text:
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
29 April 2020 (1)
(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a wood-splitting tool — Earlier national design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
In Case T‑73/19,
Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag, established in Saltsjö-Boo (Sweden), represented by S. Kirschstein-Freund and B. Breitinger, lawyers,
applicant,
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by S. Hanne, acting as Agent,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being
Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen GmbH, established in Ichenhausen (Germany),
ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 1455/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen and Bergslagernas Järnvaru,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of H. Kanninen, President, N. Półtorak (Rapporteur) and O. Porchia, Judges,
Registrar: R. Ūkelytė, Administrator,
having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 7 February 2019,
having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 15 April 2019,
further to the hearing on 14 January 2020,
gives the following
Background to the dispute
1 On 12 August 2011 the applicant, Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag, filed an application for registration of a Community design with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).
2 The design in respect of which registration was sought is reproduced below:
3 The contested design is intended to be applied to 'wood splitting tools' in Class 08.03 of the Locarno Agreement of 8 October 1968 establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs.
4 The contested design was registered on 12 August 2011 under No 001289243-0001 and published in Community Designs Bulletin No 205/2011 of 9 September 2011.
5 On 12 July 2017 Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen GmbH filed an application for a declaration of invalidity with EUIPO, pursuant to Article 52 of Regulation No 6/2002, in respect of the contested design, arguing, in particular, that that design had no individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.
6 In support of its application for a declaration of invalidity, Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen relied on the making available to the public of an earlier design, which was published in 1986 as a registered design in the Norwegian intellectual property register and which is reproduced below:
7 By decision of 12 June 2018, the Invalidity Division declared the contested design invalid on the ground that it had no individual character.
8 On 27 July 2018 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the Invalidity Division's decision.
9 By decision of 23 November 2018 ('the contested decision'), the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO dismissed the appeal. In essence, it considered that the Invalidity Division had been fully entitled to declare that the contested design was invalid because it was devoid of individual character.
Forms of order sought
10 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– principally, annul the contested decision;
– in the alternative, amend the contested decision;
– order EUIPO to pay the costs.
11 EUIPO contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
12 In support of its claims for annulment and amendment, the applicant raises two pleas in law, the first alleging infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 and the second alleging infringement of Article 6(1) of that regulation.
First plea in law: infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002
13 In support of its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the Board of Appeal infringed its right to be heard, as enshrined, according to the applicant, in Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002, by setting out, in the contested decision, a certain number of facts and arguments without having allowed the applicant to submit its observations. In particular, according to the applicant, the Board of Appeal put forward for the first time, in the contested decision, the following facts and arguments, on which the applicant claims it was given no opportunity to present its comments:
– it is a well-known fact for an informed user that wood-splitting tools of the kind shown in the designs in question operate by firstly lifting the lever from the base and secondly lowering it once a piece of wood has been firmly put in place between two of the teeth (paragraph 25 of the contested decision);
– the shape of the body and that of the lever are interdependent inasmuch as the lever must be bent in view of the relatively longer size of the support. A straight lever would protrude excessively and easily become a hindrance for the user (paragraph 26 of the contested decision);
– a shorter support opposite the hinge does not require the lever to be bent. Those characteristics are linked to each other and reflect functional necessities, with the result that they play only a relatively feeble role in the overall impression created by the two designs. Consequently, what will strike the informed user is the overall design of the base and the lever (paragraphs 27 to 29 of the contested decision);
– the differences relating to the shape of the teeth are appreciable only upon closer inspection and are thus likely to pass unobserved (paragraph 32 of the contested decision);
– the shape concerns a relatively small portion of the tool (paragraph 33 of the contested decision);
– the hinge is on the rear side of the base and does not attract visual attention when the tool is being used (paragraph 34 of the contested decision);
– the circular safety device is a feature for product safety and will be perceived as purely functional (paragraph 36 of the contested decision).
14 EUIPO disputes the applicant's arguments.
15 In that regard, it should be noted that, according to Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002, decisions of EUIPO may be based only on reasons or evidence on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments. The general principle of protection of the right to defend oneself is enshrined in the law of Community designs by that provision. According to that general principle of EU law, a person whose interests are significantly affected by a decision addressed to him and taken by a public authority must be given the opportunity to make his point of view known. The right to be heard extends to all the matters of fact or of law which form the basis of the decision, but not to the final position which the authority intends to adopt (judgment of 9 February 2017, Mast-Jägermeister v EUIPO (Beakers), T‑16/16, EU:T:2017:68, paragraph 57), or to each well-known fact on which it relies in order to arrive at that position (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 June 2016, Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL), T‑34/15, not published, EU:T:2016:330, paragraph 83).
16 In the present case, first, it should be pointed out that it is apparent from the file that, during the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, the applicant had the opportunity to submit its observations relating to all the aspects of the application for a declaration of invalidity, including with regard to the individual character of the contested design. A summary of the observations submitted in response to the application for a declaration of invalidity is set out in paragraph 7 of the contested decision. In addition, during the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, the applicant also had the opportunity to submit arguments and factual evidence concerning the use of the relevant goods and concerning the visual characteristics of the designs at issue.
17 Second, as is noted by EUIPO, the contested decision is exclusively based on facts which are well known, since they are likely to be known by anyone, or which may be learned from generally accessible sources, and on elements which are apparent from the representations of the designs at issue or on facts and arguments expressly put forward by the parties.
18 In particular, regarding the assertion that 'it is a well-known fact for an informed user that wood-splitting tools of the kind shown in both designs operate by firstly lifting the lever from the base and secondly lowering it once a piece of wood has been firmly put in place … between two of the teeth' (paragraph 25 of the contested decision), this is merely the Board of Appeal's response to the argument, already put forward by the applicant before the Invalidity Division, that, in essence, for the purpose of assessing the overall impression produced by the earlier design, only the representation of that design in a closed position, as registered, is decisive. More specifically, that statement by the Board of Appeal is intended to confirm and to clarify the Invalidity Division's decision in so far as it rejected the applicant's argument as being incapable of calling into question the assessment of the overall impression produced by the designs at issue. That statement is also in response to the argument, put forward by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, that the appearance of a product in a closed position which resembles an earlier design when open was unknown, given that it had never been made available to the public.
19 Accordingly, the applicant cannot claim that the argument set out in the second sentence of paragraph 25 of the contested decision was put forward for the first time by the Board of Appeal, so that the applicant was not given an opportunity to present its comments on that argument. In addition, regarding the well-known fact relied on by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 25 of the contested decision, which the applicant argued was not well known for the first time at the hearing, it is sufficient to note, in order to set that line of argument aside, that the applicant does not submit any evidence to support its argument that the fact in question is not well known.
20 Furthermore, regarding the other facts and arguments referred to in paragraph 13 above, on which the applicant claims not to have had an opportunity to present its comments, it should be noted that these constitute the Board of Appeal taking a position in relation to the arguments put forward by the applicant during the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision and intended to emphasise the differences which, in its view, distinguish the designs at issue.
21 In any event, the mere fact that the final position of the Board of Appeal as regards the lack of individual character of the contested design does not correspond to that expressed by the applicant before the departments of EUIPO in no way constitutes, according to the case-law referred to in paragraph 15 above, an infringement of the applicant's right to be heard (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 September 2008, Anvil Knitwear v OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile), T‑179/07, not published, EU:T:2008:401, paragraph 24). Accordingly, the applicant is not justified in claiming that it did not have an opportunity to present its comments on the facts and arguments referred to in paragraph 13 above.
22 It follows from the foregoing that the first plea in law must be rejected.
Second plea in law: infringement of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002
23 It is apparent from the wording of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 that, in the case of a registered Community design, the individual character must be assessed having regard to the overall impression produced on the informed user, which must be different from that produced by any design made available to the public before the date of filing of the application for registration or, if a priority is claimed, the date of priority. Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 specifies that, for the purposes of that assessment, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design must be taken into consideration (judgment of 29 October 2015, Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet), T‑334/14, not published, EU:T:2015:817, paragraph 15).
24 According to case-law, the individual character of a design results from an overall impression of difference, or lack of déjà vu, from the point of view of an informed user, in relation to any previous presence in the design corpus, without taking account of any differences that are insufficiently marked to affect that overall impression, even though they may be more than insignificant details, but taking account of differences that are sufficiently marked to produce dissimilar overall impressions (judgment of 17 May 2018, Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Bicycle baskets), T‑760/16, EU:T:2018:277, paragraph 77).
25 In the assessment of the individual character of a design in relation to any previous presence in the design corpus, account must be taken of the nature of the product to which the design is applied or in respect of which it is incorporated, in particular the industrial sector to which it belongs (see recital 14 of Regulation No 6/2002), the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design, whether there is saturation of the state of the art, which could be capable of making the informed user more attentive to the differences in the designs compared, and also the manner in which the product at issue is used, in particular according to the manner in which it is normally handled when used (judgment of 17 May 2018, Bicycle baskets, T‑760/16, EU:T:2018:277, paragraph 78).
26 Lastly, in the assessment of the individual character of a design, account must also be taken of the point of view of an informed user. According to settled case-law, an informed user is a person who is particularly observant and who has some awareness of the previous state of the art, that is to say, the corpus of previous designs relating to the product in question that had been made available to the public on the date of filing of the contested design or, as appropriate, the date of priority claimed (see judgment of 17 May 2018, Bicycle baskets, T‑760/16, EU:T:2018:277, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).
27 In the present case, the Board of Appeal was fully entitled to define the informed user, without that definition being challenged by the applicant, as being a person who is familiar with wood-splitting tools, which includes persons who use those tools to split logs that can be burned in a fireplace into smaller pieces (paragraph 18 of the contested decision).
28 In addition, the Board of Appeal also correctly considered, without being challenged by the applicant on that point, that the freedom of the designer in developing a wood-splitting tool was not severely limited inasmuch as, even though the tool had a functional purpose (splitting pieces of wood), so that it required a blade and a body, the designer could choose a particular shape for the body, the lever arm, and the handle, or the way in which the tool could be mounted on a surface. The Board of Appeal added that the applicant had not provided any evidence of technical or legal constraints in designing tools for splitting wood by hand (paragraph 23 of the contested decision).
29 In paragraph 24 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal considered that the contested design produced an impression of déjà vu with regard to the earlier design, inasmuch as it reproduced the characteristics of that earlier design that immediately strike an informed user, namely a base comprising a piece of solid material with several protruding teeth and a lever in the form of a steel rod with a blade on one side and a handle on the other. In particular, in paragraph 25 of the contested decision, it specified that the fact that the tool was represented in a closed position (in the contested design) and in an open position (in the earlier design) was not decisive either in the comparison of the designs or in the assessment of individual character. Indeed, it stated that it is a well-known fact for an informed user that wood-splitting tools of the kind shown in the designs in question operate by firstly lifting the lever from the base and then lowering it once a piece of wood has been firmly put in place between two of the teeth. In addition, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal noted that the differences highlighted by the applicant had a relatively low weight in the overall impression produced by the two designs, which was dominated by the very similar appearance of a base with several teeth and a lever with a blade and a handle.
30 By the second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, the applicant challenges that assessment and argues that the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the contested design and the earlier design produced the same overall impression and that, consequently, the contested design was devoid of individual character.
31 That plea is divided into two parts alleging, in essence, first, that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the overall impression produced by the earlier design, which departs from the representation of that design as registered, and, second, that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the individual character of the contested design.
First part of the second plea in law
32 The applicant argues, first, in essence, that the assessment of the overall impression produced by a design can be based only on what can be seen from the representation provided with the application for registration. In particular, according to the applicant, it follows from the principle of legal clarity and certainty that, in the context of the assessment of the overall impression produced by the contested design, only the overall impression produced by the graphic representation of the earlier design as registered can be relevant. The assessment of the overall impression produced by a design cannot therefore be carried out in relation to the actual product corresponding to the registered design.
33 Second, the applicant submits that, having regard to the earlier design as registered, the overall impression produced by the designs in question, in the context of a direct and detailed one-on-one comparison, is very different. The earlier design consists of only a single representation which is clearly visible and contains no uncertainties. Therefore there is no room for interpretation. However, even if the earlier design were to be interpreted, this would not justify taking into account the earlier design in functional or operational states of use not shown in the registration.
34 Third, the applicant asserts that the objective of the owner of the earlier design was not to obtain protection for a design for a wood-splitting tool in a closed position, half-closed position, or more open position. In the applicant's view, if that had been the case, that owner should have filed an application for registration of a design including different views, or a multiple application for registration illustrating the various functional states of use. Moreover, the argument that, when interpreting a design, it should be considered that the owner of the design had the intention of obtaining the broadest possible protection also does not support the Board of Appeal's reasoning. In addition, it would be unfair to extend the rights of the designer, who has filed an application for registration showing only one view, by increasing the scope of that design so as to cover views which were not the subject of the application for registration. Any functional state of use other than that shown in the registration is irrelevant.
35 Fourth, the applicant claims that the overall visual impression of the earlier design in a closed position cannot be precisely taken or deduced from the representation of the earlier design as registered. Accordingly, the overall visual impression of the earlier design in a closed position remains uncertain and too imprecise to be able to form a basis for comparison with the overall visual impression produced by the contested design.
37 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, by its arguments, the applicant seeks, inter alia, to call into question the statement of the Board of Appeal set out in paragraph 25 of the contested decision, according to which, in essence, the fact that the tool is represented in a closed position (in the contested design) and in an open position (in the earlier design) is not decisive in either the comparison of the designs or in the assessment of individual character (see paragraph 29 above). In essence, it criticises the Board of Appeal for having taken account, when assessing the overall impression produced by the earlier design, of the representation of the wood-splitting tool in a closed position, despite the fact that the graphic representation of that design consisted of a single view reproducing that tool in an open position.
38 Regarding the argument that the assessment of the overall impression produced by a design is to be based only on the graphic representation of that design as registered and not on the actual product corresponding to that design, it should be noted, in the first place, that, according to case-law, in the assessment of the individual character of a design in relation to any previous presence in the design corpus, account must be taken of the nature of the product to which the design is applied or in respect of which it is incorporated, in particular the industrial sector to which it belongs, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design, whether there is saturation of the state of the art, which could be capable of making the informed user more attentive to the differences in the designs compared, and also the manner in which the product at issue is used, in particular according to the manner in which it is normally handled when used (see judgment of 7 November 2013, Budziewska v OHIM — Puma (Bounding feline), T‑666/11, not published, EU:T:2013:584, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
39 In the second place, it should be borne in mind, as EUIPO did, that, since in design matters the person making the comparison is an informed user who is different from the ordinary average consumer, it is not mistaken, in the assessment of the overall impression produced by the designs at issue, to take account of the goods actually marketed which correspond to those designs (judgment of 20 October 2011, PepsiCo v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic, C‑281/10 P, EU:C:2011:679, paragraphs 73 and 74), at least for illustrative purposes, in order to confirm the conclusions already drawn from the representation of the designs (judgment of 4 July 2017, Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband), T‑90/16, not published, EU:T:2017:464, paragraph 53).
40 In the present case, as EUIPO notes, the earlier design represents a wood-splitting tool comprising a base and a lever connected by a hinge, the very purpose of which is to move the lever and thus to take a closed or open position in order to cut the wood. Thus, in view of the fact that the assessment must concern the overall impression produced by a design on the informed user, including the way in which the product represented by that design is used (see paragraph 38 above), the Board of Appeal cannot be criticised, in view of the characteristics of the wood-splitting tool represented, which is specifically designed to cut wood by moving the lever, for also having taken account of the impression produced by the design in question on the informed user when the tool is in a closed position (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2013, El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI v OHIM — Wenf International Advisers (Corkscrew), T‑337/12, EU:T:2013:601, paragraph 46).
41 In the third place, it should be noted that the fact that, in the present case, the representation of the earlier design is limited to a single view, representing the tool in question in an open position, does not exclude the possibility of carrying out a comparison with the contested design in so far as the visual representation of the tool in question in a closed position may be deduced from the representation of the earlier design (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 May 2015, Senz Technologies v OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas), T‑22/13 and T‑23/13, EU:T:2015:310, paragraph 80 (not published)).
42 Moreover, it should be emphasised that so far as the assessment of a design's individual character for the purposes of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 is concerned, the regulation does not require the graphic representation of a design in respect of which registration has been sought or that of a design which has already been made available to the public to include views reproducing the tool in question in all possible positions, so long as that graphic representation allows the shape and the features of the design to be identified (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 October 2014, Cezar v OHIM — Poli-Eco (Insert), T‑39/13, EU:T:2014:852, paragraph 48).
43 In the present case, it must be held that the graphic representation concerning the earlier design, consisting of a single view, is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, as EUIPO correctly emphasises and contrary to the applicant's assertions, as the closed position of a wood-splitting tool is innate to its purpose, the closed visual appearance of the tool in question can be deduced with sufficient clarity and precision from its representation in an open position.
44 Regarding the argument that, by taking account of the earlier design in a closed position, the Board of Appeal infringed the principle of legal clarity and certainty by unfairly extending the protection of that earlier design, it should be noted that such an infringement, resulting from an undue extension of the protection of the earlier design, would not take place unless the Board of Appeal, when assessing the overall impression produced by the earlier design, took into consideration characteristics which are not apparent from the view submitted when that design was registered, which, however, is not the situation in the present case. Indeed, as the graphic representation concerning the earlier design, consisting of a single view, is clear and unambiguous (see paragraph 43 above), all the characteristics of that design are clearly visible and were correctly examined by the Board of Appeal.
45 In addition, as was stated by the Invalidity Division in its decision, the different positions of the designs at issue could not be regarded as characteristics specific to those designs, so that the fact that the Board of Appeal took account of the earlier design in its closed position cannot unfairly extend the protection of the earlier design beyond what was intended by its designer.
46 Having regard to all of the foregoing, the Board of Appeal cannot be said to have made any error of assessment by taking into account, when assessing the overall impression produced by the earlier design, the representation of the wood-splitting tool in a closed position. Nor can the Board of Appeal be said to have made any error in not concluding, on the basis of the representation of that tool in a closed position, that the overall impression produced by the designs at issue was different.
47 It follows from the foregoing that the first part of the second plea in law must be rejected as unfounded.
Second part of the second plea in law
48 By the second part of the second plea in law, the applicant seeks to call into question the Board of Appeal's conclusion in paragraph 24 of the contested decision (see paragraph 29 above) that the contested design produces an impression of déjà vu with regard to the earlier design. The applicant argues that, even if the functional state of use of the goods shown in the designs at issue was irrelevant and could be disregarded, the fact remains that their overall impressions differ.
49 In support of that part, it puts forward, in essence, two complaints, the first concerning an error in assessing the overall impression produced by the designs at issue and the second concerning the assessment of the differences between those designs.
– First complaint, concerning an error in assessing the overall impression produced by the designs at issue
50 By its first complaint, the applicant argues that the question whether the contested design produces an impression of déjà vu with regard to the earlier design is irrelevant and constitutes an incorrect legal standard. In the applicant's view, only the question whether the overall impression produced on the informed user by the contested design differs from that produced on such a user by the earlier design is decisive. The informed user, who is particularly observant, will be aware of the similarities and differences and will be able to evaluate them. In addition, according to the applicant, the influence of the various characteristics of the product on the overall impression it produces depends on the type of product. Regarding products with more or less standardised characteristics, noticeable differences in detail create a different overall impression. When assessing the impression produced by a design the Court must therefore exclude from its assessment characteristics of appearance which are also dictated by their technical function. According to the applicant, such characteristics include the basic shapes of the asserted design, which are necessary to give the product concerned its function.
51 The applicant also submits that the informed user who is familiar with the various designs which exist in the sector concerned and who has a certain degree of awareness of the features which those designs normally include and, as a result of his or her interest in the products concerned, displays a relatively high degree of attention when he or she uses them, knows that a wood-splitting tool consists of a solid base with several protruding teeth and a lever with a blade and a handle. Consequently, when faced with the designs to be compared, the informed user will not focus on these purely technical elements, as these elements can be found in any wood-splitting tool. This is why, for the informed user, these purely technical elements also do not produce an impression of déjà vu. In reality, according to the applicant, the informed user, who is frequently faced with the product in his or her main living space and is highly attentive to the design of such a product, will focus on the characteristic features of the design in question which distinguish it from other wood-splitting tools and which are decisive for the success of the product.
52 In the present case, first, regarding the argument that the question whether the contested design produces an impression of déjà vu with regard to the earlier design is irrelevant and constitutes an incorrect legal standard, it should be noted that, as has already been recalled in paragraph 23 above, according to Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in the case of a registered Community design, the individual character must first be assessed having regard to the overall impression produced on the informed user (see judgment of 25 October 2013, Merlin and Others v OHIM — Dusyma (Games), T‑231/10, not published, EU:T:2013:560, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
53 It follows that the applicant is wrong to argue that, for the purpose of establishing the individual character of the contested design, it is irrelevant whether the contested design produces an impression of déjà vu with regard to the earlier design.
54 Second, regarding the argument that, in essence, when faced with the designs in question, the informed user would not concentrate on the basic elements, such as the body and the lever, which are common to all wood-splitting tools and would also be dictated by their purely technical function, it should be noted, first of all, that, although the elements common to both of the designs at issue, such as the base (comprising a piece of solid material with several protruding teeth) and the lever (with a blade and a handle) are the basic elements of the type of product concerned, they are also the most visible and important elements of the two designs at issue. Next, as was rightly stated by the Board of Appeal, the basic elements of the products concerned are very similar. Lastly, even assuming that those basic elements may have a technical function, which, incidentally, is not ruled out by the Board of Appeal (paragraph 22 of the contested decision), it is not established that they would be purely 'technical' for the purposes of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 or, in particular, that they would be elements whose visual characteristics would be exclusively imposed by the technical function of the product in question.
55 Therefore, contrary to the applicant's assertions, there is no reason to disregard the specific appearance of the basic elements of a wood-splitting tool in the overall impression produced by the designs at issue. Moreover, as their appearance can be modified, both possible differences and possible similarities in the shape and positioning of those elements may have an influence on the overall impression produced by the product in respect of which they have been incorporated.
56 Therefore, the Board of Appeal was correct to take account of the basic elements of the product incorporated into the designs at issue and to state that what was striking to the informed user was the overall design of the base (with teeth) and the lever (with a blade and a handle), which were very similar and which produced an impression of déjà vu on that user (paragraphs 24 and 29 of the contested decision).
57 That conclusion cannot be called into question by the applicant's argument that, in essence, as the informed user is frequently faced with the product in question in his or her main living space, he or she would be very attentive to the design of such a product and, in particular, to the characteristic features which distinguish it from other products and which are decisive for the success of that product.
58 In that regard, it should be noted, as EUIPO did, that the perception of the informed user, and thus the extent of the protection of the design, is not dependent on how often a user is faced with the type of product concerned in real life. Indeed, as the Court has already held, unlike the average consumer in the field of trade marks for whom the fact of being faced with a certain product, such as a fashion accessory, may in fact play a role in that consumer's level of attention, the informed user of a design is already by nature a person who has a particular interest in the design of a given product and who is interested in trends in design, art and fashion which might be behind the emergence of such a design. Accordingly, the mere fact of being faced with a particular design does not make the informed user more or less attentive, as that user's level of attention is already, by its very nature, relatively high (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 May 2015, Umbrellas, T‑22/13 and T‑23/13, EU:T:2015:310, paragraphs 51 and 52 (not published) and the case-law cited).
59 Having regard to the foregoing, the first complaint of the second part of the second plea in law must be rejected.
– Second complaint, concerning the assessment of the differences between the designs at issue
60 Regarding the differences between the designs at issue, in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the contested decision the Board of Appeal accepted that there were differences in the shape of the body and the shape of the lever of the wood-splitting tool that were capable of affecting the visual aspect. In particular, it noted that, while the contested design was characterised, first, by a body having two supports (used to mount the tool on a surface, such as a wall or a floor), one of which, located opposite the hinge, was longer, and, second, by a lever that was bent slightly downwards towards the handle, the earlier design had contrary characteristics, namely a shorter support opposite the hinge that did not require the lever to be bent. In paragraph 28 of the contested decision, it nonetheless considered that, in so far as those two pairs of characteristics were interdependent and reflected a functional necessity, namely avoiding an unnecessary protrusion of the lever, they played a relatively feeble role in the overall impression produced by the two designs.
61 The applicant challenges that conclusion, arguing, inter alia, that, in a direct comparison, the informed user will not consider that those two characteristics are interdependent, but will perceive the angled lever of the upright, elegant, slim and solid impression produced by the contested design as a design development of the earlier design, the overall appearance of which is square, broad, clumsy, massive and heavy.
62 In that regard, it must be pointed out that, by its line of argument, which it confirmed at the hearing, the applicant is not calling into question the well-founded nature of the assessments made by the Board of Appeal as regards the fact that the differences concerning the shape of the body and the shape of the lever are interdependent. Indeed it disputes only the Board of Appeal's assessment that, for the informed user, those differences would play only a feeble role in the overall impression produced by the two designs.
63 However, even assuming that, in a direct comparison, the informed user does not consider that the two differences in question are interdependent, it must be held that he or she will also not perceive the differences highlighted by the applicant, consisting of a bent lever and an impression of an elegant, slim and solid object produced by the contested design, as being substantial differences.
64 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, even if the informed user has a certain degree of awareness as regards the various designs which exist in the sector concerned and displays a relatively high level of attention and is particularly observant when using them, that user is also not an expert or a specialist, such as a person skilled in the art, who is capable of observing minor differences that may exist between the designs at issue (judgment of 13 June 2019, Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Door hanger for vehicles), T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 72).
65 Accordingly, those differences concerning the shape of the body and the lever cannot dispel the impression of déjà vu which emerges from the designs at issue, in view of their common elements, which are among their most visible and important elements (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 October 2015, Single control handle faucet, T‑334/14, not published, EU:T:2015:817, paragraph 74, and of 28 September 2017, Rühland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star), T‑779/16, not published, EU:T:2017:674, paragraph 43).
66 Regarding the other differences between the designs at issue relied on by the applicant, namely the shape of the teeth, the shape of the handle, the shape of the hinge, the shape of the blade and the presence or lack of a circular safety device, the Board of Appeal noted, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, that they all had a relatively low weight in the overall impression produced by the two designs, which was dominated by the very similar appearance of a base with several teeth and a lever with a blade and a handle.
67 The applicant challenges that assessment and argues, in essence, first, that the differences between the teeth of the two designs in question are immediately visible without there being a need for a 'closer inspection', given that the user looks directly at those teeth when placing a piece of wood on those teeth for splitting, second, that there are substantial aesthetic differences between the common elements of the designs in question and that the differences concerning the handle are particularly visible, given that that element is the first to be grasped by the user, third, that, because of the differences in terms of the portion connecting the hinged suspension of the handle and the first tooth, the contested design produces a more elegant extended impression, and, fourth, that the presence, in the contested design, of a circular safety device has a considerable impact on the overall impression produced by the designs at issue.
68 In the present case, it must be pointed out at the outset that the applicant does not challenge the statement by the Board of Appeal, set out in paragraph 35 of the contested decision, that, if the designs are considered as a whole, the differences in the shape and length of the blades (which are longer in the earlier design than in the contested design) are unlikely to have an influence on the overall impression produced on the user.
69 In addition, it should be borne in mind that the comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs must be synthetic and may not be limited to an analytic comparison of a list of similarities and differences. That comparison must relate solely to the elements actually protected, without taking account of characteristics excluded from the protection (see judgment of 13 June 2017, Ball Beverage Packaging Europe v EUIPO — Crown Hellas Can (Cans), T‑9/15, EU:T:2017:386, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).
70 Moreover, although the informed user has a certain degree of awareness as regards the various designs which exist in the sector concerned and displays a relatively high level of attention, the informed user does not observe minor differences that may exist between the designs at issue. That user is not an expert or a specialist, such as a person skilled in the art, who is capable of observing those minor differences (see paragraph 64 above).
71 Accordingly, even if, as the applicant maintains, the informed user stands directly in front of the wood-splitting tool when using it and looks directly at the teeth when placing a piece of wood on a tooth, that user will not be capable of recognising, without a 'closer inspection', the differences between the rounded teeth of the contested design and the shorter, pointed teeth of the earlier design. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that, when using the wood-splitting tool, the informed user will not concentrate on the teeth and their physical characteristics, but rather on the piece of wood, paying particular attention to making sure that it is properly placed on the body of the tool and cut properly by the blade.
72 The same considerations apply concerning the differences described meticulously and in great detail by the applicant concerning the blade and handle of the designs at issue and the shape of the hinge. In particular, regarding the difference relating to the shape of the hinge, the Board of Appeal did not err in stating that it was unlikely to alter the overall impression produced by the designs at issue, given that it was located at the back of the base, near the support (or 'stem') and that, as a result, it was not highly visible.
73 Accordingly, those differences cannot dispel the impression of déjà vu which emerges from the designs at issue, in view of their common elements, which are among their most visible and important elements. Indeed, such differences are insufficiently marked to produce, by themselves, a dissimilar overall impression on the informed user, taking into account the low degree of restriction of the freedom of the designer in developing the design. They are therefore not such as to confer individual character on the contested design.
74 Lastly, regarding the difference relating to the presence or lack of a circular safety device, it must be pointed out that, as was correctly noted by the Board of Appeal, this is a characteristic concerning the safety of the tool in question. As the applicant itself acknowledges, the device in question has a functional aspect, in so far as it enables the two parts of the tool to be kept together when not in use, so as to avoid any undesired contact with the teeth or the blade. Even assuming that, as the applicant claims, that device is not perceived by the informed user as purely functional, inter alia because of its rounded basic geometric shape, it must be held that, in view of the very small size of that device in relation to the common elements of the tool in question, it will not, contrary to the applicant's assertions, be perceived as a striking design element, likely to be recognised as one of the distinctive characteristics of the contested design. In particular, the contested design will not be perceived by the informed user as comprising three elements instead of two because of the presence of that device. Indeed, that device is so small in relation to the other, common elements of the designs at issue that, in the context of an overall assessment of the impression produced by those designs, it remains, as was correctly noted by EUIPO in paragraph 38 of its response, a necessarily secondary element.
75 That finding cannot be called into question by the fact that wood-splitting tools, as illustrated by the contested design, are generally installed in the living room or in another living space, or in any other easily accessible position close to the fireplace. Indeed, as has been specified in paragraph 58 above, the perception of the informed user, and thus the extent of the protection of the design, is not dependent on how often a user is faced with the type of product concerned in real life. Accordingly, the mere fact of being faced with a particular design with some frequency does not make the informed user more or less attentive, as that user's level of attention is already, by its very nature, relatively high (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 May 2015, Umbrellas, T‑22/13 and T‑23/13, EU:T:2015:310, paragraphs 51 and 52 (not published) and the case-law cited).
76 Consequently, contrary to the applicant's assertions, the safety device does not play an important role in the overall impression produced by the designs at issue.
77 Accordingly, having regard to all of the foregoing, it must be found that the Board of Appeal did not err in considering that the differences between the designs at issue had a relatively low weight in the overall impression produced by those designs, which was dominated by the very similar appearance of a base with several teeth and a lever with a blade and a handle.
78 It follows that the second complaint of the second part must be rejected. Consequently, the second part of the second plea must be rejected as unfounded and, accordingly, the second plea in law must be rejected in its entirety.
79 As none of the pleas in law raised by the applicant in support of its claims is well founded, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.
80 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by EUIPO.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
hereby:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag to pay the costs.
Porchia
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 April 2020.
1 Language of the case: English.


text:
LETTER: Where to get gas from?
I am delighted to note that our new chief executive, Nathan Elvery, has observed that we have, 'rivers, coast and sunshine' (as, indeed, do more than 50 counties of Great Britain), but I'm not sure why he believes these are a substitute for conventional energy sources.
Our rivers have no gradient that would generate power, our coast has a tidal range of about six metres, but no stream greater than two knots, except in the Looe Channel and we don't enjoy many more hours of sunshine than his former domicile of Croydon.
The mouth of the Arun might generate enough electricity to run the funfair but where are we supposed to obtain gas from?
We had plenty in the North Sea until it was used to fire power stations and now we're importing shale gas from the USA, along with wood chips.
I was under the impression that councillors were elected to formulate policy, while officers of the council were there to carry it out.
If Mr Elvery is going to make a habit of posing in front of County Hall and presenting his own views, perhaps he can advise me what to do when the gas runs out and my boiler won't light.
I have lots of solar panels but, curiously, they don't seem to work at night.
Tony Sutcliffe
West Sussex County Council Member for Nyetimber (UKIP),
Alleyne Way
Elmer Sands
Brexiters dare to force 'worst possible deal' on us without asking us first

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Mitch Maki named interim president/CEO, as Vince Beresford steps down.
Vince Beresford is stepping down as president and CEO of the Go For Broke National Education Center, just six months into his tenure as leader of the organization. Mitch Maki, Ph.D., a member of the Go For Broke board, will take over as interim president and CEO.
Beresford will continue to work for Go For Broke in a yet-be-determined capacity, but he explained in an interview with The Rafu on Wednesday that he has been asked to become executive director of a new nonprofit organization initiated by In-N-Out Burger president Lynsi Synder.
The organization will based in Baldwin Park and focus on issues of substance abuse and human trafficking. Beresford in a July 11 letter to Go For Broke supporters, explained that his life has been deeply affected by drug addiction and that his mother is currently homeless by choice due to addiction.
"I am not saying goodbye, I am merely changing the role in which I serve our organization," Beresford said.
Maki is a professor at Cal State Dominguez Hills and wrote "Achieving the Impossible Dream: How Japanese Americans Obtained Redress" with his mentor the late UCLA sociologist Harry Kitano. He also serves on the board of governors and scholarly advisory council of the Japanese American National Museum.
Maki is taking a leave of absence from CSUDH until the end of the year. He will lead Go For Broke as it searches for a new president and CEO and looks ahead to Evening of Aloha, the annual gala dinner to be held on Oct. 1.
"My job is to help find that next person who will be the permanent CEO. And the way we framed where we are at is that this is an opportunity to continue the growth of the organization and to welcome unexpected change in the process," Maki said.
Maki expressed appreciation for Beresford who he credited with expanding the vision of Go For Broke, which opened its Little Tokyo headquarters and exhibition "Defining Courage" on Memorial Day weekend.
"He brought specifically the hope and vision that the story of the veterans is more than just a Japanese American story that will stay in the Japanese American community," Maki said.
He noted the many organizations, including JANM, Keiro and National JACL that are currently in search of new leadership.
Beresford added that this moment should be seen as an opportunity for the Japanese American community.
"This is an opportunity not just for these organizations but for the JA community to be at a launching point. At the shift where there's so much there that you can uniquely offer that other communities can't. They don't' have this history, these American stories that are going to benefit everyone of every ancestry," he said.
Beresford said he has been changed by his brief time with Go For Broke. He told the story of a Nisei veteran who asked to talk with him after the exhibition opening. As his family watched, the veteran gestured to Beresford to move closer so he could speak with him.
"We're almost touching heads, and he looks up at me with tears in his eyes and he said, 'Vince, this was probably one of the best days of my life.' All the memories and difficulties of putting that event on, everything was gone at that point," Beresford said.
Maki's father is a Korean War veteran and an uncle served in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team E Company. He said the story of the Nisei veterans continues to resonate in recent events.


text:
Santa Maria Miami
Price Range: $1,390,000 - $11,500,000
19 listings for sale
4301 $11,500,000 A10098687 5 6/1 6,300 $1,825 Jun 11, 2016 View
4302 $6,125,000 A10708191 5 6/1 6,300 $972 NEW Jul 17, 2019 View
2701 $5,375,213 A10131499 4 5/1 5,730 $938 2.49% Aug 12, 2016 View
3101 $4,950,500 A10478319 4 5/1 5,730 $864 May 31, 2018 View
3904 $4,499,000 A10492374 4 5/1 4,030 $1,116 Jun 25, 2018 View
3604 $4,400,000 A10499393 4 5/1 4,030 $1,092 Jul 9, 2018 View
2705 $4,290,000 A10658069 4 3/1 4,030 $1,065 Apr 17, 2019 View
3504 $3,495,000 A10617540 4 5/1 4,030 $867 Mar 4, 2019 View
2904 $3,400,000 A10375995 4 5/1 4,030 $844 Dec 13, 2017 View
2101 $3,089,000 A10648727 3 3/1 3,170 $974 Apr 2, 2019 View
1002 $2,800,000 A10609044 3 4/1 3,170 $883 Jan 29, 2019 View
1902 $2,250,000 A10657826 3 4/1 4,420 $509 Apr 16, 2019 View
906 $1,390,000 A10659941 3 2/1 2,100 $662 Apr 20, 2019 View
1903 $2,295,000 A10637847 2 2/1 2,180 $1,053 Mar 13, 2019 View
3605 $15,500 A10672402 4 5/1 4,030 $4 May 14, 2019 View
Undisclosed $13,000 A10635643 3 4/1 3,170 $4 Mar 11, 2019 View
2302 $12,000 A10635941 3 3/1 3,170 $4 Mar 8, 2019 View
1002 $8,300 A10652560 3 4/1 3,170 $3 Apr 8, 2019 View
804 $8,600 A10647098 2 3/1 2,580 $3 Mar 29, 2019 View
109 listings sold
803 $1,810,000 $1,650,000 A10613312 2 2/5 0 Jul 8, 2019 151 View
1504 $1,695,000 $1,600,000 A10482028 2 3/1 2,580 $620 May 20, 2019 339 View
3505 $4,300,000 $3,990,000 A10621449 4 5/1 4,030 $990 Apr 22, 2019 61 View
1204 $1,600,000 $1,575,000 A10458658 2 3/1 2,580 $610 Apr 5, 2019 344 View
3301 $5,950,000 $5,350,000 A10457518 5 5/1 5,730 $934 Aug 30, 2018 127 View
1603 $2,300,000 $2,000,000 A2195035 2 2/1 2,180 $917 Apr 6, 2018 891 View
2203 $1,950,000 $1,770,000 A10204136 2 2/1 2,180 $812 May 24, 2017 94 View
1606 $1,350,000 $1,275,000 A2185234 2 2/1 2,100 $607 Feb 24, 2017 484 View
2602 $3,299,000 $3,050,000 A10059025 3 4/1 3,170 $962 Oct 21, 2016 205 View
1002 $2,245,000 $2,246,000 A10141450 3 4/1 3,170 $709 Oct 20, 2016 8 View
4401 $7,000,000 $6,550,000 A2183063 4 6/1 6,300 $1,040 Dec 21, 2015 33 View
3904 $3,950,000 $3,850,000 A2160768 4 5/1 4,030 $955 Oct 26, 2015 17 View
4005 $5,600,000 $5,250,000 A2128615 4 4/1 4,030 $1,303 Oct 20, 2015 81 View
TH2702 $5,600,000 $5,000,000 A1833861 4 5/1 5,730 $873 Aug 4, 2015 674 View
1106 $1,950,000 $1,830,000 A2025433 3 2/1 2,100 $871 Apr 27, 2015 123 View
1605 $1,990,000 $1,900,000 A2073332 2 2/1 2,580 $736 Apr 27, 2015 30 View
3505 $3,955,000 $3,800,000 A1976513 4 5/1 4,030 $943 Mar 16, 2015 231 View
805 $2,235,000 $2,050,000 A2018103 2 2/1 2,580 $795 Feb 27, 2015 83 View
2304 $2,250,000 $2,150,000 A1858908 2 2/1 2,580 $833 May 9, 2014 157 View
PH4701 $6,950,000 $6,500,000 A1831034 5 6/1 6,300 $1,032 May 5, 2014 189 View
1205 $1,850,000 $1,685,000 A1871312 2 3/1 2,580 $653 Mar 31, 2014 60 View
2001 $2,199,000 $1,975,000 A1678795 3 3/0 3,170 $623 Nov 26, 2013 387 View
801 $2,350,000 $2,195,000 A1824610 3 4/1 3,170 $692 Nov 12, 2013 36 View
902 $2,375,000 $2,200,000 A1703385 3 4/1 3,170 $694 Sep 25, 2013 315 View
2901 $4,800,000 $4,650,000 A1713100 5 5/1 5,730 $812 Sep 25, 2013 282 View
1005 $1,600,000 $1,575,000 A1840052 2 3/1 2,580 $610 Sep 9, 2013 0 View
1106 $1,250,000 $1,200,000 A1808783 3 2/1 2,100 $571 Aug 28, 2013 21 View
1505 $1,625,000 $1,560,000 A1742379 2 3/1 2,580 $605 Aug 1, 2013 110 View
1205 $1,600,000 $1,575,000 A1720352 2 3/1 2,580 $610 Jul 30, 2013 68 View
803 $1,550,000 $1,460,000 A1694165 2 2/1 2,180 $670 Jun 27, 2013 235 View
2206 $1,175,000 $1,100,000 A1692411 2 2/1 2,100 $524 Jun 3, 2013 217 View
1601 $2,095,000 $1,950,000 A1674952 3 4/1 3,170 $615 Feb 6, 2013 121 View
4005 $3,300,000 $3,000,000 A1710267 4 5/1 4,030 $744 Dec 28, 2012 29 View
2301 $2,400,000 $2,250,000 A1643483 3 4/1 3,170 $710 Dec 14, 2012 134 View
2705 $3,250,000 $2,950,000 A1649357 4 5/1 3,887 $759 Nov 21, 2012 99 View
2603 $1,590,000 $1,485,000 A1572240 2 2/0 2,180 $681 Oct 15, 2012 256 View
1103 $1,450,000 $1,375,000 A1579643 2 2/1 2,180 $631 Sep 5, 2012 208 View
1804 $1,660,000 $1,550,000 M1477828 2 3/1 2,580 $601 Aug 31, 2012 533 View
1704 $1,595,000 $1,375,000 A1569000 2 3/1 2,580 $533 Aug 29, 2012 254 View
2601 $2,350,000 $2,325,000 A1611843 3 4/1 3,170 $733 Jun 29, 2012 6 View
Undisclosed $2,490,000 $2,300,000 M1390273 3 4/1 3,170 $726 Jun 8, 2012 755 View
TH3301 $4,500,000 $4,250,000 A1614864 4 5/1 5,733 $741 May 15, 2012 24 View
1905 $1,625,000 $1,500,000 M1349342 2 3/1 2,580 $581 Mar 15, 2012 801 View
Undisclosed $9,500,000 $8,500,000 A1565902 3 5/0 10,000 $850 Oct 26, 2011 0 View
802 $1,950,000 $1,900,000 M1423890 3 4/1 3,170 $599 Sep 30, 2011 303 View
2205 $1,595,000 $1,500,000 M1380921 2 3/1 2,580 $581 Sep 21, 2011 469 View
1005 $1,440,000 $1,402,000 M1445330 2 3/1 2,580 $543 Aug 1, 2011 197 View
TH3902 $5,480,000 $5,000,000 M1457082 4 5/1 5,733 $872 Jul 22, 2011 140 View
3404 $2,999,999 $2,800,000 M1378480 4 5/1 4,030 $695 Jul 15, 2011 413 View
2406 $1,200,000 $1,100,000 M1307497 2 2/1 2,100 $524 Jun 1, 2011 752 View
3204 $2,999,999 $2,900,000 M1349723 4 5/1 4,030 $720 May 31, 2011 532 View
TH3501 $3,999,000 $3,500,000 M1420697 4 5/1 5,730 $611 Apr 26, 2011 198 View
Undisclosed $930,000 $880,000 D1412552 2 2/1 2,100 $419 Apr 22, 2011 240 View
PH4502 $5,450,000 $4,850,000 M1350444 5 6/1 6,300 $770 Apr 21, 2011 479 View
2605 $1,625,000 $1,530,000 M1398987 2 3/1 2,580 $593 Apr 18, 2011 239 View
4204 $3,300,000 $2,900,000 M1387568 4 5/1 4,030 $720 Apr 8, 2011 293 View
TH4102 $4,490,000 $4,000,000 M1445339 4 5/1 5,730 $698 Mar 22, 2011 90 View
1903 $1,400,000 $1,300,000 M1386630 2 2/1 2,180 $596 Feb 8, 2011 229 View
1606 $1,025,000 $930,000 M1398661 2 2/1 2,100 $443 Jan 5, 2011 166 View
TH3302 $4,300,000 $3,550,000 M1424633 4 5/1 5,730 $620 Dec 13, 2010 28 View
PH4701 $5,350,000 $5,000,000 M1412676 5 6/1 6,300 $794 Dec 10, 2010 37 View
PH4601 $6,950,000 $4,600,000 M1304206 5 6/1 6,300 $730 Nov 1, 2010 515 View
1801 $1,800,000 $1,625,000 D1402972 3 4/0 3,170 $513 Oct 31, 2010 18 View
1603 $1,400,000 $1,275,000 M1300605 2 2/1 2,180 $585 Oct 6, 2010 519 View
4901 $12,900,000 $11,000,000 M1391904 3 5/0 10,000 $1,100 May 21, 2010 0 View
701 $2,050,000 $1,750,000 M1349872 3 4/1 3,170 $552 Mar 29, 2010 113 View
4105 $3,250,000 $3,125,000 M1351454 4 5/1 4,030 $775 Mar 19, 2010 84 View
3805 $2,999,000 $2,700,000 M1339784 4 3/1 4,030 $670 Jan 4, 2010 66 View
TH3702 $4,995,000 $4,000,000 M1295389 4 4/1 5,733 $698 Dec 11, 2009 271 View
1003 $1,395,000 $1,233,450 D1286099 2 2/1 2,180 $566 Nov 17, 2009 484 View
1802 $2,240,000 $2,050,000 M1313337 4 3/1 3,170 $647 Oct 14, 2009 139 View
1704 $1,650,000 $1,600,000 M1341365 2 3/1 2,580 $620 Sep 11, 2009 4 View
TH2901 $3,250,000 $3,075,000 M1204238 4 5/1 5,730 $537 Jun 5, 2009 458 View
2601 $2,295,000 $1,800,000 D1308311 3 3/1 3,170 $568 Apr 15, 2009 139 View
1504 $1,670,000 $1,600,000 M1276387 2 3/1 2,580 $620 Mar 9, 2009 92 View
4105 $3,290,000 $2,880,000 D1258526 4 5/1 4,030 $715 Jul 31, 2008 47 View
1101 $2,099,000 $1,850,000 M1222823 4 4/1 3,170 $584 Jun 25, 2008 7 View
2403 $1,495,000 $1,365,000 D1253669 2 2/0 2,180 $626 May 27, 2008 74 View
804 $1,350,000 $1,050,000 D1229032 2 2/1 2,580 $407 Apr 11, 2008 146 View
4301 $5,290,000 $4,500,000 D1210936 5 6/1 6,300 $714 Mar 28, 2008 216 View
2204 $1,525,000 $1,472,000 M1136395 2 3/1 2,580 $571 Aug 21, 2007 91 View
4602 $5,650,000 $5,325,000 D1170185 5 6/1 6,300 $845 Jul 2, 2007 145 View
2403 $1,495,000 $1,400,000 M1090954 2 2/1 2,180 $642 May 1, 2007 185 View
2701 $3,490,000 $3,400,000 D1143251 4 5/1 5,730 $593 Feb 12, 2007 70 View
2104 $1,589,000 $1,537,000 M1077798 2 2/1 2,580 $596 Jan 9, 2007 129 View
Rentals and Sales Share
Total residences for sale 19
Maximum price per square foot 1825
Santa Maria Condominium is a Brickell Bayfront Luxury waterfront property. It is perfectly located between Biscayne Bay and Brickell Avenue, which serves as an epicenter of the ultra-modern, vibrant and international city of Miami. Santa-Maria Condominium is conveniently surrounded by international banks, headquarters of national corporations, embassies and, of course, restaurants, shops and more.
Santa Maria condominium was designed by the architect Luis Revuelta of Revuelta-Vega-Leon architectural company and was completed in 1997. The condo rises 51 stories high into the Miami skyline and comprises of 174 units in total. The Condominium has sophisticated design elements what makes the property visually attractive and at the same time practical from an inside and out. The modern entry and porte-cochere open onto Marina and Biscayne Bay, offering stunning views.
SANTA MARIA CONDO - BUILDING AMENITIES:
24/7 advanced entrance security
Meeting and game rooms
Fitness center includes a state of the art aerobics cardiovascular theater
Spa located on floor 51
25 meter lap pool
Gazebo and Cabana area
Lighted tennis courts
Racquetball courts
Secluded courtyard with tree-shaded path
Tropical garden
Gated entrance manned 24 hours a day
I am interested in Santa Maria, Miami properties


text:
Science » Astronomy » Astrophysics » Interstellar Terrain » Star » Neutron Star
A neutron star is a collapsed remnant that remains after a supernova has destroyed a large star. They form if a star is large enough to explode in a supernova, yet small enough not to implode into a black hole. They are just a few kilometres across despite having masses as much as several times our sun. As such, they are extremely dense and have enormously high gravity that would instantly crush anything on the surface. At these densities, matter is crushed into a degenerate form made largely from a sea of neutrons. Even just a teaspoon of neutron star slurry would weigh millions of tons.
Neutron stars spin rapidly: hundreds of times per second, much faster than they did when they were normal stars before compressing into the neutron star size/density. (This is due to conservation of angular momentum.)
There are multiple types of neutron star with different properties.
Magnetars are neutron stars with an extremely powerful magnetic field, millions of times stronger than any magnetic field that has been made by artificial means, and thousands of times stronger than other neutron stars. The magnetism can distort the shapes of atoms into cylinders within a thousand kilometres and would be fatal to humans at great distances. Any electronics would suffer even further out.
Pulsars are neutron stars that spray beams of radiation and rotate quickly, seeming to emit regular pulses in any direction as the beam sweeps around. The first planet to be discovered outside our solar system orbited a pulsar, though the high levels of radiation should make them quite hostile places, damaging atmospheres and scouring the surfaces, the ionized matter streaming into a glowing aurora. A glowing, haloed point in the sky would mark the neutron star itself. It is thought that these planets formed from heavy supernova wreckage, but they may have formed earlier and somehow survived before the explosion.
Most neutron stars emit radio waves, but some broadcast in other parts of the spectra, such as x-ray, gamma wave, or normal light. The transformation into a neutron star ends the nuclear processes that generate heat within a star, so neutron stars will slowly cool over time, and many don't emit visible light. Neutron Stars in binary star systems may siphon material off the other star and consume it in a way that releases regular burst of energy — this is known as an x-ray binary, a two-part pulsar system. Neutron stars that don't emit the usual radio frequencies are known as radio-quiet neutron stars.
It's theoretically possible that a neutron star could further compress into an exotic star, such as a quark star, strange star, preon star or electroweak star. This transition might involve a second supernova style explosion.
Another theoretical possibility is that a neutron star could end up inside another star. Such an arrangement is known as a Thorne-Zytkow Object.
1. Wikipedia (Neutron Star)
Any alien life around a neutron star would need to be hidden away within underground oceans, feeding on volcanic emissions and magnetic flux rather than light.
Think tubular coral reefs on the roof of a watery cavern, harvesting magnetic energy over their lengths.
Without light, more unusual senses such as echolocation or even microwave vision might be common.
A few bioluminescent creatures could light up the reefs and hydrothermal vents eerily.
The magnetic fields might cause hallucinations by messing with the brain.
Magnetars and Pulsars are exciting navigational hazard, interstellar terrain or negative space wedgie. Their presence near your plot coupons is a great way to rachet up the tension and require lots of piloting or navigating rolls.
astronomyastrophysicsrps_hazardrps_starmultiplespacestar
page revision: 14, last edited: 08 Jan 2021 06:07


The Danya B. set of 2 long cylinder recycled glass tubes in rustic rings metal wall mount can frame a door or a piece of furniture. Glass slides out for cleaning. Whether you use a bud or a small bouquet, you will make a statement with this pair of beautifully crafted wall vases. Works indoor or outdoor as a patio accent.


text:
Belgian beer production reaches new record despite declining domestic consumption
Beer consumption in Belgium has again declined in 2010. According to figures released by the Union of Belgian Brewers Belgians drink an average of 78 liters of beer per year. (more…)
American craft beer: the hippest of hops
From tasteless mass-produced beers a decade ago, innovative, flavoursome American ales from a thriving craft brewing scene can now be found in the UK. Is this a welcome invasion? (more…)
American beer market hasn't gotten its fizz back
The U.S. beer market still hasn't gotten that fizz back, according to one UBS analyst. (more…)
Domestic beer consumption in Belgium reaches record low in 2010; exports rise
Beer consumption in Belgium has again declined in 2010. According to figures released by the Union of Belgian Brewers Belgians drink an average of 78 liters of beer per year. This is a decline of 2.8% compared to 2009. In the past 20 years, beer consumption in Belgium has declined by about one third. (more…)
Sabine Sagaert joins Cargill as general manager of malt operations in Europe
Cargill on Thursday announced that Sabine Sagaert has joined Cargill Malt as the general manager of malt operations in Europe. Sagaert succeeds Alain Dufait, who has taken a position with Cargill's Starches and Sweeteners business in Europe. (more…)
Vietnam. Habeco opens new $23 million brewery
State-owned Ha Noi Beer and Beverage Corp (Habeco), the largest brewery group in northern Vietnam with a market share of 80%, last weekend reportedly opened a new brewery in the northern port city of Hai Phong. The new $23 million plant is said to have a production capacity of 50,000,000l of beer per year. (more…)
SABMiller play for Foster's expected to drag on for months
SABMiller's bid for Foster's Group is expected to take months to resolve, in the absence of any other bidders emerging, as Foster's tries to get the world no.2 brewer to sweeten its $10 billion offer, investors and analysts said. (more…)
Ambev: Good Income and Growth Potential in Brazilian Beer Market
Although it may not be the most conservative approach to investing in dividend stocks, some investors, perhaps younger ones, might consider diversifying their holdings into emerging markets like Brazil. (more…)
Molson Coors, Cobra India to Join Forces to Brew Beer
Molson Coors Brewing Co. and Cobra India have joined forces to brew and market Cobra beer in South Asia, an arrangement that will give the brewer a foothold in the fast-growing Asian beer market. (more…)
Lawmakers seek veto of provision affecting craft brewers
A group of legislators has requested that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker veto a provision in the state budget that would ban beer brewers from owning distributorships and taverns in the state. (more…)


With those words the participants of Recreate Packaging 2016 were asked to complement the product of choice with their design, using Stora Enso's most premium paperboard materials, CKB, Performa Brilliance and Ensocoat. Creating a truly tactile user experience while asking themselves what makes packaging luxurious, and what does luxury really mean.
The Recreate Packaging 2016 award ceremony was held on the 11th of May at The Knickerbocker Hotel at Times Square in New York, in front of an audience representing a number of luxury brands. The award ceremony was followed by a luxurious dinner and a New York style rooftop party. It was truly a night to remember, with happy winners, great speeches and lovely guests.
The first prize in the Recreate Packaging 2016 Student Category was won by Duncan Anderson, Finland, with his amazing Chrysalis perfume packaging. Duncan found his muse in the butterfly, believing that the cocoon is one of nature's perfect packaging solutions. His design draws inspiration from the durable chrysalis as it holds and protects its precious contents until the caterpillar is ready for its final unveiling.
In keeping with the theme of transformation, Chrysalis comes in a light and fresh "Parfum du Jour" and a deeply seductive "Parfum de Nuit".
The winners were awarded with exquisite paperboard trophies designed by Bea Szenfeld. The pieces mimic giant pencil shavings, visualising the creative process: "I figured that it would be exciting to design an award that celebrates creative thinking by magnifying the faint traces that it leaves behind," says Bea Szenfeld herself about her work.
The trophies have won two design awards so far: "Design of the Month" in Resumé Magazine (August 2016) and "Strategic Design 75 Watt" at the 100-wattaren Gala. They also won "Best packaging design" at the Swedish advertising award competition "Guldägget".
Georges was awarded second place for his design "French Chocolate Trip". The aim of his project was to let others discover different parts of France through the chocolates and their packaging, highlighting the "savoir-faire" of the French chocolate makers and the gustative specialities of each French region. Each chocolate was elaborated with traditional and typical flavours from the associated region.
A simple region specific graphic is printed on the chocolates, like the brick for the North of France. The jury thought that the paperboard in the mock-up felt great and that the concept was brilliant. They also liked the fact that the idea could be adapted to a number of countries, regions or themes.
Micaela Nilsson and the team at Gafs Kartong won the professional category of Stora Enso's Recreate Packaging 2016 competition with their design "Pivert Champagne".
Stora Enso is a leading provider of renewable solutions in packaging, biomaterials, wood and paper on global markets. Our aim is to replace non-renewable materials by innovating and developing new products and services based on wood and other renewable materials.


Given the recent advances in the ability to model the airway epithelium in an air-liquid interface tissue culture system, we launched Pulmonary Cell News in 2012 to support the communication of great science in the field of pulmonary disease and lung carcinoma research at the cellular level. Every week, our editors hand-select the most recent, top scientific journal articles and industry press releases relevant to the pulmonary cell research field for inclusion in the latest issue of Pulmonary Cell News, providing a free, reliable resource to keep scientists current with their field. We keep researchers up-to-date with the latest advancements in pulmonary research and news, while saving them valuable time.
Each issue of Pulmonary Cell News features an expertly compiled selection of the most relevant, high quality research and review articles released within the last two weeks from high impact scientific journals, ensuring the most up-to-date research coverage from around the globe. The Publications section of the newsletter features research articles examining the development, characteristics and behaviors of airway epithelial cell types in relation to respiratory diseases such as COPD and asthma, as well as applications such as toxicity testing and preclinical drug development using cultured airway epithelial cells. Also included is a distinct section featuring research into lung carcinoma at the pulmonary cell level, including examinations of malignant lung tissue cells and the progression, metastasis and treatment of lung cancer. Additionally, we keep scientists current with business and regulatory affairs related to lung tissue research with the Science, Industry and Policy News sections of Pulmonary Cell News, which provide the latest press releases and policy news stories from research institutions as well as the biotech and pharma industries. Finally, the Events and Jobs sections keep the scientific community up-to-date with relevant conference announcements and career postings in the field of pulmonary research.
Pulmonary Cell News is quickly gaining international exposure with individuals interested in lung research, including members of the academic community, as well as medical professionals and people working within the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. In addition to weekly email newsletters, the @Pulmonary_News Twitter feed is a great way to keep current with daily updates of interest to the pulmonary cell research field. Finally, we also give researchers the opportunity to showcase their recently published work by submitting research and review papers examining respiratory disease, lung carcinoma or other pulmonary cell related topics, as well as press releases, events and jobs, to our editorial team for possible inclusion in Pulmonary Cell News at no cost.


text:
GAFers who've done a lot of traveling in the US or have lived all over: is "southern hospitality" real or a myth?
Thread starter DragoonKain
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
Curious for those who've lived or visited the south a lot and have lived in other areas if people in the south are noticeably or discernibly nicer than other parts of the US. I've really been taking an interest in southern culture lately. Admittedly, for many years of my life I had an ignorant opinion about the south. But I've long since changed my opinion on it, and feel ashamed I had negative views on the south. And even more so, I've been very interested in it lately.
I've had people tell me southern hospitality is absolutely real. That they've never been treated nicer than when they've been in the south. And I've also had people tell me those experiences are anecdotal and people are people. They are no nicer or meaner no matter where you go, it just is the luck of the draw in the people you come across.
Where does GAF stand on this?
Reactions: Dithadder
Depends on if you're white or not
Reactions: PSYGN, Rentahamster, March Climber and 15 others
GeekyDad
My family is a mix of Italian and Jewish, and we moved from Long Island, NY down to Miami, FL (which isn't what you're referring to when you say "south") when I was very young. But when I was about 15, we settled in Georgia. Been here ever since. So, that's, like, let's see...about 36 years. My experience: they're just people. Just like anywhere else, you've got hip people, racist people, proud people, confused people. They're just people. Or I should probably say, we're just people, since at this point I've spent most of my life here. But your younger years are your developing years, so I still feel like a northerner.
Reactions: Lord Panda
EviLore
Expansive Ellipses
Reactions: Bernd Lauert, Punished Miku, Facism and 15 others
It depends on whether they think you belong there. If not then the best you'll get is extreme passive aggression.
Reactions: Blade2.0
Lasha
Southern hospitality is real if heavily romanticised. You won't experience it in the big cities like Atlanta as much as you will in the rural areas. People are generally more polite and will try to be helpful when they see a traveller in need. The south is a big place though. Southern hospitality people dream about is the eastern part of the south. Things get wild once you get into places like Mississippi and Alabama. Still mostly polite but it feels like time travel at times.
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
I'm from the southern US. I lived or stayed for significant times in several states throughout the south from ages 1 to about 21. I also lived in New York City briefly (Brooklyn), and have traveled to and throughout California and Washington state many times. Oh, I also spent a summer in rural Wyoming.
Overall, people in the south just outside of the big cities are friendlier than they are most elsewhere, but it's nothing like in the romanticized stories. And while there's nice enclaves of immigrant communities that are pretty much completely assimilated into their communities across the span of a few generations, like the Vietnamese in parts of Georgia and Louisiana, or Filipinos and Indians in Virginia and DC, there is a ton of naked and passive aggression towards people of color, muslims, jews, and oddly enough even Catholics, in the deep south. Like in Alabama. I am talking politicians who still openly run on campaigns that sound like they're straight out of the 1930's or 40's. The police also tend to be extremely xenophobic towards anyone they perceive as northerners - I found this to be most egregious throughout central / rural Florida, not noticeable in the metros.
So I guess the overall answer is no?
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
Southern hospitality is real, in so far as people down South will treat strangers better than their family.
People up North are typically more frank, but A LOT more transparent.
Knowledge comes from 20 years in Pennsylvania and a decade in Louisiana.
Reactions: Dirk Benedict, GeekyDad and Grildon Tundy
Thaedolus
Some of the nicest people I've ever met were from the south, and generally people there are more polite…to your face.
Also some of the worst scumbags I've ever run into came from the same area.
So I'm guessing at the end of the day, it's pretty much a wash and the difference is a culture of politeness which leads to passive aggressive behavior rather than just outright saying what you're feeling like an east coaster or something. Southern cooking, though….mmmm
Reactions: ahtlas7, GeekyDad and Smiggs
KrakenIPA
I lived in Georgia for a spell (at Ft. Benning, in the military), and most locals I met were very conservative and friendly. That was years ago of course, but I can say, if "Southern Hospitality" is a myth, "Southern Charm" is not such a thing. I miss Georgia everyday, to be sure.
Smiggs
TheInfamousKira said:
I live in the upper midwest, and you're exactly right. People here are less likely to put on a facade and kiss your ass if they don't like or trust you--they'll just let you know up front. And honestly, I prefer that to someone acting all friendly, then talking shit about me as soon as I walk away.
And I'm not saying you should be rude or act like an entitled prick to strangers, I think you should always reciprocate kindness/respect. But don't blow smoke up someone's ass.
Reactions: Grildon Tundy, KrakenIPA and TheInfamousKira
FunkMiller
You're fine as long as you're white and straight.
Reactions: DeafTourette and Smiggs
Kev Kev
Grown up in the south all my life and it's fine, probably about the same as most other areas. You may encounter some friendlier people, especially in smaller towns, but it's nothing remarkable like that in my experience.
And the notion of there being more racists and homophobes in the south is over blown. There is a minority of shitty people where ever you go. The south may have slightly more, but it's not like you see in the movies and on TV. That's quite an unfair stereotype.
Reactions: Dithadder, SpiceRacz, KrakenIPA and 3 others
Kev Kev said:
It's so strange how the American South gets overblown like that! Most folks that I met down there, either military or not, were pretty cool. When I was in basic training like 20 years ago most of the the guys fron the Northeast had beef with guys from the Northeast. Life us crazy.
Reactions: dr_octagon and Kev Kev
Grildon Tundy
I think it's less of a Southern vs Northern difference and more of a rural vs urban difference, in my experience.
In small towns, you have to get along with everyone because everyone knows everyone and you don't want that bad juju coming back to you.
In cities, who gives a crap--piss someone off, there are a million more where they came from
Reactions: Dithadder, March Climber, Kev Kev and 2 others
AJUMP23
baphomet said:
I disagree. Plenty of hospitality is granted in the south to all races.
Reactions: Dithadder, ahtlas7, Kilau and 3 others
Grildon Tundy said:
I never want to piss someone off so i usually over-correct and end up pissing someone off (it's usually a hot gal)
Reactions: Grildon Tundy
I have lived in 6 southern states and 2 northern. The south is friendlier.
Reactions: Relique, DeafTourette, Kev Kev and 1 other person
Lunarorbit
Thaedolus said:
I'm from Massachusetts but lived in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas for years. When people don't know you in the northeast or NY they are more guarded in their interactions with strangers. People are more frank and that's off-putting to southerns sometimes.
Southern hospitality is greatly overstated. More smiles and friendliness when greeting people in Louisiana and Mississippi (not Texas though) and they generally will talk to strangers with better manners than Northerns. But that's really the extent of it.
There's more emphasis on community especially with Christian churchs so big down there. But again there is a caviat; LOTS of fakeness down south, lots of shit talk behind people's backs, passive aggressiveness to the max. Lots of fake Christians who don't really love their neighbors but hide behind smiles to conceal bigotry, misogyny, and all the other big phobias.
Reactions: DeafTourette and Kev Kev
AJUMP23 said:
I've lived across the south for 20+ years. Seen more than my share of it.
Hospitality?
Sure, if you're skin is light enough.
Lady Jane
It is real. I was born and raised in New Orleans and I never considered southern hospitality real until I visited the West and East coast. Strangers are an asshole to others by default there.
And as for the racism claims, I've always seen that everywhere in the US, not just the South. I blame Hollywood and their hate boner for southern culture for spreading that messaging. I've seen it in Michigan, New York, and Oregon. Racism is 100% is just as prevalent there but the South are usually the butt of those jokes.
Reactions: Dithadder, jason10mm and SpiceRacz
DadEggs
southern hospitality is definitely a real thing......but so are confederate flags
lived 32 years in nj & nyc
lived 4 years in atlanta
been with my wife (from atlanta) for 16 of those 36 years.
Torrent of Pork
I lived in rural Florida my entire life before getting my CDL, and met far more blatantly racist assholes in the north east in less than a year than I did almost 30 years in the south. I only met one person in Philly who wasn't a miserable, hateful cunt, and that was a security guard born and raised in Jamaica.
Anyway, Southern Hospitality is real, but over exaggerated. We'll also talk serious shit about people with friendly language. "Bless his/her heart," can either be an endearment, or it can mean, "That is one of the stupidest motherfuckers I've ever seen in my life."
Billbofet
I have always had a pretty great experience in southern states while traveling, but I've never lived in any of those areas.
I'm from and still live in the Midwest (Wisconsin) and find that Midwesterners are also extremely friendly - with the exception of the Chicago area - fuck those people - Just kidding....kinda
belmarduk
From my experience (and I've had a lot of it) Southerners tend to look down on other parts of the US. Go ahead, ask them about California or New York or Massachusetts.
Reactions: Kev Kev
Torrent of Pork said:
"Bless your heart" is the deepest Southern insult that exists.
Reactions: Punished Miku
Artoris
belmarduk said:
There is hospitality regardless of skin skin color. Racism does Occur but I don't associate with it and have never been any place in the south where a person was treated poorly due to skin color.
I have been the only white guy in a black church and called out by the preacher and thanked for coming during his message. That is hospitality.
Reactions: Soodanim and Kev Kev
StreetsofBeige
Been to North Carolina and Dallas. Some business, some for personal fun. Just randomly checking out places to eat.
Even though it was only a handful of times, I'd say Real.
The people working at stores and restaurants were all super nice. There's something about the accent, mannerisms, and way they acknowledge you that is so different and friendly.
Floridians:
Reactions: SpiceRacz
NickFire
In my personal experience, the people down south are much friendlier towards strangers than up north. It's like night and day. You go from little eye contact and everyone in a race to be somewhere, to needing like 5-10 minutes to go into a store cause the greeters want to show pictures of their grandkids.
My wife is Korean, though raised in South Carolina -- she lost her Korean accent when she was young. Some folks (including my location boss) won't even acknowledge her. To her, it seems obvious when ethnicity is involved. I can't really speak to it because I can't see it from her perspective. But there are scumbags in each corner of this globe I've come across, and great folks too -- all colors, creeds, etc.
Reactions: NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt, AJUMP23 and DeafTourette
PaddyOCanager
I've experienced it yes, but it's not a simple question. The picture of the "racist south" is more of a myth. There are a lot of backwards places, but communities like that exist all over the country. However, the south is the "default" setting for racism in movies and TV and its racism is always covered in the news. It's also acceptable because the south gets all the blame for slavery.
There are historical and modern complexities to the region but it mostly gets a shallow portrayal. It's important to note that the south accounts for 38% of the US population, yet 42% of all Americans living under the poverty line. When people talk shit broadly about the south, they're shitting on a region that houses our most vulnerable citizens. Most people justify it by saying the south is racist so who cares, which also ignores the fact that the region holds 60% of the entire U.S. black population.
Reactions: Dithadder, phaedrus, LegendOfKage and 2 others
Blade2.0
They are artificially hospitable (unless a minority, but even then they might be nice to your face). More out of obligation than because they'd like to do it. I liken it similarly to Japanese hospitality. Sure they're bowing and using pleasant words with you, but that doesn't mean that's how they feel inwardly. Or another example is how you might be outwardly friendly to a customer, but actually think they're a moron on the inside.
EDIT: Historically the south is the most racist. Jim Crow laws were from southern states and so were sundown towns. Not to try and say the other parts of America don't have their racist problems, but the South gets a bad rap for it for a very real and good reason.
Reactions: DeafTourette
SpiceRacz
Yes people are generally friendlier and more well-mannered. As for racism, I've seen equal amounts of it on the west coast. Which is to say not as much as people would think.
FunkMiller said:
Lol aren't you from Europe?
Reactions: Kev Kev and Revolutionary
Krappadizzle
The most racist place I ever lived was Bay Area, California. The nicest and most respectful, is South Carolina. Southern Hospitality is real.
As it stands, I'd gladly let the stereotype of "much racist south" go on if it means people stop moving here from the west.
Reactions: Dithadder, jason10mm, SpiceRacz and 2 others
Ownage
It's less real than it used to be. You'll see it in smaller southern towns if you're of the same heritage as the locals, or, after a period of time when they get to know you. In larger southern cities, due to lower living costs more folks from all over have migrated south, so you'll see whatever attitudes they bring to their new home.
I very much agree with the poster above that the left coast, California to British Columbia, is WAY WAY more racist than the east coast these days. Somehow left coast liberals are taking the passive aggressive prize for racism and bigoted behavior. Exceptions being the fuzz in various big cities anywhere.
Reactions: Krappadizzle
I collect VHS tapes
I've lived in California my whole life
can confirm everyone is an asshole. currently in LA where people are exceptionally terrible. I don't really mind it though.
my ex had family in Texas. people were very nice whenever I'd visit.
Krappadizzle said:
I would say every big city's police force is about the same when it comes to racism (a lot) but the most racist average citizens are still from the South. The KKK is still here and when you hear about, say, two shithead rednecks running and gunning down a black man (the death of Ahmaud Arbery) it's the south. Again, average citizens. Cops are racist and do deplorable shit everywhere.
Nah. As a dark-skinned person myself, I can attest that southern hospitality is very real, and as a New Yorker, also very foreign to me.
poppabk
Lasha said:
I was visiting Atlanta and walking around downtown and a lady on the street said 'good morning' to me. I was honestly shocked.
poppabk said:
I believe it. Atlanta is way friendlier than NYC or other big cities. Its just not as chill as the rest of GA.
Reactions: Ailynn and DeafTourette
Kilau
Y'all ain't from round here are ya?
SpiceRacz said:
Why would that determine how well someone knows a place? The least well travelled local will know less than a well travelled foreigner. There are people who know London way better than me, and they don't live here.
Reactions: Lady Jane and SpiceRacz
When I was in North Carolina (or perhaps driving in or out state near it), some buddies and I stopped off a rest stop.
I totally understand soft drinks can also be called pop or soda depending where you live.
A old lady who was super nice served us. And it was the first time I ever heard someone call them "sodies".
Being polite goes a long way towards making friends and allies anywhere. This is universal, whether in Jeddah or Paris or Shanghai or Washington DC.
Same goes if you're a prick. You suck.
jason10mm
DadEggs said:
Nah, the Confederate flag thing doesn't mean anything other than pride in your heritage. No different than Native Americans still praising their heritage. They lost a war too and guess what, most of them were practicing slavery till the very end as well.
Reactions: Dithadder and Slicker than your average
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
kyliethicc
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4
SLB1904 replied
Hello Gaf, this is my story (of mental illness)
The_Mike
Y0ssarian replied
FF XVI IGN Interview Triggers ResetERA Into MADNESS (Diversity/Representation)
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Opinion Drama Cringe 2 3
TheInfamousKira replied
New Non Newtonian Fluids!! Lets You Walk On Water!! Amazing!!
Rurhanograthul02
bender replied
[Bustle] Please Respect Mia Khalifa's Rebrand
AJUMP23 replied
Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Share Link


The superior thermal insulating properties of Fibrex® material help your home stay warmer in winter and cooler in summer, resulting in savings on your energy bills. Our different glass options offer unique benefits for heating, cooling, visible light transfer, and UV reduction.
Our Fibrex® material is twice as strong as vinyl, which results in weathertight seals. It can stand up to even the most extreme temperature swings, maintaining its stability and rigidity in all climates.
The incredible strength of Fibrex® means narrower frames; narrower frames mean more glass and more view. The extrusion process allows us to craft your windows to any shape, ensuring a match with the architectural style of your home. The process also fuses the color into the material which greatly reduces maintenance.


The phone will not turn on. This is most likely due to a problem with the battery.
The battery may simply need to be recharged. Plug the phone into a power source using the accompanying charger. Make sure that you are using the correct charger that originally came with the device.
If recharging the phone does not work, the battery may need to be replaced. To replace the battery, refer to the accompanying installation guide.
If replacing the battery does not work, the motherboard may be defective. To replace the motherboard, refer to the accompanying installation guide.
The keypad buttons are being pressed, but there is no response. Due to high usage, the buttons can wear out or become loose.
The buttons may not respond due to loose wiring. You must take the device apart and tighten several of the connections.
Unfortunately, buttons can need replacement due to everyday wear and tear. To replace the keypad buttons, refer to the accompanying installation guide.
The music player is playing music, but no sound can be heard.
The volume could be set to mute, allowing no sound to come out. Turn the volume up either by going into the settings or using the volume control button on the side of the phone.
If the volume is on and still no sound is being heard the speaker may be broken. In this case, it would need to be replaced.
The volume buttons may be unresponsive when pressed. To replace the volume buttons, refer to the accompanying installation guide.
The face plate is cracked or otherwise inhibiting visibility. There are two blue face plates on this phone: the front plate (which is located on the front, when the phone is flipped closed), and the rear case (which is located on the back, when the phone is flipped closed).
The front face plate is broken and needs to be replaced. To replace the front face plate, refer to the accompanying installation guide.
The rear case is broken and needs to be replaced. To replace the rear case, refer to the accompanying installation guide.


text:
Q: Setting dataframe by using both iloc and a boolean mask (mask at multiple different index (row) values in the dataframe) I want to change the values to Nan in a pandas dataframe based on the location of Nan values in a different pandas dataframe. I want to do this at multiple locations in the array. So it works if it is at the beginning of the array where the index (row) values are the same. How do I do this if I want to set it offset by 20 rows in the arrow and then 40 rows.
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
df = pd.DataFrame({'A': list(range(0,100)), 'B': list(range(0,100))})

df2_null = df2.isnull()
df[df2_null] = np.NaN

df.iloc[0:4]

df2 = pd.DataFrame({'A': [1, None, 1, 1], 'B': [None, 1, None, 1]})

df2_null = df2.isnull()
df[df2_null] = np.NaN
df.iloc[0:4]

How do I get this to work below?
Because the first line gives an error and the second line reproduces all np.Nan no matter where I excecute it. I haven't been able to figure out how to do this.
df.iloc[20:24][df2_null] = np.Nan
df.loc[df[df2_null].iloc[20:24].index] = np.NaN

A: I believe need DataFrame.iloc and DataFrame.mask, which set values to NaN by boolean mask by default (only necessary same number of rows and columns of selected df with boolean mask).
Also df2_null mask is converted to numpy array for avoid alignment by indices.
df.iloc[20:24] = df.iloc[20:24].mask(df2_null.values)
print (df.iloc[15:30])
       A     B
15  15.0  15.0
16  16.0  16.0
17  17.0  17.0
18  18.0  18.0
19  19.0  19.0
20  20.0   NaN
21   NaN  21.0
22  22.0   NaN
23  23.0  23.0
24  24.0  24.0
25  25.0  25.0
26  26.0  26.0
27  27.0  27.0
28  28.0  28.0
29  29.0  29.0

Numpy solution with numpy.where, same principe like pandas solution:
df = pd.DataFrame({'A': list(range(0,30)), 'B': list(range(0,30))})

arr = df.values.astype(float)
arr[20:24] = np.where(df2_null.values, np.nan, arr[20:24])
print (arr)
[[ 0.  0.]
 [ 1.  1.]
 [ 2.  2.]
 [ 3.  3.]
 [ 4.  4.]
 [ 5.  5.]
 [ 6.  6.]
 [ 7.  7.]
 [ 8.  8.]
 [ 9.  9.]
 [10. 10.]
 [11. 11.]
 [12. 12.]
 [13. 13.]
 [14. 14.]
 [15. 15.]
 [16. 16.]
 [17. 17.]
 [18. 18.]
 [19. 19.]
 [20. nan]
 [nan 21.]
 [22. nan]
 [23. 23.]
 [24. 24.]
 [25. 25.]
 [26. 26.]
 [27. 27.]
 [28. 28.]
 [29. 29.]]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Participants taking the place of I-III in these award-winning categories receive trophies and small prizes.
In order to receive a cash prize, the organizer will contact the winner by email or telephone to complete and sign the relevant statement.
Teams, which will take place in I-III classification relay male, female or mixed receive trophies and small prizes for each member of the relay team.


Anyone of you joined the Score Cupid Run 2015 ? If you miss this fun event, no worries as Score Cupid Run 2016 is coming back. By infusing endearing fairytale themes, the run provide exciting, Recreational platform for a convenient and great cardiovascular exercise.
Runner from all ages backgrounds will enjoy the activities along the running route, they include a Fairy Godmother granting wishes and dancing activities. Take a walk or run to 4 pit stops the Glass slipper trail and enjoy the fun at each pit stops.
Registration started from 30 November 2015 until 15 January 2016. Grab your spot now before the closing date. A great moment to spend your Valentine's Day holding each other hand to complete the Score Cupid Run 2016. Interlocking Heart Medal will be given to runner that complete the run. Single also can join the run and who know you will meet your prince charming or princess during Score Cupid Run.
Preview from last year event.
Register at www.score.my or contact 03- 7726 4277 for more information regarding Score Cupid Run 2016 . See you during the run on 14 February 2016 at Kepong Metropolitan Park, KL on 7 am onward.