This course or equivalent knowledge is assumed for all other BCIT COMP courses in Computing Part-time Studies (PTS). Students focus on how a Personal Computer (PC) works and how to apply best practices to secure data and to manage files with Microsoft Window 10. Topics include: An introduction to PC hardware, functions of an operating system (OS), file and disk management, backing up and protecting data, troubleshooting, security, malware and firewalls. Windows 10 Power on self-test, BIOS settings, partitioning, the file system and formatting are also discussed. Hands-on exercises and labs include desktop navigation and using Windows 10 Admin to create user accounts and folder structures. Discussions also include the technical aspects of using Windows 10 in the set-up of a small PC network. There will be a brief comparison of Windows 10 to Windows 7, Linux and Macintosh OS. There are 6 week compressed delivery options for those students with some prior experience, otherwise the 12 week delivery is recommended due to the amount of homework. COMP 1002 is required for the Computer Systems Certificate (CSC), the Applied Computer Information Systems (ACIS), and the Applied Network Administration and Design (ANAD) Associate Certificates. Upon successful completion students will be able to use best practices in a Windows 10 networked environment.
BC Grade 12 English or equivalent.
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class. This is an intensive two week delivery of a twelve week course. Attendance is required every weekday morning. There is a significant amount of homework, reading and practice required every day after class. For some students this could mean 20+ hours of homework each week. Please do not attempt any other course at the same time as this two week (10 day) accelerated course.
Two seats remaining as of Apr 19, 2019 3:42 am PDT. Seats remaining may change at any time prior to registration and payment.
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class. No class May 23.
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class. No class May 21.
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class.
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class. No class April 20 (Easter). Class will be in session May 18 (Victoria Day).
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class. No class May 19 (Victoria Day).
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class. No class June 29 (Canada Day).
As an added bonus, BCIT School of Computing students may be eligible to receive a copy of MS Windows 10 for their own personal use. This is a limited offer. The information will be provided by the Instructor at class. No class June 30 (Canada Day).
Explain how a PC works, and the relationship between hardware and software.
Classify and explain the function of different computer hardware components.
Describe the purpose and functions of an operating system (OS).
Explain OS virtualization and cloud computing.
Identify Windows 10 user interface components, and understand their use.
Customize keyboard, display and mouse functions.
Install and launch software applications.
Create users, groups and account policies.
Explain basic home and enterprise networking principles.
Configure and troubleshoot a basic home network.
Describe basic PC security concepts, malware and firewalls.
Back-up your system and protect your data.
Learn efficient storage management, file maintenance and file organization.
Troubleshoot basic computer issues and use the resources provided by your system.
Compare other operating systems including Linux and Macintosh OS to Windows 10.
Interested in being notified about future offerings of COMP 1002 - Applied Computer Concepts? If so, fill out the information below and we'll notify you by email when courses for each new term are displayed here.


Swedish multinational furniture company IKEA teased a collaboration with Virgil Abloh's OFF-WHITE last June, revealing a reinterpretation of the brand's iconic FRAKTA bag and a variety of rugs marked by Abloh's signature quotation motif.
Since then, little details of the collaboration have not been revealed, until today, as IKEA has announced that it will live stream a conversation with Abloh on his latest creative endeavor.
Those who are interested in joining the conversation with Virgil Abloh are encouraged to ask questions in the comments section of IKEA's most recent picture on Instagram, featured above.
You can also tune in the live broadcast on IKEA's website today, starting 5:30 p.m. EST.
In other IKEA news, the company is testing new food made from insects.


text:
Q: Ansible use 'raw' module to scp from one host to list of hosts (preferably in inventory) I am limited to using the raw module in this task, which is what is causing the complications.
I simply want to grab a file from the local host, and scp it to the list of hosts in my inventory file. I don't want to have to set up ssh keys from all destination hosts to the source host, so I want the scp to go outwards, from source to list of destination hosts. I could do something along the lines of:
raw: "scp {{ file }} {{ user_id }}@{{ item }}:."
with_items: "{{ list_of_hosts }}"

but then i'd have to define the list of hosts in two places, which, with a dynamic list, you don't want to be doing.
Is there any way to have an inventory file such as:
[src-host]
hostA

[dest-hosts]
host1
host2
host3

[dest-hosts:vars]
user_id="foo"
file="bar"

and a playbook such as:
- hosts: src-host

  tasks:

  - raw: "scp {{ file }} {{ user_id }}@{{ item }}"
    with_items: "{{ dest-hosts }}"

EDIT: To clarify based on comment 1, I may ONLY use the 'raw' module due to the limitations of the target (destination) host.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Posted on July 19, 2014 October 11, 2017 by TammiePainter in Books, Books, Books!
This week I finished another of the books I adopted from Waterstone's in London. The stack is dwindling and I now only have two books left. I either need to make them last or plan another trip to the U.K. But with books like Matt Haig's The Humans, Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London, and (this week's read) Jonas Jonasson's The 100-Year Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared, that's going to be hard to do.
As you may have guessed from what is one of the longest titles of any book I've ever read, Jonasson's book is about a 100-year old man who does indeed climb out of a window – the window belonging to the old folks' home he has grown sick of. But he doesn't disappear. Instead, he heads out on an adventure that includes (but isn't limited to) stealing a suitcase full of money from a biker gang, befriending an elephant, and the odd murder or two (completely accidental, well, except for that one….).
Mixed in with his adventures, Allan (the 100-year old man) recounts his life. Allan is very much a go-with-the-flow kind of guy, especially if that flow involves a helping or ten of vodka. This lackadaisical attitude and an aptitude for explosives gets him involved in some of the major affairs in history over the past century from taking both sides in the Spanish Civil War, to getting on Stalin's bad side (is there a good one?), to throwing back drinks with Truman, to helping create the atom bomb and then accidentally giving the plans to the Russians.
Although I would thoroughly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a good laugh while learning a little history, it does drag a bit after the first half. Luckily, it picks up again toward the end of the book. There are funny moments, but more of a oh-that's-clever/cute/unexpected funny rather than a people-are-looking-at-me-oddly-because-I-keep-belting-out-with-laughter funny. Still, it's an entertaining read and has me looking forward to the next book in my stack, The Girl Who Saved the King of Sweden, also by Jonas Jonasson.
I haven't read any of the books in your pile, will have to look out for them!
They just look so forlorn on the store shelves and I hope all my books have been given a better home! Hope you get a chance to read a few of the books in the pile. But the way, if you look for Rivers of London in the U.S., you won't find it; it was released under the title Midnight Riot.
Oh interesting! I live in New Zealand so I wonder what one made its way here.
Looks like it was released as Rivers of London in NZ. I still can't figure out the reasoning for the title change in the States.


text:
TorranceAlerts Policy Changes
Vaccination Info
Weekends in Torrance
COVID-19 TODAY >
TORRANCE TODAY
Homeless or Housing Instability Resources
Torrance Cares
Torrance Cares 4 Seniors
Torrance Cares Connections
Return to Work & Contact Tracing
City of Torrance, CA
TORRANCE AIR
UPDATE 3/31: TORRANCE STRENGTHENS RESPONSE TO COVID-19
TORRANCE, Calif., March 16, 2020- The City of Torrance issued an emergency order to temporarily close bars and nightclubs that do not serve food, movie theaters and entertainment venues, bowling alleys and arcades, and gyms and fitness centers. Restaurants, bars and retail food facilities may not serve food for consumption on their premises but may continue to offer food for delivery, takeout or drive-thru.
This order will strengthen the City's response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), by imposing a more active practice of social distancing. The restrictions will take effect in the City of Torrance beginning at 11:59 p.m. tonight and will remain in place through noon on March 31, 2020. They are subject to extension.
The following establishments within the City of Torrance will be temporarily closed to the public:
Bars and nightclubs that do not serve food;
Movie theaters and entertainment venues;
Bowling alleys and arcades; and
Gyms and fitness centers.
The following restrictions will also apply:
All restaurants will be prohibited from serving food to dine-in customers, but may continue to prepare and offer food via delivery service or take-out;
All breweries and tasting rooms will be prohibited from serving customers, but may continue in the sale of canned, bottled, and growler products to be consumed off of their premises.
Houses of worship are urged to limit large gatherings on their premises and to explore and implement ways to practice their respective faiths while observing social distancing practices.
The following establishments will continue to operate:
Grocery stores will continue to operate and there is no shortage of food or interruption in our food supply;
And cafeterias within hospitals, nursing homes, and similar facilities will continue operations.
The City also ordered a moratorium on evictions of residential and commercial tenants/occupant during this local emergency period if the tenant/occupant is able to show an inability to pay due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The City of Torrance continues to confer with medical experts and follows the consulting guidance from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to cooperatively and proactively slow the spread of COVID-19 while addressing any challenges that may arise due to any outbreak of this disease in the City.
Please sign up with Torrance Alerts to receive updates regarding COVID-19 from the City of Torrance at www.TorranceCA.gov/TorranceAlerts. Alerts regarding COVID-19 will be sent daily to provide updates. For the most up to date information visit www.CityofTorranceCA.com or follow us on social media @TorranceCA.
View Council Agenda & Staff Report
Update 3/31 - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Torrance, California, ratifying and extending the public order (now referred to as public order no. 2020-1) closing all movie theaters, live performance venues, bowling alleys, arcades, gyms and fitness centers, bars and nightclubs that do not serve food and prohibiting all restaurants from serving food for consumption on premises.
2020-14_ratifying_public_order_1.pdf
2020-12_confirming_and_ratifying_powers_of_city_manager.pdf
2020-13_public_order.pdf
3031 Torrance Blvd. Torrance, CA 90503 (310) 328-5310 TorranceCA@TorranceCA.Gov

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Importing html files with es6 template string loader I want to import my templates into my js with es6 template string loader. The only difference in my case is that I don't want to include css, only html. My code is as follows:
import app from '../../bootstrap.js';
import template from './header.html';

app.component('siteHeader', {
  template
});

and my error is Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token export.

A: The solution posted here is correct. Just adding an info to the error i faced when implementing the solution mentioned.
I got the error:  TS2307: Cannot find module './index3.html'
This was because of typescript compilation error.
The work around was here
Had to define a file:  html.d.ts containing the below
declare module '*.html' {
  const value: string;
  export default value
}

A: I recently needed to do the same thing, and this is how I did it.
1. I used the npm module html-loader, instead of es6-template-string-loader
2. Add to webpack.config.js
Webpack 3
...
module: {
    rules: [
        {
            test: /\.html$/,
            exclude: /node_modules/,
            use: {loader: 'html-loader'}
        }
    ]
}
...

Webpack 1 (deprecated, but from original answer):
...
module: {
    loaders: [
        {
            test: /\.html$/,
            loader: "html-loader"
        }
    ]
}
...

3. Use in your JS files
import template from './header.html';

A: Consider using Raw Loader.
Your webpack configuration will contain this:
...
    module: {
        rules: [
            {
                test: /\.tpl.html$/,
                use: 'raw-loader'
            }
        ]
    }
...

In your code write
import tpl from './mytemplate.html';

A: I assume your webpack.config.js is along the lines of this:
...
module: {
    loaders: [
        {
            test: /\.html$/,
            loader: "es6-template-string"
        }
    ]
}
...

The problem is that template-string-loader outputs an exported template string function using ES6 syntax. You'll still need to pass that through babel.
Your configuration should look something like this:
...
module: {
    loaders: [
        {
            test: /\.html$/,
            loader: "babel?presets[]=es2015!es6-template-string"
        }
    ]
}
...

To use it you need to call is as a function:
import app from '../../bootstrap.js';
import template from './header.html';

app.component('siteHeader', {
   template()
});

A: I would use raw-loader instead of text-loader, because it has much more contributors and it's officially mentioned on the webpack documentation: https://webpack.js.org/loaders/raw-loader/
It's a safer choice on the long run. Download link: https://www.npmjs.com/package/raw-loader
webpack.config.js
 module.exports = {
      module: {
        rules: [
          {
            test: /\.(tpl|txt)(\?.*)?$/,
            use: 'raw-loader'
          }
        ]
      }
    }

Now, I can use it to load a template file as a string for  my components, like:
import Vue from 'vue'
import MyTemplate from './template.tpl'

Vue.component('my-component',{
   'template' : MyTemplate
})

A: Try
module: {
          loaders: [
           {
              test: /\.html$/,
              loader: 'html-loader?exportAsEs6Default',
           }
      ]
  }

More info on this config syntax can be read in html-loader repo readme
https://github.com/webpack-contrib/html-loader#export-formats


text:
Apache Drill is an open-source software framework that supports data-intensive distributed applications for interactive analysis of large-scale datasets. Built chiefly by contributions from developers from MapR, Drill is inspired by Google's Dremel system, also productized as BigQuery. Drill is an Apache top-level project. Tom Shiran is the founder of the Apache Drill Project. It was designated an Apache Software Foundation top-level project in December 2016.

Drill supports a variety of NoSQL databases and file systems, including Alluxio, HBase, MongoDB, MapR-DB, HDFS, MapR-FS, Amazon S3, Azure Blob Storage, Google Cloud Storage, Swift, NAS and local files. A single query can join data from multiple datastores. For example, you can join a user profile collection in MongoDB with a directory of event logs in Hadoop.

Drill's datastore-aware optimizer automatically restructures a query plan to leverage the datastore's internal processing capabilities. In addition, Drill supports data locality, if Drill and the datastore are on the same nodes.

Features
One explicitly stated design goal is that Drill is able to scale to 10,000 servers or more and to be able to process petabytes of data and trillions of records in seconds.

 Schema-free JSON document model similar to MongoDB and Elasticsearch, without requiring a formal schema to be declared
 Industry-standard APIs: ANSI SQL, ODBC/JDBC, RESTful APIs
 Extremely user and developer friendly
 Pluggable architecture enables connectivity to multiple datastores
 Apache Drill 1.9 added dynamic user defined functions.
 Apache Drill 1.11 added cryptographic-related functions and PCAP file format support.

Back-end Support
Drill is primarily focused on non-relational datastores, including Apache Hadoop text files, NoSQL, and cloud storage. A notable feature also includes in situ querying of local JSON and Apache Parquet files. Some additional datastores that it supports include:

 All Hadoop distributions (HDFS API 2.3+), including Apache Hadoop, MapR, CDH and Amazon EMR
 NoSQL: MongoDB, Apache HBase, Apache Cassandra
 Online Analytical Processing: Apache Kudu, Apache Druid, OpenTSDB
 Cloud storage: Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Azure Blob Storage, Swift, IBM Cloud Object Storage
 Diverse data formats, including Apache Avro, Apache Parquet and JSON
 RDBMs storage plugins (Using JDBC to connect to MySQL, PostgreSQL, and others)

A new datastore can be added by developing a storage plugin. Drill's "schema-free" JSON data model enables it to query non-relational datastores in-situ .

Front-end Support
Drill itself can be queried via JDBC, ODBC, or REST through a variety of methods and languages including Python and Java. The default install includes a web interface allowing end-users to execute ANSI SQL directly and export data tables as CSV files without any programming.

The dashboard library, Apache Superset, is particularly well suited for visualization of data queried with Drill.

See also

 Cloud computing
 Big data
 Data Intensive Computing

References

Papers
Some papers influenced the birth and design. Here is a partial list:
 2005 From Databases to Dataspaces: A New Abstraction for Information Management, the authors highlight the need for storage systems to accept all data formats and to provide APIs for data access that evolve based on the storage system's understanding of the data.
 2010 Dremel: Interactive Analysis of Web-Scale Datasets

External links

 Apache Drill: Tracking its history as an open source community
 SQL and Hadoop: It's complicated

Drill
SQL
Free system software
Cloud computing
Cloud infrastructure
Free software for cloud computing

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Hiroshima Survivors Look to Obama Visit for Disarmament, Not Apology
Progress on ridding the world of nuclear weapons, not an apology, is what Hiroshima would want from a visit by US President Barack Obama to the Japanese city hit by an American nuclear attack 71 years ago, survivors and other residents said.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said during a visit to the city on Monday that Obama wanted to travel there, though he did not know if the president's schedule would allow him to when he visits Japan for a Group of Seven summit in May, Reuters reported.
No incumbent US president has ever visited Hiroshima.
A presidential apology would be controversial in the United States, where a majority view the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and of the city of Nagasaki three days later, as justified to end the war and save US lives.
The vast majority of Japanese think the bombings were unjustified.
"If the president is coming to see what really happened here and if that constitutes a step toward the abolition of nuclear arms in future, I don't think we should demand an apology," said Takeshi Masuda, a 91-year-old former school teacher.
"It has been really tough for those who lost family members. But if we demand an apology, that would make it impossible for him to come," he told Reuters.
Masuda's mother died a few weeks after being caught in the nuclear attack. At schools where he taught after World War Two, some students had been orphaned, others severely burned.
A US warplane dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing thousands of people instantly and about 140,000 by the end of that year. Nagasaki was bombed on Aug. 9, 1945, and Japan surrendered six days later.
"The Sun Is Falling"
Miki Tsukishita, 75, remembers watching something shiny falling from the sky over Hiroshima that morning. He ran back into his house shouting: "The sun is falling down". That shielded him from direct exposure to the blast, heat and radiation.
He was among those who placed an advertisement in the Washington Post in 1983 urging then-president Ronald Reagan to visit Hiroshima.
Tsukishita wants Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in part for his push for nuclear disarmament, to use his influence to persuade leaders of other nuclear-armed countries to visit Hiroshima too, so they understand the inhumanity of atomic weapons.
"What really matters is not repeating the tragedy. I want him to say to other nuclear states 'I've come to Hiroshima, so should you'," he said.
Hiroshi Harada, a former head of the atomic bomb museum Kerry visited this week, was six when the bomb was dropped.
"At that moment, we saw people burned black, having their skin melted or limbs blown apart. It is unlikely that survivors would be in a cheery, welcoming mood," Harada said.
"But President Obama would be making a very delicate political decision to come to Hiroshima. I would want to accept his visit with hopes that it will lead to the next action (for the abolition of nuclear arms)."
Kerry's Hiroshima Visit Grabs Spotlight at G-7 Meeting
Obama Visits Hiroshima to Ponder Terrible Force Unleashed
Japanese Welcome Obama's Upcoming Hiroshima Visit
Obama to Visit Hiroshima on Asia trip
A-Bomb Survivors' Leader Says Japan Shares Blame, Too


What is the Letter Carrier Political Fund?
The Letter Carrier Political Fund (LCPF) is a non-partisan political action committee (PAC) established for the purpose of electing qualified candidates who support letter carriers and who are committed to maintaining a strong and innovative U.S. Postal Service.
Become a member today by clicking on the link below!
By making a contribution to the Letter Carrier Political Fund, you are doing so voluntarily with the understanding that your contribution is not a condition of membership in the National Association of Letter Carriers or of employment by the Postal Service, nor is it part of union dues. You have a right to refuse to contribute without any reprisal. The Letter Carrier Political Fund will use the money it receives to contribute to candidates for federal office and undertake other political spending as permitted by law. Your selection shall remain in full force and effect until cancelled. Contributions to the Letter Carrier Political Fund are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Federal law prohibits the Letter Carrier Political Fund from soliciting contributions from individuals who are not NALC members, executive and administrative staff or their families. Any contribution received from such an individual will be refunded to that contributor. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 per calendar year. Any guideline amount is merely a suggestion, and an individual is free to contribute more or less than the guideline suggests and the Union will not favor or disadvantage anyone by reason of the amount of their contribution or their decision not to contribute.


text:
File a Request
Role of Member States
Database of Member States
Joining ICSID
Secretariat Staff
Panel of Arbitrators and of Conciliators
Database of Panel Members
Qualifications for the Panels
Designation Procedure
Young ICSID
Arbitration under the ICSID Convention
Arbitration under the Additional Facility
Arbitration under UNCITRAL and Other Non-ICSID Rules
Cost of Proceedings
Mediation and Conciliation
Fact Finding
Appointments & Challenges
Administrative Registry
Hearing Facilities
Virtual Hearings
An interactive database of all ICSID registered cases.
A complete listing of pending cases listed in chronological order from the most recently registered.
Concluded Cases
A complete list of concluded cases listed in chronological order from the most recently concluded.
Caseload Statistics
The ICSID Caseload - Statistics contains a profile of the ICSID caseload since the first case was registered in 1972.
ICSID Rules and Regulations
ICSID Convention
ICSID Additional Facility Rules
Rule Amendment Project
Code of Conduct Project
ICSID Annual Report
ICSID Caseload Statistics
Database of ICSID Cases
Database of ICSID Member States
Database of CVs of ICSID Arbitrators
Speeches and Articles
Speeches & Articles March 10, 2020
2019 John E.C. Brierley Memorial Lecture - Continuity and Change in the ICSID System: Challenges and Opportunities in the Search for Consensus
In the 2019 John E.C. Brierley Memorial Lecture, Meg Kinnear reflected on the enduring qualities of the ICSID dispute resolution system, as well as how ICSID continues to evolve.
Thank you, Professor Bjorklund, Professor Gélinas, Dean Leckey and colleagues. It is an honour for me to be here tonight.
I suspect that I am the first person to do this lecture who was a student at McGill Law School when John Brierley was the Dean. In those days, Dean Brierley would address the incoming class in this very room, on the first day of class, with the legendary words: "Look to your left, look to your right….one of those people will not be here by January." Of course, at least two people were looking at you at that very moment, so the speech had an indelible impact. In all honesty, I have to admit that I still get nervous when I enter this room, and I have to consciously remind myself that I did survive past January 1981.
I remain incredibly grateful to Dean Brierley and to my professors from that time. I recognize what a fine legal education I received and how it provided me with an amazing career that has taken me to places and provided opportunities—and challenges—that I never even knew existed on that first day in this room. So, it truly is a privilege to be here this evening.
Continuity in the ICSID System
Professor Gélinas has given me a broad, and slightly intimidating, title for this lecture: "Continuity and Change in the ICSID System: Challenges and Opportunities in Search of Consensus". I trust, therefore, that you will understand that my remarks will cover a broad range of topics. I would like to start by noting some of the elements of continuity.
By way of introduction, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is one of the five institutions that comprise the World Bank Group. Commentators often use the initials ICSID and ISDS, which stands for investor-State dispute settlement, interchangeably. While this is not technically correct, there is some logic to it. It reflects the extent to which ICSID, the institution, has framed ISDS, the legal discipline.
ICSID was the first arbitral institution—and it remains the only one—dedicated to this field. ICSID offers arbitration and conciliation rules tailored to the characteristics of cross-border disputes between foreign investors and host States. It also has a uniquely effective enforcement mechanism: an award of an ICSID tribunal is enforceable simply by filing that award in the courts of any of the 154 ICSID Member States.
Over the years ICSID has administered more than 70 percent of all known ISDS cases and set the precedents that have defined the field.
Established in 1966, ICSID was the inspiration of a Dutch lawyer named Aron Broches.[1] Broches had emigrated to the United States in 1933 to study law at Fordham University. In 1945, he returned to Holland for the first time after the Second World War to find that his parents, siblings and extended family had not survived the Holocaust. In addition, the assets of his family business, the Broches Cigarette Company, had been looted during the war. Broches therefore well understood the position of an investor whose assets have been taken by government action. Without a doubt, Broches' personal history led to his lifelong commitment to internationalism, and in 1946 he became a member of the Dutch delegation to the Bretton Woods Conference. That conference ultimately created two pillars of our modern international economic architecture—the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Broches then joined the Legal Department of the newly formed World Bank, and over his career played a major role in the creation of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which encourages private sector enterprise in less developed countries, the International Development Association (IDA), which provides loans and grants to the world's poorest nations, and ICSID, which, of course, offers dispute settlement between foreign investors and host States.
The original purpose of the ICSID Convention was to encourage private sector investment abroad by offering a way to resolve disputes that might arise in the course of the investment. At a macro level, this contributed to a climate of mutual confidence in which investors were willing to invest in other States and bring much needed jobs, know-how, technology, and other economic benefits. Unfortunately, this rationale is sometimes obscured in our modern-day debate on ISDS. Nonetheless, it remains one of the key rationales for the ICSID system, and it must be mentioned under the rubric of continuity. Encouraging private sector investment today is more relevant than ever before, when the need is so great, and when it is clear that public sector funding alone cannot meet all the needs of all people.
While the original intent of ICSID was to encourage private flows of investment, it has also played a significant role in the retention and expansion of existing foreign investment. In addition, ICSID underpins international investment obligations between States. ICSID helps make States accountable for the treaty and contractual promises they make to one another, which in turn prevents conduct that would otherwise breach these promises.
This role in dispute prevention is a relatively new response to concern about ISDS. In fact, States are increasingly managing ISDS risk by creating internal administrative mechanisms that pre-empt conflicts by identifying and addressing problems early, before they mature into arbitral disputes. Perhaps the best-known example is in Korea, where an ombudsman system provides a one-on-one service to foreign investors by investigating and resolving problems at an early stage—an investment 'doctor', so to speak.[2]
The World Bank has initiated a program called the Systemic Investment Response Mechanism with a similar goal.[3] It seeks to avoid disputes by designating a lead agency domestically, establishing an early alert system for potential disputes between foreign investors and the host State, and identifying problem-solving techniques such as third-party facilitation. Experience shows that success hinges on a sufficiently senior level of political decision-making to support early resolution, and to ensure a commitment to enforce negotiated resolutions. This shift to prevention and early resolution is important and reinforces the overall value of ICSID and ISDS.
Another element of continuity is that the ICSID system remains a procedural mechanism. It does not provide substantive obligations, and this is by design. In 1966, States could not reach a multilateral agreement on the substance of investment obligations, despite decades of efforts in Europe and North America to do so. And this is still the case—efforts to negotiate substantive multilateral obligations have not succeeded. This is reflected in the well-known negotiations at the OECD over a Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which concluded in 1998 without agreement on the text.[4]
As such, the disputes adjudicated in the ICSID system are those that arise under treaties and contracts negotiated by States. In other words, the substantive obligations at issue are very much defined and controlled by States, which is the essence of State sovereignty.
This may be seen as a strength or a weakness of the system, depending on your perspective. But it is an approach that is not likely to change soon. Indeed, the current multilateral reform discussions are very much based on procedural and architectural reform, rather than changes to substantive obligations.
In terms of continuity, it is also important to note that, from the beginning, there has been a clear commitment in the ICSID system to balancing the interests of investors and of host States. In the current discussion on multilateral reform of ISDS, how to get that balance right is one of the overarching themes and challenges. This need for balance is especially important as ICSID amends its own procedural rules for ISDS—which I will discuss in a moment. We recognize that a set of rules that is perceived either as overly in favor of claimants or of respondents will become ineffective and irrelevant very quickly.
Finally, I wanted to note that we see significant continuity in the day-to-day trends of ISDS. For example, the number of new cases at ICSID is roughly stable at about 50 per year.[5] These cases come from all over the globe, but the leading regions are eastern Europe and Central Asia (26%), South America (22%), and sub-Saharan Africa (15%).[6] Cases have also clustered around a few countries, notably Argentina related its 1990s fiscal crisis (55 cases); Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (35 cases); and, more recently, Spain in connection with changes to its renewable energy polices (around 40 cases).[7]
The outcome of cases has also been fairly steady over time. About 35% of cases are resolved before going to a final award; States continue to win slightly more than half of cases; and investors receive on average about 40% of what is claimed when they are successful.[8] We know that the bulk of cases are in the extractive sectors, such as oil, gas and mining, but of course all sectors have been the subject of disputes.[9] We have also seen that, increasingly, cases have concentrated under a few treaties, including the Energy Charter Treaty and NAFTA.[10]
Some would say that we are on the cusp of a big change with respect to the existence of ISDS, suggesting that the number of treaties with investment obligations or with ISDS has reduced significantly and will continue to decline—in turn leading to a decrease in use of ISDS mechanisms.
I recognize that this is especially top of mind in North America with the proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which would omit ISDS between Canada and the US after a legacy period, and would reduce ISDS significantly between Mexico and the US.
However, I do not share the conclusion that IIAs or ISDS are in decline. It is empirically true that fewer investment treaties have been concluded in the last 5-10 years. But it seems to me that simply stating this number is insufficient. Most of the treaty relationships which were entered into in the 1990s and 2000s remain in force today. Over 186 States currently have IIAs, and over 2600 IIAs are currently in effect, most of them bilateral investment treaties (BITs).[11]
It is more accurate to say that we are seeing a recalibration. For example, we have seen a lot of change in the form and substance of treaties: they have gone from short to long—from 5 to 50-page BITs, reflecting more specific definitions of obligations, more precise procedural requirements, and more pre-conditions to triggering a treaty claim.
IIAs are also increasingly regional, although bilateral treaties are still in the majority. They are also increasingly between different partners, and the traditional concept of North-South treaty partners—resulting in North-South litigation—has shifted. Today we see more North-North and South-South IIAs, as well as more claims involving investors from emerging and developing countries.
The trend is also toward investment obligations embedded in a full free trade agreement, rather than as a stand-alone BIT. And these obligations are frequently based on a model agreement that States use as a template for negotiation. In fact, over 60 countries have recently developed a model BIT, many of them with sustainable development aspects, and these may well inspire a new generation of IIAs.[12]
In short, with respect to investment treaties and ISDS, we are seeing a reaffirmation of the mechanism, with some updating to reflect the priorities of States.
This is reinforced by what I see on the ground. Last week, for example, at a conference in Xi'an, China, I heard representatives of the Chinese government note the importance of IIAs and ISDS and their commitment to the system. This is a message I hear from many other ICSID Member States. At the same time, we have heard a desire to change some aspects of the system. And that takes us to the 'change', 'challenge', 'opportunity', and, hopefully, 'consensus' part of the equation.
Change, Challenges and Opportunities
Let's start with change.
In the past 2 years, two major multilateral initiatives have been established in the investment field.
The first is under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The second is at ICSID, in accordance with the provisions for amendment of the Centre's rules. While there are areas of overlap between the areas being addressed and the membership of each institution, they are distinct initiatives with their own objectives and time frames.
The UNCITRAL process is led by its Working Group III, which has gone through an extensive scoping mechanism and come up with a very broad set of objectives to address.[13] While a large list, it should be noted that Member States have clearly reiterated that the mandate of UNCITRAL is limited to procedural reform and should not address substantive standards. In addition, the EU has proposed an investment court model for resolving investment disputes, and China has recently endorsed an Appellate Body model. So, there are also some structural issues on the list for discussion.
For ICSID, obviously, many of the changes I have discussed earlier with respect to IIAs will be seen in the cases we receive, and our job is to ensure we remain fit for purpose.
We do so in several ways, but tonight I want to note two in particular: our arbitrator diversity initiative and our rules amendment process.
Diversity is a key demand of all participants in the process, and reflects on the very legitimacy of the system. At ICSID, we have made a strong effort to diversify the arbitrators that hear ICSID cases from three perspectives: diversity in regional origin, gender and new entrants. The latter refers to individuals appointed for the first time to an ICSID tribunal.
ICSID promotes diversity in several ways. The ICSID Panel of Arbitrators and Panel of Conciliators—which currently has 680 designees—is important for advancing diversity.[14] ICSID encourages its Member States to consider diversity when designating individuals to the Panels. ICSID is also often called upon to assist parties in identifying suitable candidates for tribunals. This is done through a ballot system, in which multiple candidates are proposed and the claimant and respondent identify candidates they would both support. We are mindful of geographic and gender diversity when developing the ballot. ICSID also looks for opportunities to raise the profile of up-and-coming individuals in the field, such as through its journal and events.
In terms of gender diversity, we have gone from 5 percent female arbitrators in 2010 to 25 percent in the last two years.[15] So, there has been good progress, but there is a lot more distance to go. Initiatives like "The Pledge" for gender diversity and the new initiative with respect to African arbitrators called "The Promise" are helping to move this agenda forward.
It is important to note that ICSID only appoints about 20-25 percent of the arbitrators in cases, and so real change will also depend on parties making diverse selections. Understandably, parties may be concerned about appointing arbitrators they don't know for cases that can have such important ramifications for their clients. But progress is being made and must continue.
I would like to finish by reviewing the ICSID rule amendment process that is currently underway. As you would expect, this is a procedural reform, intended to update the existing ICSID rules and to propose some new rules.
ICSID launched the process in late 2016, beginning with a scoping exercise to see what topics stakeholders wanted to address. Since then we have published three working papers with proposed amendments, hosted two in-person consultation meetings with Member States, and organized literally hundreds of presentations and webinars with State officials and the public. This has been the most transparent amendment process in our history, with feedback encouraged from all interested States, individuals and organizations. The proposals and all input received on them are published on the ICSID website.[16]
It has also become the most comprehensive reform process in ICSID's history. Most of the procedural questions raised in the UNCITRAL reform have been addressed in the ICSID proposals. However, the structural issues, such as the possibility of an appellate mechanism or court system, have been left for the UNCITRAL process, where we are an active participant in the discussions. I should also note that the ICSID and UNCITRAL Secretariats are collaborating on a draft proposed Code of Conduct for arbitrators, which could ultimately be incorporated into the ICSID system in the form of arbitrator or conciliator declarations.
By its nature, the ICSID reform process is, and should be, a shorter discussion than the UNCITRAL discussion, which I take as a good thing. It means that concrete and pragmatic changes can be initiated in a relatively short time frame.
The goal of these amendments is to modernize the rules based on our experience, best practices, and user feedback.[17] We are updating the language of the rules to make them gender neutral and address any translation inconsistencies. The provisions have also been slightly reordered to put them in a more user-friendly order that reflects the sequencing in a typical case.
A major goal has been to address concerns about time and cost, as well as a range of other topics raised in the reform discussions on ISDS. At the same time, all of this must be done in a way that respects the balance between investors and States or claimants and respondents in the process.
Our approach also included providing more options for ISDS mechanisms. As a result, the ICSID conciliation rules have been significantly modernized; we have proposed a stand-alone set of investment mediation rules; and we have proposed a stand-alone set of fact-finding rules. The latter have a very specific remit: to find a fact that is central to the resolution of a dispute.
As mentioned, decreasing the time and cost of arbitration is a goal—and one that many commentators have raised during the consultations. Frankly, it is also a difficult problem to solve. We studied where delay occurs and there is no one reason—each case is idiosyncratic. Interestingly, while everyone agrees in principle on decreasing the overall time of a case, it is hard to identify where this can be done. Indeed, during our consultations we have heard areas where parties feel they need more time, and the places for reducing time are not always evident. As a result, we proposed a multi-track approach. One is a general duty on arbitrators and parties to act in a time-effective way.[18] Another is to prescribe shorter time frames for a number of steps in the arbitration process; for example, it is proposed that a challenge to an arbitrator must be brought within 21 days of the relevant event that gives rise to the challenge coming to light.[19] We have also proposed case management conferences and—more generally—encouraged a more proactive role for arbitrators in case management.[20] Some feel this is contrary to the basic notion of arbitration as a party-driven process. But most commentators have welcomed this approach, having seen it work well in domestic courts and increasingly in commercial arbitration.
We have also set specific times for delivery of decisions, orders and awards. This includes the expectation that a final award would be rendered within 8 months of the final submissions.[21] In doing so, we wanted to set a timeline that reflected the actual task at hand—ICSID cases are often complex, so we felt this was a reasonable time frame. Compliance with these timelines will be tracked on the ICSID website, giving parties more information when they make decisions about party appointed arbitrators. We have also mandated electronic filing of all documents, which will be a time and cost saver for parties.[22] And we have proposed voluntary consolidation or coordination of cases, trying to take advantage of efficiencies even when cases cannot formally be consolidated. Finally, we have developed an optional expedited arbitration process.[23] This is a process that parties can opt into—and if followed, would reduce the length of a case by roughly half.
Another topic we are addressing is third-party funding. We heard a wide range of views on third-party funding, from doing nothing to banning it outright. Clearly, finding consensus was going to be a challenge. The proposal made requires disclosure of the existence of third-party funding and the name of the funder at the earliest possible moment; an obligation that continues throughout the duration of a case.[24] This information would be provided to potential arbitrators prior to appointment to avoid inadvertent conflicts of interest. It is an approach that is consistent with the majority of treaties—of which there are few—that address the issue of third-party funding. The proposed rule does not require disclosure of the actual funding agreement, which many felt was unnecessary and risked interfering with confidential business information and solicitor-client privilege. However, if disclosure of further information or portions of the third-party funding agreement become relevant to an issue in dispute in a case, the tribunal has residual authority to order production of the funding agreement—as is currently the case.
Some comments suggested that third-party funding increases the likelihood of frivolous claims and wanted this addressed in the new rules. However, the ICSID rules have mechanisms in place to address frivolous claims, including the review of the request for arbitration by the Secretary-General before registration, the possibility for a respondent to obtain an early dismissal of a case due to manifest lack of legal merit, and costs awards. Therefore, it was felt that there was not a need to address frivolous claims arising from third-party funding as a separate category.
The proposed rules have expanded the requirements for arbitrator declarations, including the requirement to list all ISDS cases in which the arbitrator has been involved.[25] Arbitrators would also be required to complete a calendar indicating their availability. This is an effort to provide parties with more and better information at the start of the process.
You will note that the proposals do not purport to ban double hatting—that is, the practice of individuals serving as both counsel and arbitrators in ISDS cases—which is another controversial subject in ISDS.[26] There are real questions about whether to ban double hatting and, therefore, the proposal focusses on having the information needed to assess whether there is actually a justifiable doubt as to impartiality or independence of an arbitrator in the particular circumstances of the case.
The rules on awarding costs have been updated to add certain criteria arbitrators should consider when exercising their discretion in this area, including the outcome of the proceeding, party conduct, the complexity of the issues and the reasonableness of the claim for costs.[27] We have not added presumptions on costs or a cost-follows-the-event rule, on the basis that it is better to give tribunals discretion to consider a range of relevant factors when deciding how to allocate costs.
A new provision allowing security for costs is included in the proposed rules.[28] The proposal specifies conditions for ordering security for costs and it is not meant to be automatic. These conditions try to reflect the balance between investors and States, noting the ability and willingness to pay adverse costs, and also the impact of an order for security for costs on an investor's ability to pursue its case. The security for costs provision specifically notes that third-party funding may be evidence going to the relevant criteria, but in-and-of-itself is not a basis for ordering security for costs. Again, the idea is not to punish a party for having third-party funding. It is to keep the balance in the system.
Transparency is another difficult discussion, again because there is no real consensus among States or stakeholders on the correct level of transparency. It is important to understand that the ICSID provisions on transparency are basically a default provision. This is because most parties address transparency in their treaties, in which case these provisions apply to the proceeding. In addition, States desiring a very high level of transparency can do so by ratifying the Mauritius Convention. Nonetheless, my hope is that this is an area where we can reach consensus by recognizing the proposals to advance transparency—namely through increased publication of awards, decisions and orders—while also reflecting the positions of many governments that are not ready to have a fully open process. Whether you think this is correct or not, it is clearly an area where consensus will not be reached if everyone holds firmly to their own negotiating position.
The final change I would like to draw to your attention is the increased scope of the ICSID Additional Facility Rules.[29] These rules have traditionally been available where only one party is an ICSID Member State or a national of an ICSID Member State. The proposed Additional Facility Rule expands this significantly to give access in situations where neither party is an ICSID Member State or national of one. We think this is an important proposal, as it provides parties with a set of investment-specific rules even if they are not members of ICSID.
The amended Additional Facility Rules would also broaden access to include regional economic integration organizations (REIOs), reflecting the new generation of treaties that are being negotiated by REIOs, such as the European Union.
Seeking Consensus
And now to the final part of this speech: consensus.
In terms of the UNCITRAL process, I have no doubt there will be consensus on various items, but that this will take significantly more time than the ICSID amendment process. At ICSID, we are focused on obtaining consensus in the very near term. To pass the amended rules we need two-thirds of the membership to approve the rules regulating ICSID Convention proceedings, and fifty-percent to approve the Additional Facility, Fact-Finding and Mediation Rules.[30]
My sense from speaking to many Member States is that they feel we have gone in the right direction and that they will be able to support the proposed amendments. But, of course, this is to be determined. Next month we are holding our third consultation meeting with Member States, and I hope that over the next year we will hold a vote on the rules, and that they will be adopted, paving the way to begin implementing them in early 2021. In short, we will open yet another chapter of continuity and change in the ICSID system.
[1] For a detailed history of ICSID, see Antonio R Parra, The History of ICSID, 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).
[2] See Republic of Korea, Foreign Investment Ombudsman, "Foreign Investment Ombudsman: Home" online: <http://ombudsman.kotra.or.kr/eng/index.do>.
[3] World Bank, "Good Regulatory Practice: A Multi-Year Program to Improve Regulatory Quality in Developing Countries" (March 2015) World Bank Program Profile 1 at 2 online (pdf): <http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/57401456860309504/Good-Regulatory-Practice-Program-Overview-03-15.pdf>.
[4] OECD, "Multilateral Agreement on Investment" online: OECD <https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/multilateralagreementoninvestment.htm>.
[5] ICSID, 'The ICSID Caseload – Statistics" (2019) ICSID Issue 2019-2 at 7 online (pdf): <https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/ICSID_Web_Stats_2019-2_(English).pdf>.
[6] Ibid at 12.
[8] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, "International Investment Agreements Navigator" online: UNCTAD <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement>.
[9] ICSID, "Caseload Statistics", supra note 6 at 12.
[10] Ibid at 11.
[11] UNCTAD, "International Investment Agreements Navigator", supra note 9 online: <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements>.
[12] Ibid at <https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/model-agreements>.
[13] UNGAOR, 52nd Sess, "Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-sixth session (Vienna, 29 October – 2 November 2018)" (6 November 2018) A/CN.9/964 at 4 ff, and see, generally, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, "Working Group III: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform" online: UNCITRAL <https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/3/investor-state>.
[14] See Meg Kinnear, "Advancing diversity in international dispute settlement" World Bank Blogs (8 March 2019), online (blog): <https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/advancing-diversity-international-dispute-settlement>, and see OECD, Investment Division, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Appointing Authorities and the Selection of Arbitrators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: An Overview, OECD Compilation of Initial Comments Received, (Paris: OECD, March 2018) 1 at 8.
[15] ICSID, "Caseload Statistics", supra note 6 at 30. For more statistics, see, generally, ICSID, "ICSID Annual Reports" online: ICSID <https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/resources/ICSID-Annual-Report.aspx>.
[16] All materials related to the amendment process, including the working papers and comments from States and the public, are available at ICSID, "ICSID Rules and Regulations Amendment Process" online: ICSID <https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Amendments>.
[17] All rule amendment proposals described in this article are those published in ICSID: "Working Paper #3: Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules" (August 2019) ICSID Working Paper #3 vol 1 online (pdf): <https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/WP_3_VOLUME_1_ENGLISH.pdf>.
[18] Ibid at 32, "Arbitration Rule 2".
[19] Ibid at 40, "Arbitration Rule 22".
[20] Ibid at 45, "Arbitration Rule 32".
[22] Ibid at 33, "Arbitration Rule 4(2)".
[23] Ibid at 73—8, 'Arbitration Rules 74-85.
[26] Ibid at 299, para 68.
[27] Ibid at 56—7, "Arbitration Rules 49-51".
[29] Ibid at 101, "Additional Facility Rules".
[30] Article 6(1) of the ICSID Convention authorizes the ICSID Administrative Council to adopt administrative and financial regulations for the Centre, as well as rules of procedure for the institution and conduct of arbitration and conciliation proceedings. See ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules, April 2006, ICSID/15 online (pdf): <https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/2006%20CRR_English-final.pdf>.
FOR STATES
How to Join ICSID
FOR PARTIES
Database of Arbitrators
For Arbitrators
Becoming an ICSID Arbitrator
Managing Case Finances
@2021 International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. All Rights Reserved.
User Agreement | Privacy Agreement


Synth-meister Jarre reopens the Oxygene book and provides us with a bunch more chapters. This album is every bit as good as the original, though the tracks aren't as familiar. I particularly like part 10, for some reason.


text:
Morley delays climate change strategy review as emissions grow
23 June 2005, source eddie newsroom
Environment Minister Elliot Morley has delayed the launch of the revised Climate Change Programme until the end of the year as the government struggles to keep emissions under control.
The revised programme was due to be unveiled at the end of this month and should form a central part of delivering the UK emissions reduction commitments.
However, speaking at a two-day carbon trading conference in London, Mr Morley said that more time was required to take into account other pieces of ongoing work such as the Energy Efficiency Innovation Review and commitments in the 2005 Budget such as carbon capture and storage.
"The revised timetable will also allow us to take into greater consideration the level of the cap for the second phase of the EU emissions trading scheme which is occurring in parallel to the Climate Change Programme review," he said.
He stressed that the UK was still committed to achieving its goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010.
However, this goal seems increasingly unattainable. Recent figures have shown that emissions from the UK are in fact increasing (see related story) and that a cut of 11 to 14% was a more likely outcome.
The emissions rise was recorded across most of the EU (see related story) and has been attributed to increasing use of coal for energy production as gas prices soar worldwide.
Despite this, the UK is still on track to meet its Kyoto commitments. Publishing a revised climate change programme highlighting its slipping record during Britain's presidency of the G8, however, could be extremely embarrassing.
By David Hopkins


text:
Drienerfmuur (Moehringia trinervia) is een eenjarige- of tweejarige plant die behoort tot de anjerfamilie (Caryophyllaceae). De plant komt van nature voor in Eurazië. Drienerfmuur lijkt veel op vogelmuur (Stellaria media), maar deze heeft zeer diep ingesneden kroonbladen, waardoor het lijkt of er tien kroonbladen zijn.

De plant wordt 15-30 cm hoog en heeft een liggende of opstijgende, behaarde stengel. De donkergroene, spitse, tot 2,5 cm lange bladeren zijn eirond en meestal drienervig, vandaar de naam drienerfmuur. Soms komen ook bladeren met vijf nerven voor. De middelste nerf is behaard. De onderste bladeren zijn gesteeld.

Drienerfmuur bloeit van mei tot de herfst met witte, 4-7 mm grote bloemen. De spitse kelkbladen zijn lancetvormig. De kroonbladeren zijn korter dan de kelk. De stamper heeft drie stijlen.

De vrucht is een doosvrucht, die met kleppen openspringt. De zwarte, gladde zaden hebben een aanhangsel.

De plant komt voor in loofbossen en onder struikgewas op droge, matig voedselarme grond.

Namen in andere talen
De namen in andere talen kunnen vaak eenvoudig worden opgezocht met de interwiki-links.
 Duits: Dreinervige Nabelmiere
 Engels: Three-nerved Sandwort
 Frans: Moehringie à trois nervures

Externe link

Anjerfamilie
drienerfmuur


These pink ruffled bloomers are fit for a true pastel pink princess!
With soft plush layers of the fluffiest and most luxurious material, these shorts will ensure you feel pampered and adorable!
A generous elastic waist, ruffles, and lovely ribbons make these perfect for kawaii outfits, lolitas, fairy kei coords, and little cuties!
Made of quality fabric and materials.
One size fits most little princesses size XS-Medium best.
Pro Kawaii Fashion Tip: Pair these adorable bloomers with a pair of matching pink kawaii striped thigh high stockings, also available in our shop!


text:
Conroy: EFA deliberately misled public on filter
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has again accused the leaders of Electronic Frontiers Australia of deliberately misleading the Australian public in its campaign against the Government's internet filtering project.
Journalistic freedom organisation Reporters without Borders on Friday released what it called its 'Enemies of the Internet' report, noting it was concerned that online censorship may enter the nation through the filtering project driven by Conroy.
"While one could possibly excuse Reporters without Borders for their ignorance of the government's policy, the same cannot be said of the local … Electronic Frontiers Australia, who through Colin Jacobs, chairman Nic Suzor and board member Geordie Guy, have run a campaign to deliberately mislead the Australian public," Conroy said in the Senate today, after publicly lambasting the report yesterday.
The EFA has published its own response to Conroy, saying it was still awaiting a solid defence of the filter policy that references evidence that the filter would help Australian children.
"They have argued there is no child abuse material traded on the open internet," said Conroy today. "Yet at the latest count, there were 355 child abuse URLs on the [Australian Communications and Media Authority] blacklist and therefore on the open internet."
Conroy also said the EFA had argued that filtering would slow the internet and result in overblocking, despite what he said was the Government's independent report into the filtering plan.
Last week Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey launched an attack on the filtering scheme, in one of the first cases of a senior Opposition figure coming out publicly against the controversial policy.
"What we have in the government's Internet filtering proposals is a scheme that is likely to be unworkable in practice. But more perniciously it is a scheme that will create the infrastructure for government censorship on a broader scale," he said.
But Conroy wasn't impressed.
"In 1999, the previous government — including Mr Hockey — supported the bill to prevent refused classification content from being hosted on Australian websites," he told the Senate, appearing to imply that Hockey's stance last week was hypocritical.
The filter legislation was slated to be introduced into the Federal Parliament this week, but the Government appears to be struggling to get its legislation through the Senate, due to what both the Government and the Greens have claimed is obstructionism by the Opposition.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has claimed the filter legislation will have to wait until after the next Federal election.
Image credit: Office of Stephen Conroy
Conroy trusts public's "common sense" on filter
Filter: Conroy to debate EFA, Newton tonight
Ludlam tells Conroy: Australia is standing up right now
IT'S DEAD: Opposition to block Labor's filter
Conroy misleads public on Internet filter
electronic frontiers australia
scott ludlan
Alex Schlotzer 16/03/2010 at 4:42 pm
Good work to EFA for getting under Conroy's skin in such a way as to cause him to respond in this manner. It's disappointing that Conroy still thinks that his "filter" is worthwhile. Although it is heartening to see organisations like Reports without Borders include Australia in its 'Enemies of the Internet' report. It seemed to me that Australia was getting away with such a bad policy without real international attention or condemnation.
lorro 20/09/2010 at 7:13 pm
Careful, Conroy may censor EFA's website. No hiding the truth once it is out Conroy.


text:
Schneider's preseason shutout streak lasts 158:29 minutes
By Ryan DadounSep 24, 2013, 10:42 PM EDT
With just 91 seconds left in regulation time, New Jersey Devils goaltender Cory Schneider surrendered a power-play goal to Philadelphia's Kimmo Timonen, but held on to preserve the 2-1 victory. In other words it was a moot goal in a game that didn't even count.
Except to say it was the only goal that Schneider allowed in his first preseason run with the Devils. For 158:29 minutes he was perfect. It was a stretch both impressive and ultimately futile, as Martin Brodeur was already tapped as the team's opening game starter last week.
For his part, Schneider shrugged off the accomplishment.
"Come the start of the year no one is going to care what happened," Schneider told the Star-Ledger. "They're going to care going forward."
True, but this serves as a small preview of what the New Jersey Devils' goaltending controversy might look like this season.
Forget his preseason numbers. Either way, Schneider is a superb goaltender worthy of a starting gig, but Brodeur is a legend gearing up for what could be his final season. Assuming Brodeur doesn't suffer a significant injury or completely fall apart, it's hard to imagine the Devils benching Brodeur for long stretches of time, even if Schneider ends up producing statistically superior numbers.
Speaking of which Brodeur, who hasn't been nearly as good in the preseason, will wrap up the Devils' exhibition schedule on Thursday.
Follow @RyanDadoun