\\$ '" >> $STAGING_DIR/root/.bashrc
echo "export PS1='${debian_chroot:+($debian_chroot)}\\u@\\H:\\w\\$ '" >> $STAGING_DIR/etc/profile

function setup_vimrc {
    if [ ! -e $1 ]; then
        # Simple but usable vimrc
        cat > $1 <<EOF
syntax on
se ts=4
se expandtab
se shiftwidth=4
EOF
    fi
}

# Setup simple .vimrcs
setup_vimrc $STAGING_DIR/root/.vimrc
setup_vimrc $STAGING_DIR/opt/stack/.vimrc

if [ "$DO_TGZ" = "1" ]; then
    # Compress
    rm -f stage.tgz
    tar cfz stage.tgz stage
fi

# remove self from local.rc
# so this script is not run again
rm -rf /etc/rc.local
mv /etc/rc.local.preparebackup /etc/rc.local
cp $STAGING_DIR/etc/rc.local $STAGING_DIR/etc/rc.local.backup

# shutdown to notify we are done
shutdown -h now


text:
Uxbridge Citizen Advice Bureau
The Colonnade, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW
Outside Access (Main Entrance)
Level Change (Main Entrance)
Standard Toilet(s)
The Citizens Advice Bureau offers free confidential, impartial and independent advice and information on debt, benefits, employment, consumer rights, housing, immigration and other legal problems.
You are on Location. Skip to the next section.
There is a bus stop within 150m (164yds) of the venue.
The nearest National Rail station is West Drayton.
The nearest underground station is Uxbridge.
You are on COVID-19 Information. Skip to the next section.
You are on Opening Times. Skip to the next section.
Monday 09:30 - 16:00.
Tuesday 09:30 - 16:00.
Wednesday 09:30 - 16:00.
Thursday 09:30 - 16:00.
Friday Closed.
Saturday Closed.
Sunday Closed.
You are on Parking. Skip to the next section.
The venue does not have its own car park.
Public Car Parks View
There is a car park for public use within 200m (approx).
The name of the car park is Intu Uxbridge.
The car park is located off Chippendale Waye.
On Street Blue Badge Parking View
On street marked Blue Badge bays are not available.
On Street Standard Parking View
Clearly signed and / or standard marked parking bays are not available.
Drop-off Point View
There is not a designated drop off point.
You are on Outside Access (Main Entrance). Skip to the next section.
This information is for the entrance located at the front of the building.
There is not level access into the venue.
The main door(s) open(s) automatically (towards you).
The door(s) open(s) automatically (towards you).
The doors are push pad activated on exit.
You are on Level Change (Main Entrance). Skip to the next section.
There is a ramp/slope to access this area/service.
The ramp or slope is located on the path leading to the entrance.
The ramp/slope is easy.
You are on Reception. Skip to the next section.
The desk/counter is 6m (6yd 1ft) from the main entrance.
There is level access to the desk/counter from the entrance.
The desk/counter is high (110cm+).
The desk/counter does not have a low (76cm or lower) section.
The lighting levels are medium.
You are on Inside Access. Skip to the next section.
There is level access to the service(s).
There is not a hearing assistance system.
This venue does not play background music.
Motorised scooters are allowed in public parts of the venue.
The lighting levels are varied.
You are on Accessible Toilet. Skip to the next section.
There is an/are accessible toilet(s) within this venue designated for public use.
Location and Access View
The toilet is not for the sole use of disabled people.
There is pictorial signage on or near the toilet door.
This accessible toilet is approximately 9m (9yd 2ft) from the main entrance.
The accessible toilet is located off the main corridor.
There is level access to this accessible toilet.
Features and Dimensions View
This is a unisex toilet.
A key is not required for the accessible toilet.
The door opens outwards.
The door is locked by a twist lock.
The width of the accessible toilet door is 85cm (2ft 9in).
The door is light.
The dimensions of the accessible toilet are 152cm x 200cm (4ft 12in x 6ft 7in).
There is sufficient turning space in the cubicle for a wheelchair user.
There is a lateral transfer space.
As you face the toilet pan the transfer space is on the left.
The lateral transfer space is 72cm (2ft 4in).
There is a dropdown rail on the transfer side.
There is a flush on the transfer side.
The tap type is lever.
There is a mixer tap.
There is an emergency alarm.
The emergency pull cord alarm is fully functional.
Disposal facilities are available in the cubicle.
There is not a/are not coat hook(s).
Position of Fixtures View
Wall-mounted grab rails are available.
As you face the toilet the wall-mounted grab rails are on both sides.
There is not a shelf within the accessible toilet.
There is a mirror.
Mirrors are not placed at a lower level or at an angle for ease of use.
The height of the toilet seat above floor level is 45cm (1ft 6in).
There is a hand dryer.
The hand dryer cannot be reached from seated on the toilet.
The hand dryer is not placed higher than 100cm (3ft 3in).
There is not a towel dispenser.
There is a toilet roll holder.
The toilet roll holder can be reached from seated on the toilet.
The toilet roll holder is not placed higher than 100cm (3ft 3in).
There is a wash basin.
The wash basin can be reached from seated on the toilet.
The wash basin is not placed higher than 74cm (2ft 5in).
Colour Contrast and Lighting View
The contrast between the external door and wall is good.
The contrast between the internal door and wall is good.
The contrast between the wall-mounted grab rail(s) and wall is fair.
The contrast between the dropdown rail(s) and wall is fair.
The contrast between the walls and floor is good.
The lighting levels are bright.
You are on Standard Toilet(s). Skip to the next section.
Availability and Location of Standard Toilets View
Standard toilet facilities are available.
Access to Standard Female Toilet(s) View
The female toilet facilities that were surveyed are located off the main corridor.
The female toilet(s) is/are approximately 11m (12yd 1in) from the main entrance.
Inside the venue, there is level access to the female toilet(s).
Lighting levels are bright.
Access to Standard Male Toilet(s) View
The male toilet facilities that were surveyed are located off the main corridor.
The male toilet(s) is/are approximately 10m (10yd 2ft) from the main entrance.
Inside the venue, there is level access to the male toilet(s).
Baby Change Facilities View
Baby change facilities are located within the venue.
Baby change facilities are located within the female and male toilets.
The height of the baby change table once extended is 85cm (2ft 9in).
Inside the venue, there is level access to the baby change facility.
You are on Additional Info. Skip to the next section.
Staff do receive disability awareness / equality training.
Documents are not available in Braille.
Documents can be requested in large print.
A bowl of water can be provided for an assistance dog.
A member of staff trained in BSL skills is not normally on duty.
This service can be requested.
Home visits / services are not available.


text:
Bank of America ends bounced check fee, slashes overdraft fine
Photo: Pablo Monsalve/VIEWpress via Getty Images
Bank of America clients will no longer face a fee for bouncing a check, starting next month, and will pay only a $10 fine instead of $35 if they overdraft an account, beginning in May, the financial institution announced Tuesday.
Why it matters: Bank of America is the latest major bank to reconsider its penalty system, as the industry as a whole has faced mounting pressure from lawmakers for the practice of charging such fines.
In the past, financial institutions have raked in millions of dollars from such fees, and people who can least afford them can wind up paying more in overdraft fees than the amount that overdrew the account.
What they're saying: "Over the last decade, we have made significant changes to our overdraft services and solutions, reducing clients' reliance on overdraft, and providing resources to help clients manage their deposit accounts and overall finances responsibly," Holly O'Neill, Bank of America's president of retail banking, said in a statement.
The big picture: Ally Bank did away with its $25 overdraft fees entirely in June last year, and Capitol One did the same in December.
Go deeper: Bank regulators push Wall Street on climate risk
Editor's note: This article has been corrected to reflect that the change in overdraft fees begins in May (not February).
Ben Geman, author of Generate
Powell likely won't do what green activists want most
Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell is offering Democrats fresh pledges to make climate change a priority, but there's little sign he believes the central bank should act to thwart Wall Street finance for polluting industries.
Driving the news: Powell told the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday that the Fed would proceed with analyzing banks' readiness to grapple with global warming and the ways climate change can threaten financial stability.


text:
Health & The Environment /
Environmental Public Health Tracking /
Tracking Vulnerability Indicators in Vermont
Understanding our community-level vulnerabilities can help us all prepare for emergencies like floods and heat waves.
Vulnerability indicators attempt to shed light on the underlying factors that influence why some communities are more affected by a particular hazard, such as a natural disaster. Vulnerability indicators can serve as planning tools to focus health impact prevention efforts in areas of Vermont at greatest risk. Vulnerability indicators can also be used when there is a disease outbreak or an emergency to identify populations who may need more help with response and recovery.
Social Vulnerability in Vermont
ENV_EPHT_Social_Vulnerability_Index.png
Social vulnerability refers to the resilience of communities when responding to or recovering from threats to public health. The Vermont Social Vulnerability Index is a planning tool to evaluate the relative social vulnerability across the state. It can be used if there is a disease outbreak or in the event of an emergency—either natural or human-caused—to identify populations that may need more help.
The Vermont Social Vulnerability Index draws together 16 different measures of vulnerability in three different themes: socioeconomic, demographic, and housing/transportation. The user guide provides the methods used to produce the index.
eh_EPHT_logo.png
Explore the Vermont Social Vulnerability Index
How to Identify Vermont's Vulnerable Populations
heat Vulnerability in Vermont
ENV_EPHT_Heat_Vulnerabilty_Index.png
The Vermont Heat Vulnerability Index draws together 17 different measures of vulnerability in six different themes: population, socioeconomic, health, environmental, climate, and heat illness. These measures are combined to measure the overall vulnerability of Vermont towns to heat-related events. This is a first step to identify populations that may be more vulnerable to extreme heat, however local knowledge should always be considered when it is available.
The Heat Vulnerability Report provides a description of and rationale for the methods used to produce the Vermont Heat Vulnerability Index. A summary of the description is also available.
Explore the Vermont Heat Vulnerability Index
Learn more about health equity in Vermont.
community support | healthy communities | tracking portal
Last Reviewed: December 5, 2018
Policymakers & Researchers
The Health Department has a wealth of data and tools for community partners, researchers and students on a wide range of public health topics. Use our data explorer to navigate community profiles, performance scorecards, the environmental public health tracking portal, health statistics and vital records, 3-4-50 pages – and much more!
Vermont's emergency responders work on the frontlines to save lives and protect health. Find all the information you need about licensing, certification, training and volunteer opportunities with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the Vermont Medical Reserve Corps (MRC).
Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Tracker
The Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Tracker allows the public to check recent cyanobacteria bloom reports at shoreline sites and recreational swimming areas of Lake Champlain and various inland lakes in Vermont.
Tick Tracker
The Vermont Tick Tracker is a crowd-sourced tool that allows anyone to contribute to our understanding of ticks in Vermont.
List of terms used for Vermont Tracking data.
Outdoor air can contain pollutants. Air pollution has been linked to specific health problems—such as asthma, heart disease, and lung cancer.
Asthma attacks and episodes are serious problems with breathing caused by certain triggers. These triggers can be found in both indoor and outdoor environments.
Most birth defects are thought to be caused by a complex mix of factors, including a person's genes, behaviors, and things in the environment.
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Vermont. Each year more than 3,600 Vermonters are diagnosed with some form of cancer.
Carbon monoxide is a poison, even at low levels. Breathing high levels of CO can cause severe illness or death in a matter of minutes.
Childhood Lead Poisoning
Lead is a highly toxic metal that has been commonly used in many household, industrial and automobile products. Lead poisoning is a serious but preventable health problem.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD, refers to a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Climate and Health
Changes in the climate can affect human health, including: effects from extreme heat, extreme weather events, tickborne and-mosquito-borne diseases, cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms, and air quality.
Private water supplies are monitored and maintained by their owners, so it is important for them to do their own water testing and maintenance to make sure their drinking water remains safe.
Heart Attacks
Investigators both in the U.S. and abroad have shown relationships between short- and long-term exposure to air pollution and the increased risk of heart attack and other forms of heart disease.
Exposure to hazards in the physical environment—secondhand smoke, lead, mercury, air pollution, pesticides, and other toxins—may increase the likelihood of poor reproductive health outcomes.
Radon, Smoking and Lung Cancer
Smoking and radon are the leading causes of lung cancer. If you smoke and your home has high levels of radon, your risk of getting lung cancer is especially high.


text:
Q: Imaging Sony Viaos -- Missing drivers I've been given several Sony Viao VGN-BX760's from old software engineering students. I'm supposed to install Windows, drivers, necessary software, and image the other laptops with it. The problem is Sony's drivers from their own website are broken.
Even after installing every driver listed on Sony's support page, there are two VGA Controllers without drivers, an Unknown Device, and the optical drive driver says "no device is connected." What it means is, the device I'm compatible with must not be here. I know the drive works, I installed XP from it. Sony either has the wrong driver, or gosh, I don't know.
So are there other ways to get drivers? If these other Viaos are working, is it possible to rip drivers from them? Thanks.
Edit: To the best of my knowledge, we do not have the original system discs.

A: If you have a machine with working drivers you could have a look at these answers.

A: Something to check for is a hidden recovery partition.  I just reloaded a Vaio using that, and that saves you the hassle of tracking down drivers.  One of the function keys should trigger the recovery or a boot menu where you can select the recovery from.  I am a huge fan of this since I have had a number of laptops with no image or support disks handed off to me for reloading, and we don't have VLKs.  A quick check on google indicates that it might be F-10.

A: Try having a look at something like Everest and use it to find the real device models so you can search them up from the original device manufactures compared to the sony website.