text:
Molycorp Reports 4Q 2010 Results: Project Phoenix Launched Ahead of Schedule; Revenue Up 154%; Volumes Up 20%
Revenue rose 154% from Q3 2010 to $21.7 million.
Volume sold rose 20% from Q3 2010 to 638 metric tons.
Secured all critical environmental permits to start Project Phoenix.
Mining operations resumed for first time since 2002.
Commenced construction of new processing facility ahead of schedule.
Secured supply agreements covering 100% of expected 2011 production.
Letter of intent with Hitachi Metals to pursue joint ventures to produce rare earth alloys and magnets in the U.S. by 2012.
MOU for supply agreement with Sumitomo Corporation, which includes $130 million in financing for Molycorp.
Full Year 2010 Highlights
Revenue rose 396% to $35.2 million.
Volume sold rose 45% to 1,883 metric tons.
Company increased the diversity of products produced and sold.
Invited by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to advance to the second round of consideration for a federal loan guarantee.
March 09, 2011 04:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Colorado-based Molycorp, Inc. (NYSE: MCP) today announced financial and operating performance for the fourth quarter and full year 2010.
Revenues in 4Q 2010 rose 154% to $21.7 million compared to 3Q 2010 revenues. Compared to 4Q 2009, revenues rose 885%. Both sequential and annual growth was driven by a combination of increased sales volume and significantly higher pricing.
Net loss in 4Q 2010 was ($7.9 million). However, excluding special items and certain non-cash accounting charges attributable to stock-based compensation and equipment write-offs, Molycorp generated positive earnings of $2.2 million, or $0.03 per share, in 4Q 2010.
The Company sold approximately 638 metric tons of rare earth oxide (REO) products in the fourth quarter 2010, a 20% increase compared to 3Q 2010, and a 37% increase from the approximately 467 metric tons sold in 4Q 2009. The Company realized an average sales price of approximately $34.02 per kilogram, compared to an average sales price of $16.10 per kilogram in 3Q 2010, and an average sales price of $4.72 per kilogram for 4Q 2009. Average sales prices have continued to increase significantly in 1Q 2011.
"Molycorp realized significantly higher sales volumes and revenue in the fourth quarter of 2010," said Mark Smith, Molycorp President and Chief Executive Officer. "Our ability to produce 3,000 tons per year from our current facility is allowing us to benefit from today's dramatically higher rare earth prices. We are in a great position to capture this increased revenue now, even as we construct our new, state-of-the-art processing facility and develop our integrated mine-to-magnets manufacturing supply chain."
"This integrated rare earth supply chain is expected to position Molycorp to operate as one of the world's lowest-cost producers and to capture new markets created by rising rare earth demand and China's continuing restriction of rare earth exports," Smith said.
"Rising demand and reduced Chinese exports have created extraordinarily tight market conditions," Smith explained. "In 2010, China exported approximately 30,258 metric tons, which compared to demand outside of China in 2010 of about 55,000 tons. This gap in supply and demand is expected to worsen in 2011, as independent forecasts predict that full year 2011 export quotas will total less than 30,000 metric tons, compared to total demand outside of China of about 60,000 metric tons. That points to a high likelihood of shortages of many rare earth products."
Smith noted that senior government leaders in China consistently stress China's intent to continue to restrict rare earth exports, and the possibility of China becoming a net rare earth importing nation by 2015.
"These dynamics are why we believe rare earth pricing will remain robust for the foreseeable future," Smith added. "It also is why Molycorp recently committed to expanding its production capacity from 19,050 metric tons per year in 2012 to 40,000 metric tons per year, which we expect to achieve in 2013. That will position Molycorp to capture new markets and customers, and benefit from continued strong pricing."
Fourth Quarter 2010 Financial Results
The table below sets forth approximate volume and revenue sold in the fourth quarter.
Revenue (millions) Metric Tons Sold
Product Q4 2010 Q4 2009 Q4 2010 Q4 2009
Ceric Hydrate $7.2 -- 151 --
Didymium Oxide (includes metal) $6.3 -- 120 --
Lanthanum Products $5.6 $2.0 280 460
Other $2.6 $0.2 87 7
NOTE: Throughout this release, Molycorp's adjusted, or non-GAAP, financial performance is discussed. These measurements reflect how the management and directors of Molycorp analyze the business on a daily basis. The adjusted measurements segregate certain non-cash items such as stock-based compensation and certain special items. While management seeks to understand the business from a cash flow perspective, these non-cash and other charges are important to understanding the Company's performance over the long-term. Therefore, readers are highly encouraged to review the non-GAAP to GAAP reconciliation supplied at the end of this release.
Actual and adjusted 4Q 2010 cost of goods sold were $16.6 million and $13.5 million, respectively. These compare to cost of goods sold of $7.7 million in 3Q 2010 and $6.9 million in 4Q 2009. Adjusted gross margin percentage for 4Q 2010 was 37.7%, an improvement of approximately 28 percentage points from the gross margin of 9.3% in 3Q 2010. The increase in gross margin percentage is primarily attributable to continuing increases in the market prices for REO. The adjusted gross margin percentage for 4Q 2010 excludes a $3.1 million impairment charge related to our current mill and crusher assets, due to the decision to replace rather than refurbish those assets.
Selling, general, and administrative expense (excluding depreciation and amortization) for 4Q 2010 was $5.9 million, compared to $4.1 million in 3Q 2010 and $4.1 million in 4Q 2009. 4Q 2010 selling, general and administrative expenses reflect increased personnel and other expenses associated with operating as a publicly traded company, preparation for commencement of the Mountain Pass modernization project, and other business development activities. The Company also recognized stock-based compensation expense of $7.1 million in 4Q 2010.
Adjusted net income for 4Q 2010 was $2.2 million, or $0.03 per diluted share. This compares to an adjusted net loss of ($3.6 million), or ($0.05) per share, for 3Q 2010, and a net loss of ($9.1 million), or ($0.22) per share, for 4Q 2009.
Full Year 2010 Financial Results
Sales for 2010 rose 396% to $35.2 million, compared to $7.1 million for 2009 with our diversification into sales of REO products with relatively higher prices and higher sales volume. Growth was driven primarily by generally higher prices for REO products.
The table below sets forth approximate volume and revenue sold for the full year 2010.
Revenue (millions)
Metric Tons Sold
Product 2010 2009 2010 2009
Lanthanum Products $13.6 $6.4 1,297 1,267
Other $3.9 $0.7 184 35
Actual and adjusted cost of goods sold for 2010 were $35.9 million, and $32.8 million respectively, compared to $21.8 million in 2009. Actual and adjusted gross margin percentages for 2010 were (2.1 %) and 6.7% respectively, compared to actual gross margin percentage of (207.1%) in 2009. The improvement in gross margin percentage is primarily attributed to higher market prices for REO and a reduction in lower-of-cost or market inventory write-downs, partially offset by costs associated with the temporary shut-down of our processing facility and the transition to our second pilot processing campaign in the first and second quarters of 2010. In addition to the cost of processing material from inventory, cost of goods sold includes the value allocated to inventory when the Company purchased the Mountain Pass operation in 2008, the cost of other purchased inventory, and write-downs of inventory to estimated net realizable value.
Selling, general, and administrative expense (excluding depreciation and amortization) for 2010 was $18.8 million, an increase of $6.4 million from $12.4 million in 2009. The increase was primarily due to the hiring of additional employees, as Molycorp grew from 116 employees to 168 employees in 2010, and higher accounting, legal, and other professional services fees attributable to operating as a publicly traded company, preparation for commencement of the Mountain Pass modernization project, and other business development activities. The Company also incurred stock-based compensation expense of $28.7 million in 2010.
Actual and adjusted net loss in 2010 were ($49.1 million) and ($17.3 million), or ($0.79) and ($0.28) per share, respectively. This compares with an adjusted net loss of ($28.3 million), or ($0.72) per share, for 2009.
Project Phoenix Milestone Achievements
In the fourth quarter and into 2011, the Company achieved all scheduled milestones in its development plan, in addition to several others:
The Company secured all critical government permits necessary to proceed with construction of its new, state-of-the-art rare earth oxide manufacturing facility at Mountain Pass, California.
The Company broke ground, ahead of schedule, on construction of its new manufacturing facility.
The Company recommenced mining operations for the first time since 2002.
The Company secured supply agreements covering 100% of expected 2011 production of at least 4,000 metric tons.
In November 2010, the Company entered into a contract to supply W. R. Grace & Co. with a significant amount of REOs, primarily lanthanum concentrate, through mid-2012. The Company also entered into a second contract to supply Grace with approximately 75% of our lanthanum production per year (based on our initial planned capacity) for a three-year period commencing upon the achievement of expected annual production rates under our initial modernization and expansion plan. The contract may be extended at Grace's option for an additional three-year period. Product under the long-term contract will be supplied at market-based prices, subject to minimum pricing that covers Molycorp's cost of production plus a profit margin.
In December 2010, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sumitomo Corporation. If the definitive agreements contemplated by the memorandum of understanding are executed, the Company expects to provide Sumitomo with 1,500 to 1,750 metric tons per year of cerium and lanthanum-based products, and 250 metric tons per year of didymium oxide for a period ending five years after the completion of our initial modernization and expansion plan. Product will be supplied at market-based prices, subject to minimum pricing. In addition, the MOU contemplates the purchase by Sumitomo of $100 million of Molycorp common stock, and a $30 million long-term loan to Molycorp.
In December 2010, the Company entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Hitachi to form joint ventures for the production of neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) rare earth alloys and magnets in the United States and to acquire a license for certain technology related to the production of rare earth metals, alloys, and magnets. Our proposed joint venture with Hitachi would provide us with access to the technology, people, and facilities to convert our rare earth materials into alloys and high-performance NdFeB permanent rare earth magnets in the U.S. by the end of 2012.
In January 2011, our Board of Directors approved the execution of Phase 2 of our modernization and expansion plan. Upon the anticipated completion of Phase 2 in 2013, the Company expects to be able to produce up to approximately 40,000 metric tons of REO per year.
On February 7, 2011, Molycorp completed a public offering of Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock, realizing net proceeds from the offering of approximately $173 million.
The Company was invited by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to advance to the second round of consideration for a federal loan guarantee administered by DOE under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Company announced that John Bassett, the former President of Seadrift Coke L.P., joined the Company as a corporate officer and Vice President of Operations. A veteran of 38 years in the operations and manufacturing sectors, Mr. Bassett will be responsible for overseeing all of Molycorp's operations.
The Company announced that Doug Jackson, former President and CEO of Dyno Nobel, joined the Company as a corporate officer and Vice President of Business Development. Mr. Jackson brings over 19 years of experience in establishing new business opportunities both domestically and internationally.
Liquidity and Capital Expenditures
Under Phase 1 of Project Phoenix and its "mine-to-magnets" project, the Company intends to spend approximately $531 million through the end of 2012 to restart mining operations, construct and refurbish processing facilities at the Mountain Pass facility, and expand into metal, alloy and magnet production. Additionally, we will begin to incur expenditures during 2011 under our Phase 2 expansion plan, which is expected to increase our production capacity to approximately 40,000 metric tons per year by the end of 2013. The Company expects to incur an additional $250 million in capital costs for the Phase 2 expansion, resulting in total capital expenditures of approximately $781 million. This capital spending plan does not include capitalized interest, or corporate, selling, general, and administrative expenses, which the Company estimates to be an additional $20 million to $25 million per year.
The Company has secured, or is in the process of securing, the capital to fund the Phase 2 expansion. The July 2010 initial public offering provided approximately $360 million, after giving effect to the use of $18.2 million for surety bonds. The proceeds from the recently completed offering of mandatory convertible preferred stock provided another $173 million. If consummated, the December 2010 agreement with Sumitomo will provide another $100 million of equity financing and $30 million of debt financing. The Company expects to fund the balance of its capital needs with traditional debt financing, project financing, additional offerings, and/or government programs, including the DOE loan guarantee program.
The Company's Chief Financial Officer, Jim Allen, stated: "We are pleased with the results of our offering of convertible preferred stock, and are confident in our ability to complete our capital raising program. Considering available net proceeds from equity offerings of approximately $533 million, and with good visibility on another $130 million, we are confident we have sufficient alternatives to raise the remaining capital needed to fully fund Project Phoenix. While timing is never assured, we believe we can complete our project capital raising initiatives in 2011."
For the remainder of 2011 and for the foreseeable future, the Company anticipates that the Chinese government will follow through on its announced intent to continue to limit the quantity of rare earth oxides available outside of China. In addition to reduced export quotas, the Company believes that the following factors and expected actions by the Chinese government will further restrict production and supplies available for export:
China will continue to successfully curb the illegal export of rare earths;
China will enforce production quotas because of concerns about limited reserves;
China will continue to coordinate pricing at the federal level in an effort to shore up rare earth prices;
China will continue to force industry consolidation;
China will continue to increase environmental oversight and enforce tougher environmental controls over rare earth producers; and
China's internal consumption of rare earths will continue to increase as it Gross Domestic Product increases.
Additionally, further restricting global supply is the diversion of current rare earth production into strategic stockpiles. China recently announced a national stockpile program, as did South Korea, and Japan is increasing its national stockpile program.
Investor Conference Call
Molycorp will conduct a conference call today to discuss these results at 4:30 p.m. EST, hosted by Mark Smith, Chief Executive Officer, and Jim Allen, Chief Financial Officer. Investors interested in participating in the live call from within the USA should dial +1 (888) 576-4394 and reference confirmation number 7735109. Those calling from outside the USA should dial +1 (719) 325-2395 and use the same confirmation number. A telephone replay will be available approximately two hours after the call concludes through Wednesday, March 23, 2011 by dialing +1 (877) 870-5176 from the U.S., or +1 (858) 384-5517 from international locations, and entering passcode: 7735109. There will also be a simultaneous live audio webcast available on the Investor Relations section of the Company's website at www.molycorp.com. The webcast will be archived on the website for 365 days.
About Molycorp
Colorado-based Molycorp, Inc. is the only REO producer in the Western Hemisphere and currently produces approximately 3,000 metric tons of commercial rare earth materials per year. Following the execution of Molycorp's "mine-to-magnets" strategy and the expected 2012 completion of Phase 1 of its modernization and expansion efforts at its Mountain Pass, California processing facility, Molycorp expects to produce at a rate of approximately 19,050 metric tons of REO equivalent per year. The Company expects to achieve an annual production capacity by the end of 2013 of approximately 40,000 metric tons of REO equivalent per year after the completion of Phase 2. Molycorp intends to provide to the market a range of rare earth products, including high-purity oxides, metals, alloys, and permanent magnets.
MOLYCORP, INC.
(A Company in the Development Stage)
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Audited)
(In thousands, except share amounts)
Cash and cash equivalents $ 316,430 $ 6,929
Trade accounts receivable 16,421 1,221
Inventory 20,511 8,545
Prepaid expenses and other 1,759 1,825
Total current assets 355,121 18,520
Deposits $ 26,200 $ —
Inventory 5,212 12,090
Intangible asset, net 639 704
Investments 111 —
Total non-current assets 126,128 79,146
Total assets $ 481,249 $ 97,666
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Trade accounts payable $ 13,009 $ 2,886
Accrued expenses 4,225 5,944
Short-term borrowing - related party 3,085 —
Current portion of asset retirement obligation 393 693
Total current liabilities 20,712 9,523
Asset retirement obligation $ 12,078 $ 13,509
Other non-current liabilities 257 19
Total non-current liabilities 12,335 13,528
Total liabilities $ 33,047 $ 23,051
Stockholders' equity:
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 350,000,000 shares authorized at December 31, 2010; 82,291,200 and 0 shares outstanding 82 —
Class A common stock, $0.001 par value; 0 and 60,000,000 shares authorized at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively; 0 and 44,998,185 shares outstanding at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively — 45
Class B common stock, $0.001 par value; 0 and 4,000,000 shares authorized at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively; 0 and 0 shares outstanding at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively
Additional paid-in capital 539,866 117,231
Deficit accumulated during the development stage (91,746 ) (42,661 )
Total stockholders' equity 448,202 74,615
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity $ 481,249 $ 97,666
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited)
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
Unaudited Audited
Net sales $ 21,702 $ 2,204 $ 35,157 $ 7,093
Operating costs and expenses:
Cost of goods sold (16,634 ) (6,889 ) (35,902 ) (21,785 )
Selling, general and administrative (5,923 ) (4,064 ) (18,774 ) (12,444 )
Stock-based compensation (7,079 ) — (28,739 ) (241 )
Depreciation and amortization (80 ) (68 ) (319 ) (191 )
Accretion expense (217 ) (251 ) (912 ) (1,006 )
Operating loss (8,231 ) (9,068 ) (49,489 ) (28,574 )
Other income 75 57 155 181
Interest income (expense) 256 (84 ) 249 (194 )
Net loss $ (7,900 ) $ (9,095 ) $ (49,085 ) $ (28,587 )
Weighted average shares outstanding (Common shares) (1)
Basic 81,509,452 41,589,904 62,332,054 39,526,568
Diluted 81,509,452 41,589,904 62,332,054 39,526,568
Loss per share of common stock:
Basic $ (0.10 ) $ (0.22 ) $ (0.79 ) $ (0.72 )
Diluted $ (0.10 ) $ (0.22 ) $ (0.79 ) $ (0.72 )
(1) Weighted average shares outstanding include the retroactive treatment of exchange ratios for conversion of Class A common shares and Class B common shares to common stock in conjunction with the IPO.
Supplemental Information – Non-GAAP Financial Measures
In addition to disclosing financial results that are determined in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), Molycorp also discloses the total and per share amounts of adjusted net income (loss) before income tax, as well as adjusted cost of goods sold and gross margin percentage. These non-GAAP measures are provided for additional information only and they should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for any financial measures under GAAP. Other companies may define similar measures differently.
Adjusted net income (loss), including the related per share amount, and adjusted gross margin percentage are determined by adjusting the corresponding GAAP measure for certain significant non-cash or special items. Molycorp's management believes the use of these non-GAAP measures provides investors and analysts with useful additional information for the analysis of the Company's fundamental operations on a recurring basis.
Adjusted Net Income (Loss) Three months
(in thousands, except per share data) Three months ended ended Years ended
December 31, September 30, December 31,
GAAP net loss $ (7,900 ) $ (9,095 ) $ (10,145 ) $ (49,085 ) $ (28,587 )
Stock-based compensation 7,079 - 6,527 28,739 241
Asset impairments 3,114 - - 3,114 -
Net (gain)/loss on asset sales (72 ) - - (59 ) 2
Adjusted net income (loss) before income taxes $ 2,221 $ (9,095 ) $ (3,618 ) $ (17,291 ) $ (28,344 )
Adjusted net income (loss) before income taxes per share $ 0.03 $ (0.22 ) $ (0.05 ) $ (0.28 ) $ (0.72 )
Adjusted Gross Margin Three months
(in thousands) Three months ended ended Years ended
September 30,
Sales $ 21,702 $ 2,204 $ 8,533 $ 35,157 $ 7,093
GAAP cost of goods sold (16,634 ) (6,889 ) (7,742 ) (35,902 ) (21,785 )
Adjusted cost of goods sold (13,520 ) (6,889 ) (7,742 ) (32,788 ) (21,785 )
Adjusted gross margin $ 8,182 $ (4,685 ) $ 791 $ 2,369 $ (14,692 )
Adjusted gross margin percentage 37.7 % -212.6 % 9.3 % 6.7 % -207.1 %
Safe Harbor Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains forward-looking statements that represent Molycorp's beliefs, projections and predictions about future events or Molycorp's future performance. Forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may," "will," "would," "could," "should," "expect," "intend," "plan," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "predict," "potential," "continue" or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions or phrases. These forward-looking statements are necessarily subjective and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause Molycorp's actual results, performance or achievements or industry results to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievement described in or implied by such statements.
Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from expected results described in forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: Molycorp's ability to secure sufficient capital to implement its business plans; Molycorp's ability to complete its Phase 1 modernization and expansion efforts and Phase 2 expansion efforts and reach full planned production rates for REOs and other planned downstream products; uncertainties associated with Molycorp's reserve estimates and non-reserve deposit information; uncertainties regarding global supply and demand for rare earths materials; Molycorp's ability to maintain appropriate relations with unions and employees; Molycorp's ability to successfully implement its "mine-to-magnets" strategy; environmental laws, regulations and permits affecting Molycorp's business, directly and indirectly, including, among others, those relating to mine reclamation and restoration, climate change, emissions to the air and water and human exposure to hazardous substances used, released or disposed of by Molycorp; and uncertainties associated with unanticipated geological conditions related to mining.
For more information regarding these and other risks and uncertainties that Molycorp may face, see the section entitled "Risk Factors" beginning on page 15 of the Company's initial public offering prospectus on file with the SEC. Any forward-looking statement contained in this presentation or the prospectus reflects Molycorp's current views with respect to future events and Molycorp assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future, except as otherwise required by applicable law.
This presentation may contain statistical data and estimates obtained by Molycorp from industry publications and reports generated by third parties. Although Molycorp believes that the publications and reports are reliable, it has not independently verified such data.
This presentation uses the term "resources" to describe those quantities of rare earth elements that are potentially recoverable from accumulations yet to be discovered. Because of the uncertainty of commerciality and lack of sufficient exploration drilling, the resources cannot be classified as reserves. Investors are advised that the SEC does not recognize resources. Only probable and possible reserves may be disclosed to investors in an SEC filing. Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence. There is no certainty that any portion of the resources will be discovered and, if discovered, whether they could be developed economically. Therefore, investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Molycorp's resources exists, nor that they can be developed economically. Accordingly, information concerning descriptions of resources contained in this presentation is not comparable to information included in SEC filings.
Jim Allen, +1 303-843-8058
James.Allen@Molycorp.com
ICR, LLC
Gary T. Dvorchak, CFA, +1 310-954-1123
Gary.Dvorchak@icrinc.com


text:
Metal Skull: Interview with Naam: Back From The Woods
JJ Koczan
How have things been for you on Tee Pee Records?
I feel like we got really lucky with Tee Pee being so interested in us. I'm fucking psyched that we're on Tee Pee, because the roster is ridiculous and it's the music that we are all into, for the most part. Even bands like Annihilation Time and Iron Age, more of the faster-paced thrash or hardcore, that's my style too, because before I moved to New York, I was playing a lot of hardcore punk. I'm from Massachusetts and I lived in Boston for a little bit. When I was growing up, my music interests revolved around early age hardcore, Black Flag and Citizens Arrest or whatever. It's cool to be on a label with such a wide range of good music. Heavy psychedelic, hard, aggressive or even just light, weird drone or whatever. It's awesome. The kind of music that matters, I guess. There's so much bullshit, but Tee Pee's got exactly what we fit into.
Well, even just for the amount of bands they have from around Brooklyn and New York. It seems like there's a real vibe there between everybody.
Oh yeah, for sure. Playing shows here, I couldn't ask for better shows for a hometown. I've played around the U.S. in different cities. And even Boston. The scene in Boston is very small and conservative and opinionated. The difference being in New York, people are more into it for the music, I feel. There's just so many people for every genre of music, but especially ours. I never thought there would be such a big scene for it, but it is New York City and there are millions of people here. There's something for everybody and there's a lot for us, I feel. It's a big, growing scene and it's awesome. I love it.
Talk to me about CMJ. The line-ups for those showcases, the day party and the night showcase, are pretty unbelievable.
I'm really excited to play with Nebula again. We went on tour with those guys for a couple days and it was awesome. We went out with them for about six dates and toward the end of that, they were still going and we didn't want to go home. It's going to be really cool to play with those guys again. I'm really psyched to play with them again. Fucking awesome. The line-ups for those shows are awesome. The venues too. The venues are all good times. We just got added to another day show as well with Nebula as well. The Cake Shop and Union Pool shows, and now I think we're playing at Fontana's. The Cake Shop is the day party. There's another show—I can't keep up with all the dates. We're playing a BrooklynVegan thing. It's a BrooklynVegan CMJ showcase during the day. That's at Fontana's, and I don't know the date, but Nebula's playing that one too. It might be the date of the Union Pool show. Lot of good shit for CMJ. We're real busy this month for shows.
And you're hitting the road after?
Yeah, we're hitting the road with Priestess for a couple East Coast dates. It's going to be pretty fun. We all just want to aim to be on the road as much as possible, playing music and touring around. Hopefully we can get to that point and do longer and longer, rather than just a week. But we've got a little tour coming together in January as well that's gonna be good. It's still kind of indefinite now, but it's going to be on the West Coast, I believe. That's all coming together right now and that'll be good.
Naam's self-titled full-length is available now on Tee Pee Records. Naam will be appearing live at the CMJ Music Festival Oct. 22 at the Cake Shop during the day and in the evening Oct. 23 at Union Pool in Brooklyn for Tee Pee's label showcase. More info's at myspace.com/naamdestroysfaces.
JJ Koczan has more of this Q&A on his blog, theobelisk.net. If you can read it there, thank your service provider.
metal skullnaam
Doro Pesch @ Gramercy Theatre
Jello Biafra And The Guantanamo School Of Medicine: The Audacity Of Hype
Metal Skull: Clutch's Tim Sult – A Reliable Source Of Information
Metal Skull: Harvestman: By Wind And Sun — An Interview With Steve Von Till

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Taylor Swift Wrote Lena Dunham's Wedding Song and Just Shared It with the World
That's what friends are for.
By Casey Lewis
Super famous best friends Taylor Swift and Lena Dunham actually have a super normal best friend relationship. They're constantly spotted around New York City doing standard best-friend things like shopping for shoes and going to concerts and baking homemade chocolate chip cookies. (There is no photographic evidence of that last thing, but considering who we're talking about here, it's a more-than-safe assumption to make.)
But, because they are Taylor Swift and Lena Dunham, and also because Lena's boyfriend happens to be Jack Antonoff who happens to be Taylor's frequent collaborator, they do not-so-normal best-friend things too, like write wedding songs for each other and then put them on their highly-anticipated sure-to-be-bestselling albums.
Yesterday, Taylor posted a snapshot of lyrics on Instagram—same as all the 1989 sneak peeks she's revealed this week except there was one notable difference. This isn't merely a lyric to an upcoming 1989 track; it's a lyric to an upcoming 1989 track that's also Lena Dunham's future wedding song. Granted, Lena Dunham is not planning a wedding, nor is she engaged. In fact, she recently said she won't get married until her sister, who's gay, has the right to get married anywhere she wants to (right now, it's legal in 31 states).
But still. This right here is a look at the very song Lena Dunham will walk down the aisle to. Someday. Probably!
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/523026624468373506
Keywordsnewslena dunham taylor swift


text:
Home Contact Us Paul Holmes
Founder & Chair
Paul Holmes, founder and chair of PRovoke Media, has been writing about public relations for more than 25 years. Paul began his career in local newspapers in the north of England and also worked for a newspaper group in South London before joining PR Week as news editor in 1985.
In 1987 he moved to New York to launch the short-lived US edition of that publication, and after that project came to an inglorious end worked with Adweek and Adweek's Marketing Week for a year.
In 1989, he launched his own company, initially publishing Inside PR, and later Reputation Management magazine, both focused on providing analysis of critical trends and issues in the public relations industry. He created the annual Public Relations Agency Report Card, which included profiles of the leading PR firms in the US, and the Creativity in Public Relations Awards, which grew to become the largest in North America.
Early in 2000, Holmes launched The Holmes Group, which provides knowledge and insight to public relations professionals across a variety of platforms, including a website, an e-newsletter, events, printed reports, research and consulting assignments, and the SABRE Awards competition. The group's flagship title, PRovoke Media (p/k/a The Holmes Report), covers the public relations business in the Americas, EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) and the Asia-Pacific region. In 2011, Paul was inducted into the ICCO Hall of Fame.
Content Highlights
The Post-Trump World: Communicators Must Rebuild Confidence In US Institutions
Paul Holmes 13 Nov 2020
Analysis: Rio Tinto Crisis Marks Turning Point For Stakeholder Activism
Paul Holmes 15 Sep 2020
The Age Of Corporate Virtue-Signaling Is Over
Paul Holmes 15 Jun 2020
Loading more ...
PRovoke Media editors
Founder/Chair
@paulholmespr
CEO/Editor-in-Chief
@arunsudhaman
Associate Editor (EMEA)
@SparklyPinchy
Twitter: @paulholmespr
LinkedIn: view profile


text:
Q: C++ macro expansion in include directive In the current draft of the C++ standard (N4830, august 2019) there are the following paragraphs:
[cpp.include] p.2:

A preprocessing directive of the form #include < h-char-sequence > new-line [...]

[cpp.include] p.3:

A preprocessing directive of the form # include " q-char-sequence " new-line [...]

[cpp.include] p.4:

A preprocessing directive of the form # include pp-tokens new-line
  (that does not match one of the two previous forms) is permitted. The preprocessing tokens after include in the directive are processed just as in normal text (i.e., each identifier currently defined as a macro name is replaced by its replacement list of preprocessing tokens). If the directive resulting after all replacements does not match one of the two previous forms, the behavior is undefined. The method by which a sequence of preprocessing tokens between a < and a > preprocessing token pair or a pair of " characters is combined into a single header name preprocessing token is implementation-defined.

The sentence "If the directive resulting after all replacements does not match one of the two previous forms, the behavior is undefined" states that after the macro expansion is performed, the directive must match one of the two forms presented in the previous two paragraphs ([cpp.include]/2 and [cpp.include]/3). I will refer to this operation as check.
The following sentence "The method by which a sequence of preprocessing tokens between a < and a > preprocessing token pair or a pair of " characters is combined into a single header name preprocessing token is implementation-defined" implies that there is an implementation-defined process that transforms a sequence of preprocessing tokens between delimited by < > or by " " into a single preprocessing token (a header-name). I will refer to this operation as process.
My first question is whether process is only applied in the situation described in [cpp.include] p.4. I believe so, because tokenization is performed before processing of preprocessing directives, therefore in the first two forms of the include directive there is exactly one preprocessing token (a header-name) after "#include", not "a sequence of preprocessing tokens between a < and a > preprocessing token pair or a pair of " characters".
My second question is how is check performed? Is it performed before process? If so, is a sequence of preprocessing tokens separated by sequences of white-space characters (a white-space sequence can have zero or more white-space characters) compared to a sequence of characters by going lower in the "parsing hierarchy" (so that each preprocessing token in the first sequence is reverted to the characters forming it)?
For example the sequence of preprocessing tokens: <io[space][space]stream[space]> can be considered to match < h-char-sequence > if <io[space][space]stream[space]> is converted to the sequence of characters [<][i][o][space][space][s][t][r][e][a][m][space][>] (where [.] denotes an individual character)?
Considering that check is done first and it succeeds, then transform should be applied to the sequence of preprocessing tokens in order to transform it to a single preprocessing token (a header-name).
Are the details of these two operations and their ordering correct?
My last question is whether the last sentence in [cpp.include] p.4 is partly wrong. This is because it says: "[...] a sequence of preprocessing tokens between a < and a > preprocessing token pair or a pair of " characters". I do not think that the third form of the include directive can result (even after macro expansion) in a sequence of preprocessing tokens between a pair of " characters, because the " character alone is not a preprocessing token ([lex.pptoken] p.2) so I don't see any sequence of preprocessing tokens that can expand into "a sequence of preprocessing tokens between a pair of " characters".
Thank you.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
/**
 *
 * AdrException wird beim Werfen der Exception ausfegührt.
 *
 * Die Fehlerbehandlung wird jeweils direkt beim Werfen der Exception behandelt,
 * so dass die hier ankommende Meldung nur als "Protokoll" dient und mit super
 * an die übergeordnete Instanz übergeben wird.
 *
 * @author Kponvi Komlan, Thomas Berblinger, Tobias Straub
 * @version 1.0
 *
 */

public class AdrException extends Exception {
	AdrException(String s) {
		super(s);
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Thank you for deciding to register with Restaurant Guides! Registration only takes a few moments and when registered you'll have access to registered-user only services, such as favourites and online booking.
To register, please fill in your details in the following form. Required fields appear in bold.
Notices: I do not wish to receive any advertisment, information, or special offer emails from Restaurant Guides or its selected partners.


text:
Home › Arts and Culture
The best museums in Edinburgh and Glasgow
VisitScotlandAmy Member ✪
April 2016 in Arts and Culture
Love museums? You've come to the right place. Scotland's rich history means we have some of the best.
The Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh tells the nation's story. A must see.
The Riverside Museum, Glasgow. A stunning building packed with more than 3000 exhibits that chart our transport history and a Tall Ship to explore. All free and a favourite for young and the not so young.
The Burrell Collection, Pollok Country Park, Glasgow, holds a breathtaking collection of 8000 beautiful works of art, all collected by a single man, William Burrell.
The Museum of Childhood, Royal Mile, Edinburgh, is small, quirky and will have you rolling back the years to days of tin soldiers, slightly scary dolls and Meccano. A treat for all ages.
Edinburgh and Glasgow were built on the people who lived and worked within their boundaries. Visit the People's Palace at Glasgow Green and the People's Museum in Edinburgh's Canongate to find out who they were.
Both cities have lots of great museums that are worth a visit. Which are your favourites?
eliseandlife VisitScotland Contributor ✭✭
I love the Riverside Museum. The People's Palace, the Huntarian and Kelvingrove in Glasgow are all worth a visit, and the Museum Resource Centre does tours sometimes, it's a great place to look around if you get the chance.
Instagram - Blog - Twitter
Sometimes people think of museums as stuffy boring places and don't even bother visiting. I loved visiting Kelvingrove Museum. A great range of artifacts, a spitfire (yes indoors), modern art and the building itself is quite something.
I love the fact that it is free to enter (although a small donation can be made) and it is suitable for all ages.
Totally agree @FullStopNextChapter - I loved visiting Kelvingrove, for the building as much as the exhibits!
In Edinburgh, a good hidden gem is the Museum on the Mound - you can see a million pounds, try and crack a safe, and get your picture taken with your face on(in) a banknote! All for free.
In Edinburgh, anyone with a fascination for the macabre (or biological science) should visit Surgeon's Hall Museum. As well as containing thousands of jars of human specimens, there's a book which is said to be bound with the skin of notorious murderer William Burke! Creepy, and maybe not for the faint-hearted!
Oh, I've always wanted to check out Surgeon's Hall Museum
@VisitScotlandAmy! I kinda like weird stuff
I only visited the Kelvingrove for the first time recently
@FullStopNextChapter and absolutely loved it. We had a fantastic guide take us around; Clare McLeod from Intermezzo Arts. She was a fountain of knowledge. Great given that I have a short attention span for reading all the wee blurbs!
I absolutely these expressions!
DSC_0303.jpg 6M
My Dad took his grandkids to the National Museum of Flight recently and highly recommends it. The new hangars are really interactive and kept them all entertained. I was quite envious - must add it to my to-do list!
Here's a wee blog piece about all the new exhibits
The Druine Turbulent image © National Museums Scotland
Ever since I was little I've loved wandering through the National Museum of Scotland on Edinburgh's Chambers Street. I'm not so little now, but it's still great to discover something different every time I visit. I'm very intrigued and look forward to the new galleries opening in a couple of months - decorative art, design, fashion, science and technology.
Good timing during the Year of Innovation, Architecture and Design!
travelswithakilt VisitScotland Ambassador ✭✭
Love the National Museum in Edinburgh and loved exploring the cultural scene in Dundee last year - Discovery Point and Verdant Works in particular. Kelvingrove and the Riverside have been lifelong favourites though and wrote about Glasgow's top cultural spots the other week.
Scotland travel blogger and writer with a wee bit of photography and video thrown in. Love nothing more than exploring my home country and have a particular leaning towards the outdoors, history and our national drink.
You can also find me on Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook and Tumblr.
I do like a regular visit to The Writers' Museum inside Lady Stairs House - a tiny and impressive building you can reach by Lady Stairs Close off the Royal Mile. They have a great wee shop too. Also the Museum of Edinburgh is an absolute delight. It is another impressive building on the Royal Mile and quite labyrinthine. You could lose a few hours in there if you're not careful.
Margaret Member ✭✭
Anyone been to the Tenement House in Glasgow - it's an NTS property?? Hoping to visit on next trip to Glasgow,
@Margaret, I would also like to go to the Tenement House. It is indeed a National Trust for Scotland property and about a 20 minute walk from the Glasgow train stations. It's open March - October.
I love the People's Story opposite the Museum of Edinburgh. It depicts people in their own home/workshop and therefore is very visual - not much to read at all which I find is great for people with little English. Like all other council run museums it is free of charge although donations are welcome
Next time you're near the National Musuem of Scotland you should definitely take a look - even if you've been before, as a number of the exhibits have had an overhaul - take a look at the blog for more info: https://www.visitscotland.com/blog/scotland/new-galleries-national-museum-scotland/
image © NMS
Zubenelgenubi Member ✭✭
+1 to the Riverside Museum. The Tall Ship is there as well which is well worth a look (seems so much bigger on the inside!) reasonable cup of coffee too.
Awaiting arrival of witty signature.
Winnie Member ✭✭
I've just been to see the new galleries at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. What an amazing job they have done. The new fashion gallery was definitely my favourite. It's great to see the museum continuing to develop - it means that it appeals to visitors and locals - each time there is something new to discover.
image.jpeg 103.4K
Agree, the new galleries at the national Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh are worth a visit, as is the National Museum of Flight in East Lothian!
I also loved the new galleries at National Museum of Scotland. Something for everyone.
EileanDonan Member ✭✭
In Edinburgh, it has to be the National Museum of Scotland. Visited 5 times and still don't think I've done it justice. Glasgow really has to be Kelvingrove; a national treasure!
I went to Kelvingrove recently for the first time and thought it was great, even though I rushed it a little as I had a train to catch! But I will go back and time it better as I would like to hear the organist play. But my favourite is the People's Palace, complete with The Big Yin's boots!!
Boots.jpg 51.1K


text:
Q: Equivalent Probability Distributions I guess the source of the question would be this, which contains a similar problem:

Let $U_1$ and $U_2$ be two independent random variables, each with uniform distribution on $[0,1]$.  Let the random variable $β_{a, b}$ have $\text{Beta}(a,b)$ distribution, and let $B_p$ be a $\text{Bernoulli}(p)$ random variable that is independent of $β_{a,b}$.  Find $p$, $a$, and $b$ so that $U_2−U_1$ has the same distribution as $(2B_p−1)β_{a, b}$.

Work/Question: By noticing $U_2-U_1$ is the convolution of a uniform on $[0,1]$ and another on $[-1,0]$, we can easily get the distribution as a triangular one i.e.
$$F_{U_2-U_1}(x)=\begin{cases}0 & x<-1 \\ \frac{x^2}{2}+x+\frac{1}{2} & x\in[-1,0) \\ -\frac{x^2}{2}+x+\frac{1}{2} & x\in[0,1)\end{cases}.$$
For the latter, $2B_p - 1$ is 1 with probability $p$ and $-1$ with probability $1-p$, so
$$F_{(2B_p−1)β_{a, b}}(x)=\mathbb{P}\left((2B_p−1)β_{a, b}\leq x,2B_p-1=1\right)+\mathbb{P}\left((2B_p−1)β_{a, b}\leq x, 2B_p - 1 = - 1\right)$$
$$=pF_{\beta_{a, b}}(x)+(1-p)\left(1 - F_{\beta_{a,b}}(-x)\right)$$
$$=\begin{cases} 0 & x<-1 \\ (1-p)\left(1 - F_{\beta_{a,b}}(-x)\right) & x\in[-1, 0) \\ (1-p) + pF_{\beta_{a, b}}(x) & x\in[0,1) \end{cases}.$$
Now equipped with the distributions, I figure we would just equate them and solve for the three. By inspection, I believe $p=\frac{1}{2}$, $a=1$, and $b=2$ solves our problem. To verify this, the latter distribution has for $x\in [-1,0)$
$$\frac{1}{2}\left(1 - \int\limits_0^{-x} \frac{\Gamma (3)}{\Gamma (1)\Gamma (2)} y^0(1-y)^{1}\;dy\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-2(-x-\frac{x^2}{2})\right)=\frac{x^2}{2}+x+\frac{1}{2}$$
as desired and similarly the other equation holds. My only concern is that I feel like this system is underdetermined as there are two equations with three unknowns. Or does $p+(1-p)=1$ and $p\in[0,1]$ constitute a third equation from which this would be considered unique?

A: Your solution is the obvious one, and indeed the only one, as

*

*$U_2−U_1$ is a triangular distribution on $[-1,1]$ symmetric about the mode of $0$.

*Since $2B_p-1$ is $\pm1$, you are going to need $p=\frac12$ to make positive and negative outcomes equally likely.

*$|U_2−U_1|$ has a triangular distribution on $[0,1]$ with a mode of $0$, which you need to match to the distribution of $\beta_{a, b}$ is a $\text{Beta}(1,2)$ distribution, i.e. $a=1, b=2$.
In terms of your analysis $p=\frac12$ is the only possibility for $F_{(2B_p−1)β_{a, b}}(0) = F_{U_2-U_1}(0) =\frac12.$
You can find $a$ and $b$ if you differentiate your CDF to give a density of $f_{|U_2-U_1|}=2-2x=2x^0(1-x)^1$ while for a Beta distribution $f_{\beta_{a, b}} \propto x^{a-1}(1-x)^{b-1}$ and matching coefficients gives your result uniquely.


text:
Contact UsDirectionsParent Login AreaCommunity Partners
Montessori Articles
Elementary Information Night
Acorn Parents Speak
As an independent school, Acorn Montessori School depends on contributions of time, talent, and treasure from all members of the School community. Fundraising and "friend-raising" activities that are held throughout the year help to strengthen ties and raise Acorn's visibility within New Jersey, while also raising essential funds to support and enrich Acorn Montessori School's distinctive, effective, and well-established educational program.
Acorn Montessori School is considered an "independent " school because it runs independently of any local school boards, and instead, is governed by a Board of Trustees comprised of parents, parents of graduates, and community members who are friends of Acorn Montessori School. Like most independent school, the tuition that Acorn Montessori School parents pay covers only about 75% of the cost of educating each student. The Board of Trustees purposely sets tuition below actual cost in order to maintain a fee that is competitive and affordable to a larger number of families. As a result, the School must depend on our sources of income, namely charitable contributions from Trustees, parents, friends, foundations, and corporations to meet all operating expenses.
Hari Bhasin
"Character formation cannot be taught. It comes from experience and not from explanation." Maria Montessori ...
Empowered by KickStart®, a Varident Product
Copyright © Contact Us1222 Route 31, Lebanon, NJ 08833


Using clear silicone caulk, attached each cut stained glass square (6 x 6 & 6 x 6 1/2) to the inside pane.
Using wood screws, attached metal brackets on the four outside corners for additional support.
Using the Dremel, ground out and opening on the bottom for the electrical cord.
Attached hardware on side edges and 50 pound weight hanging wire.
The finished piece weighs 20 pounds. I decided this I rather hang the piece in the front entry versus the guest room so we could enjoy it, which changed the hanging from horizontal to vertical.
Beau helped me hang it up, and I plugged it in and stepped back to for the first appreciative glance and .... UH OH ... either the florescent light is to bright or I should not have choose glass quite this translucent ... or both.
I thought about changing the florescent light out to small clear Christmas lights stapled into the insides, but decided that would also not work well as the wires would be clearly visible. I think the only possible fix will be clear tube lights. So, the next day we headed off to Home Depot for tube lights. But, alas, they consider them a seasonal item ... available for Christmas decorating. I looked online and found I could buy a 6 foot set for about $27. Excuse me, but that is robbery. At Christmas they sell for less than $5. So ... on hold.
But, at least, it still looks decent without the light. I'm going to keep it hanging in the entry as I have a tendency for 'out of sight, out of mind'. I know there is an answer.
What if you put a layer of paper on the back of the glass? That might help diffuse the light, at least.
Lana, Beau & I spent a bit of car time talking about your suggestion ... and, think you might have the perfect solution. It's on tap for Tuesday; going to take it off the wall and give the first try with tissue paper. I'll post an update.


Please meet Grams…my Mom said Grams is a very sweet girl. She lives in California with her Mom in a beautiful new house. My Mom said we are going there for a visit so I can play in their new backyard. I got excited because my Mom said Grams has a treat jar and it's always full! Welcome to the Hooligans Grams!