text:
NPS MedicineWise podcast
Episode 33: Talking to parents about the COVID vaccine
In this episode, NPS MedicineWise medical advisor Dr Caroline West interviews Professor Julie Leask to discuss the COVID 19 vaccination and it's availability to children over the age of 12. They discuss the hesitancy some parents have toward the vaccines and how to address the questions parents have.
Professor Leask works with the Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, the Sydney Institute for Emerging Infectious Diseases, is a Visiting fellow for the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance and works at the Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia
NPS MedicineWise · Episode 33: Talking to parents about the COVID vaccine
Dr. Caroline West
Hello and welcome. I'm Dr. Caroline West. I'm a GP and I'm the new NPS MedicineWise Medical Advisor. Today's podcast is brought to you by NPS MedicineWise and the National Center for Immunization Research and Surveillance.
Now, getting kids vaccinated for COVID is thought to be a community game changer, and in Australia, those over the age of 12 are now eligible for the Pfizer vaccine. The good news is that vaccine rates in general are nudging towards levels that will allow us to return to a new normal. Kids will be getting back to the classroom, seeing their friends again, and that will be a welcome relief. But for health professionals, there's still much to be done and many questions to be answered, especially from parents who may be hesitant. Just why is it important to vaccinate kids over 12? Is it safe? And how do we have conversations about all of this?
Joining me on the program today is Professor Julie Leask, who's at Sydney University School of Nursing and Midwifery, and she's an expert in immunization and an advisor to the World Health Organization.
Welcome, Julie. I know as a GP, there are still plenty of questions that we're all fielding out there about the COVID vaccine and the advice is constantly updated. Why, in particular, is it important to vaccinate kids from the age of 12 onwards?
Julie Leask:
There are a number of reasons that this is a good thing. I think, by and large, the risk for COVID among children is quite a bit lower than it is for adults. Very few children will go to ICU and even fewer will die from COVID. However, we know that having outbreaks of COVID in schools represents a significant disruption. We know also that there are some children with chronic diseases who are at greater risk of the severe effects of COVID if they get it and they need to be protected. There's both those direct and those indirect benefits of vaccinating the kids. I think also on that more sort of social and psychological level, there is a lot of concern out there among parents that as we open up in Australia, in particular the states that have a lot of COVID, that kids will be vulnerable to getting COVID. That whatever the risk there, no matter how small, is an unacceptable risk because of the way we value children in society.
I think that's a relevant part of the whole notion of vaccinating children as well.
Dr. Caroline West:
Do you think that message is getting out there? That people understand that, sort of, proposition in a way?
Probably not so much. I think the nuance is often lost and certainly we've seen some of the rhetoric around risk for children sort of descend into a bit of a debate. Where you have one camp saying the risk for kids is totally unacceptable and it's worse than people portray it and here look at this data. Whilst others are saying, well, overall it is low. I think one thing that will happen is once we get quite a lot of COVID, which we will. Even though it might mean less in terms of hospitalization and death with more people vaccinated, if there is a lot of COVID circulating, then we will see COVID in children and even a small proportion of kids getting hospitalized. Even if it's a large population of children getting COVID will be less acceptable. We've had actually very, very rapid take-up of the vaccine in Australia for the 12 to 15 year olds in just a few weeks. I think we're just over 44% of kids have had a first dose and that is through the primary care system. It's not even through schools. That is an incredible achievement. When you think about how long it took to roll out the HPV vaccine, for example. Now, that doesn't mean that we'll easily reach 80%. There are always going to be these inequities in access to vaccination. But it's certainly a sign that there's a lot of motivation out there among parents to get the teenagers protected and also a lot of questions about when the younger children will be able to have the vaccine as well.
Its fantastic to see it rolling out so quickly in that age group. I've worked a lot in the field as a GP and for the last 18 months I've been very COVID focused working in respiratory clinics and then actually rolling out the vaccine in remote areas. One of the things that parents have talked to me about is this whole question of, well, how safe is the vaccine? Given that early in the process it wasn't prioritized for younger people and they're sort of wondering what is the situation here? What do you say to those sorts of questions around discussing safety and risk?
Certainly in our research, particularly with parents who are hesitant about vaccines for their kids. Other vaccines, non COVID vaccines, we've found that leaning into that risk communication is a good thing. Often that's counter-intuitive. When someone's worried about risk you want to reflectively reassure them and say no need to worry, this is a low risk I really want your child to have this vaccine. But in fact, when people are quite hesitant, it can help them to have a discussion about what is known. Acknowledge where there is limitations and uncertainty in the science and then move on to a recommendation. That's about helping people cope with living with uncertainty and also living with trade-offs because the risks with the Pfizer vaccine, which is licensed for children in Australia, is very small. So we're looking at the usual sort of common side effects and systemic side effects then we're looking at the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis which, for the most part, are mild or going to be mild conditions for children if caused by the vaccine and quite rare as well. As I said, I certainly think that people understanding what the risk is, what the boundaries are, what the rate is and what to look out for is empowering information for those who think about risk. But also it's important to pivot to that notion of vaccine benefit and what you stand to gain through getting your child vaccinated. Caroline as a GP you're living this you're walking this talk. So I'm curious to know what your experiences have been too.
It's really important to be very inclusive in how you discuss risk and safety. Certainly as you say, pivot it back to being a story about the benefits. The old school way of just telling people to get vaccinated is certainly past its use by date. I think that what I've observed is that parents in particular have got a range of information from lots of different sources. So they're trying to do their due diligence in a way and doing a bit of research by themselves. But they often arrive to see me with a bundle of very confused messages that they've received along the way. When I've been working in lots of different parts of Australia, a lot of their sort of local news and information will come via platforms like Facebook. It's often that they're having to sift through a lot of, sometimes, credible information backed up against stories that are very scary and misinformation. Off the back of that there's been some hesitancy that's been generated and so it's been a really tricky time. I think a lot of GPs are actually quite fatigued with COVID messaging and you just think you're on top of it and the information changes.
Julie Leask :
That's been a huge challenge, hasn't it? I'm curious to know, as well, what you do when somebody does turn up with, clearly when they turn up to a clinic appointment they're wrestling with the idea of vaccination. Certainly we know that, with our research, that can be challenging for GPs who are always time poor that these conversations can take a long time. That sense of this is going to blow my appointment times out and I've got a clinic full of people waiting. It must be quite difficult to manage that time limitation and also be effective with that conversation.
What I've observed you need a lot of patience because you imagine often that it's just going to be one conversation that you're going to need with one person, but some people that are really wrestling with it might have multiple appointments around this. I had one person that came back three times for a sort of 25-30 minutes each consultation. That was what it took to, sort of, get them to that point where they were happy to go ahead with vaccination. So I think that there's a big time factor in here. I think that GPs, like myself, would be interested to hear from you about what are some of the tips that you'd have for effectively communicating and sort of using our time wisely and being able to, sort of, have those difficult conversations without us burning out from just the sheer volume of repetition.
So these are burning questions. I've been doing this kind of research for 24 years and a lot of the tips and processes that we've put together come from that clinical experience. So we were talking to GPs and nurses in particular, about how they manage conversations. In a sense we've tried to bottle the useful stuff and what we've learnt, and also listening to conversations between hesitant parents and clinicians in our research, is that agenda setting is quite important. Which is where you lay out the expectations about what's going to be covered in that conversation. If someone signals somehow that they're very hesitant and unsure about having a vaccine, any vaccine, then asking them a few questions and eliciting their questions and concerns to saturation is more likely to be effective, because you're more likely to cover all the things that they might have on their agenda. Once you do that, and it can be re relatively brief, it can be tell me what your questions are. Do you have some other questions? Do you have any more? You've said so far, 'you've got this one and that one,' do you have any more? That's the eliciting to saturation and then just briefly signaling what the agenda is. It sounds like your biggest concern is about the mRNA, the spike protein. Let's focus on that and, if we have time, we'll get to your other two concerns. How does that sound? You're asking that permission and collaboratively setting that agenda, and that enables you to pace out the conversation and know how much time to proportion to each part of it. If you get lost down a rabbit hole on one topic because you have reflexively addressed a question or a bit of wrong thinking to start with, then you can end up losing the things that actually might be more important to that parent or patient.
Once the agenda settings happened, then it's that communication 101 it's listening reflectively, acknowledging when people have sent out emotional cues, because if they feel like their emotions are acknowledged it can be easier for them to then subsequently process what you have to say to them afterwards. When you share your own knowledge and your answers to their questions and using quality sources of information is important. I know NCRs had some great resources for providers that are sort of a one-stop shop with all the latest recommendations. Then, finally, that part of if someone's really hesitant and you know that they might be willing to consider vaccination, is to find out what might make them want to consider vaccination. This is an element of motivational interviewing that GPs will be familiar with from smoking cessation counseling, for example, where you elicit the things that might make them feel that vaccination is important. Like, protecting their mother when they go to visit her or being able to travel or making sure their child is protected when they go to school and then amplifying that. So encouraging them in that motivation and agreeing with that. Then coming in with a recommendation to vaccinate because no matter where somebody stands, we know that recommendations are powerful. They can influence people. We actually saw in some of those conversations, that some of those parents who are terribly torn about vaccinating their child, almost wanted the clinician to say, look, I've heard your concerns I know where you stand. You're clearly torn about this, but I'd love to see you vaccinated today. Would you be willing to do that? The 'would you be willing' is important because that seems to be quite a key term.
What about using your own life story? I noticed that various public health officials, for example, have willingly talked about their kids or their partners being vaccinated along the way. Which, we didn't hear so much about before COVID came along. Is that a useful thing for somebody to leverage as well? The fact that their own family members or their own kids are being vaccinated. Is that a path you'd never follow?
It can be. It depends on the relationship and whether the clinician is comfortable sharing that information. That will vary if it does happen. There's studies to show that that's actually quite powerful, particularly with someone who's on the fence. That's definitely an option for people to consider. I know, for me, when I was doing a lot of public communication, when we had all the concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine, where Pfizer was preferred for the under 50 then under sixties and a lot of concerns about clotting. I, being in my early fifties, decided to be quite public about having the vaccine. This was in, I think this was May or June. So it was at a time when I think, no, it was actually late April and this is just after they made the announcement.
So it was a time when a lot of people were struggling with the idea of vaccinating if they were in their fifties and it was still you couldn't have Pfizer when you were in your fifties at the time. That day I opportunistically was able to get the SBS film crew along to film my vaccination as well, because they weren't doing another story. That was great because I wanted to put my money where my mouth was. I wanted to show that I've looked at the risk, I've confronted it. I've got a plan. I know what to look out for with headaches and so forth. I was going to take that risk for the huge benefit that I saw it having for me.
I was the same that when I had my vaccine, which I got AZ because I was at the beginning of the queue and that was all that was available regionally, anyway, regardless of age. I was very excited about having the vaccine because I had worked for almost a year in the frontline by that stage. I felt so grateful that the vaccines had come along and they were potentially going to change the future for everyone and without the vaccines that were in a terribly difficult place. So, for me, when the vaccine arrived I was extremely excited about it. I was excited about it when it rolled out for my children to have too. I was happy to share my feelings about that. Normally, as medicos, you sort of keep all of that stuff to yourself. You wouldn't, sort of, publicize that you've just had a certain procedure done or you're on a certain medication. Normally that's fairly private information. But I felt in this instance that this was important in some ways, to be influencer maybe to, NAFA word, but modeling, I guess that I was happy to have it. I was very happy for my kids to have it. I felt conveying that to some people was reassuring for certain people who were thinking, well would you do this for your kids? It's a really interesting one, isn't it? COVID vaccination has really changed the conversations we're having. I think the other thing is that we've got to be really careful, in these conversations, not to stigmatize when somebody is pushing back because there will be people that have lots of reasons for wanting to know more or have hesitancy. We've got to be really careful not to alienate people as well, because then they're lost completely. What do you think about that area of things?
It's both a clinical problem and a societal problem as we head towards a time where non vaccination is more unusual. It's what 90%, I think, nearly 90% have had a first dose in New South Wales, for example, as a whole population. That's very high uptake. So the people who are holding out are quite a diverse bunch of people; the needle phobic, the vaccine fearful, the mistrusting, people who've had medical trauma, there's all sorts of reasons that people really hold out this much. It is going to be a harsh environment for them, particularly in those early stages where they're unable to travel or move about as easily as the vaccinated. But also in a clinical setting where you've got, it really is the pointy end of that isn't it, because for people who don't vaccinate often that clinical encounter, particularly with a GP, will represent the place at which they see into that expert knowledge system. If they're not vaccinating and for example, they can't get a medical exemption from the doctor they're seeking it from, they can get quite upset, sometimes angry and even really abusive. We are heading into very challenging times and it's not just challenging for the clinicians. It's also challenging for the people who don't vaccinate, who are facing these kinds of pressures on them. Social and [cross talk 00:22:49]
We've covered quite a bit of ground today, Julie. I guess what I heard loud and clear, from a perspective of being a health professional in the field, is that having, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but having some sort of agenda setting when you're discussing a vaccination with somebody and covering what you're going to cover in that conversation. Is that right? To, sort of, at the beginning of the consult just listen to their concerns and set a bit of a framework for how you're going to manage those concerns.
I think so. Just with that example of the medical exemption request, I've just been working with some colleagues around this, looking at, at how to set that agenda. For example, saying, what I'll do is ask a few questions to look at whether there are grounds for an exemption for you. I'll ask you a few standard questions to see if you qualify. If I can't grant one, then can we look at your options and work out a way forward? So it's clear that there's a set criteria that the GP is working with and that they have a responsibility to abide by those rules. Not just as a professional, but legally as well, they must. Then the patient, it's easier then to distance oneself from the need to implement the rules because the rules are external to that provider. It's then easier to step into the way of relating that's more about how can I help you look at your options and consider what's best for you. I would like to see you vaccinate. But let's plan that together because, unfortunately, with these rules I can't give you that exemption. That sort of, deescalation starts with that agenda setting. It starts at the very beginning of the conversation.
Hopefully if everyone continues this, sort of, focus of listening to people, encouraging those who are still vaccinated to consider vaccination, and hopefully more of them will get vaccination along the lines. We'll move towards a community where we're able to enjoy things again and get back to some semblance of normal. It'll be a very new normal, but that'll be good to open up again. It's been a really interesting conversation and I know that there's so much more that we could cover. It's great to have your thoughts on all of this Julie and share your wisdom. I guess it would also be great to send a big thank you to all of those healthcare workers out there who have been part of the COVID vaccine rollout. In my team, in remote Australia, we had pharmacists and dieticians, nurses, doctors, everybody was getting involved at various levels. I think it's the first time in medicine that I've ever seen that sort of collective effort applied to one particular situation. It's been incredible to see people really step forward. So a big, thank you. Did you have any final message that you'd like to share with our listeners Julie, on what you feel is an important takeaway from all of this?
I co your sentiments Caroline, that there's a lot of people who've worked incredibly hard through from day one of this pandemic. As a person in public health, I'm particularly grateful to those people who are often hidden in those government departments who are working so hard to control COVID. Then of course, the clinicians who are looking after people managing their health services, doing that big sort of pivot towards managing COVID and also to the primary care providers. As a former nurse myself, I have a particular shout out to all of the registered nurses and midwives who have been part of the vaccination rollout. Some of them have been doing vaccination for a long time because we know that nurses along with GPs are the cornerstone of vaccination in Australia. But others have jumped in including some of our students at the University of Sydney's Nursing School. It's been wonderful to see that the way that health professionals and public health people have come together and made this happen. Also, the way the public have really gotten on board. We've seen so much solidarity around controlling COVID in Australia and that's quite inspiring.
As many nurses as are out there, they were really running most of the clinics that I was working at in terms of the vaccination rollout. I was always in awe of how much they knew about vaccination. I always turn to them for extra advice. That's for sure. So thanks Julie, and thank you to our listeners out there. If you'd like any more information on this story, or you'd like suggestions for further reading, go to our website at nps.org.au.
I'm sure there'll be plenty more to discuss on the topic of kids in COVID, but that's all we have time for today. Professor Julie Leask has been my guest today. So thank you and I look forward to you all joining us next time. I'm Dr. Caroline West. Bye for now. (recording 2)
Date published: 22 October 2021


text:
A tendency to plagiarize
The Dodge County News
in Opinions
Did President Obama's State of the Union speech sound a bit like George W. Bush in 2007? Marc Thiessen, GWB's lead speech writer thinks so.
"Obama has gone from blaming George W. Bush to plagiarizing George W. Bush," says Mr. Thiessen
Now we have a president and v.p. (vice plagiarist) who have a tendency to plagiarize. Remember Joe Biden suddenly quitting the 1988 presidential race after his plagiarisms came to light? Twenty years later he reemerged, figuring no one would recall the incident. We do.
Obama now says he welcomes the United Nations global gun ban. He has always voted for gun control, gun bans, gun confiscation in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate. He had the gall to lie about his gun views when running in 2008, claiming he believed in private gun ownership. Just like the Clintons and many other politicians, his promises should come with expiration dates.
Obama says he wants to increase the minimum wage yet he pays women far less than men in the White House, less than the average 77 percent of male salaries earned by women nationally.
Rotund New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has a running battle with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, claiming Rand Paul practices pork barrel spending and bringing home the bacon.
"This is the king of bacon talking about bacon."
Senator Rand Paul
"In one hundred years we've gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching remedial English in college."
Joseph Sobran Sobran.com
Over the years the late Senator Arlen Specter (who changed parties twice, from D to R to D) received over $200,000 from the National Rifle Association, which should have known better. The NRA also endorsed liberal Demo Harry Reid (Nevada) for reelection over the very good Repub Sharron Angle. Big mistake again, NRA. Yes, Sharron Angle has two Rs in her first name, first time I've seen that.
In 1996 the NRA also backed liberal Democrat turned liberal Republican Greg Laughlin over Ron Paul, a race won by Ron Paul. House Speaker Newt Gingrich plotted to defeat Ron Paul and failed. The NRA did it again in the Georgia governors race, endorsing liberal Democrat Roy Barnes over conservative Republican Sonny Perdue. Again and good for us, the NRA candidate lost.
Bumper sticker of the day: When In Doubt Empty The Magazine.
Dr. Ron Paul's toll-free update number is 1-888-322-1414.
When talking about RINO (Republicans In Name Only) losers, we often forget to mention the names Carly Fiorina (Cal.), Meg Whitman (Cal.), and DeeDee Scozafava (N.Y.).
Remember the Republican presidential field in 2012? Huntsman, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Paul, Romney and Santorum? Only two served in the military: Rick Perry and Ron Paul, both in the Air Force.
"The media said REAGAN was UNELECTABLE"
ElvisNixon.com 1-3-12 on AngryWhiteDude.com
True! Elvis Nixon is right again and they said it constantly. RINOs said the same thing. RINOs Gerald Ford, Chuck Percy and many others claimed Reagan couldn't win in November. Not only that, but Ronnie was supposedly such a weak candidate he would hurt the ticket down the line, maybe even destroy the party. Media-designated conservative "expert" George Will bought into this nonsense and called for liberal Republican Senator Howard Baker to enter the 1980 race. Howard Baker had voted for Jimmy Carter's Panama Canal giveaway, which would have ended his chances at winning the nomination. The savvy Ronald Reagan kept hammering at the Canal giveaway and rode it all the way into the White House. It proved to be Reagan's driving issue.
Good websites; no need to capitalize: JaneChastain.com, Money99.com, ScottKays.com, WeaselZippers.us, MaryGrabar.com, NumbersUSA.com, MindingTheCampus.com, WashTimes.com, CarsonScholars.org, RiehlWorldNews.com, TheOtherMcCain.com, GregBrannon.com, NCPoliticalNews.com, TheAndreaTantarosShow.com.
"Liberals brought us Obamacare. Conservatives are trying to replace it with we care."
Herman Cain HermanCain.com
Rico on TheoSpark.net said he would not watch Obama's SOTU speech, saying he was out of barf bags. I agree and didn't watch either. I doubt I missed a lot.
My e-mail address is marshallem40@comcast.net.
Marshall Miller
Milton I Johnson about Niblett resigns as recreation director
Wed, Jul 17, 2019 - 08:46 AM
Don't do that. Travis deserves the community's full respect. He was an all-star. The recognition he brought to Dod [...]
anon about Niblett resigns as recreation director
Sat, Jul 06, 2019 - 09:05 PM
Hold up..... Same last name as "Terry the one that took out dumpters away"? Interesting!
Mrs.Charlotte I Goin about DELISA DALE MCLEOD CRAWFORD
Wed, Jul 03, 2019 - 04:56 PM
To My Dear Sister & Friend Oh My I Hurt So Bad But I Know Your In A Better Place No More Pain & Suffering , we G [...]
Ruby Joiner about Jessica Rae Mullis
Mon, Jun 24, 2019 - 01:40 AM
I sent your mom and holly a letter from you and God today to let them know that you're ok.i love you and I will se [...]
Mathew lee selby about HAROLD "HAL" GIBBS
Tue, Jun 04, 2019 - 09:18 PM
Harold Gibbs better known as the voice of the radio I had the pleasure my friend of getting to know you when you [...]
Derek "Dee" Taylor Memorial Softball Tournament set for July 27 in Dublin
Russ's Sports Review
CASEY DON BELFLOWER
JUNE BARLOW
Content copyright ©The Dodge County News

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
layout: page
title: Inter Mod Communication
bigimg: /img/header_twilight.jpg
---

Inter mod communication, also called IMC is a feature of Forge, which allow mods to send messages to each other. Messages sent through IMC are limited in what types of data they can contain, however with this limitation comes many really nice benefits. One of these benefits is that the mods communicating typically don't need the other mod to be available when compiling using Gradle. Another benefit is that the mods should never directly touch, preventing issues where the player only has one of the mods installed.

## Sending Messages
Sending a message is very simple. Keep in mind that every single mod has their own IMC API, and you should refer to their documentation above everything else. This tutorial is just covering the basics of how messages are sent.

Messages are sent to a mod using the static method `FMLInterModComms.sendMessage(String, String, ?)`. The first parameter is the id of the mod you are sending the message to. The second parameter is the key, which is used as an identifier by the recieving mod, that tells it what to do with your message. The last parameter is the value you are sending. There are a few types of values, some examples are strings, nbt tags, item stacks, resource locations and functions. Messages can be sent whenever, however they are processed after init but before post init and late messages are ignored.

```java
    FMLInterModComms.sendMessage("imc-receiver-mod", "info-message", "Hello World");
```

## Receiving Messages
Messages are received as a mod specific event. To start listening to messages, simply listen to the IMCEvent in your mod class.

```java
@Mod(modid = "imc-receiver-mod", name = "IMC: Reciever", version = "1.0.0")
public class IMCRecieverMod {

    @EventHandler
    public void onMessageRecieved(IMCEvent event) {

    }
}
```

This event is fired after the init phase, but before the post init phase. All of the messages sent to your mod can be retrieved using the `IMCEvent#getMessages()` method. Each message has two key parts to it, the key and the value. The key is used to describe what system the message is for. For example, if your mod has a system where items could be blacklisted, the key might be `your-system-blacklist`. The value is the content of the message being sent. There are a few different types of messages that can be sent, like NBT, String, ResourceLocation and Function. For the sake of this tutorial, we will be checking if a info-message is being sent to the mod, and if it is we will print out the message. Please note that `IMCMessage#isStringMessage()` and `IMCMessage#getStringValue()` have variations for the other message types as well.

```java
    @EventHandler
    public void onMessageRecieved(IMCEvent event) {

        for (IMCMessage message : event.getMessages()) {

            // The check is done this way to prevent null pointer exceptions with null keys.
            if ("info-message".equalsIgnoreCase(message.key) && message.isStringMessage()) {

                System.out.println(message.getStringValue());
            }
        }
    }
```

## Functional Messages
Function messages are a newer type of message. These messages are used to send Java 8 functions to a mod. When you send your message, you include a string which represents the function class. For a class to be valid, it must implement `java.util.function.Function`.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


"We are a team of English-Spanish Sworn Translators based in Argentina with great experience in all types of activities related to translation, edition, proofreading, testing and subtitling, as well as handling large volumes of words daily."
Our team has great experience in different areas, specially in Medicine/Pharmaceutical/Life Sciences (protocols, informed consent forms, patient-facing documents for adults and children, specialist-facing documents, brochures, questionnaires, drug reports, etc. for Alprolix, Pfizer, MetLife, Merck, AstraZeneca, Hospira, ACM Medical Labs, Q-Labs, Barc, United HealthCare, etc.), Marketing and IT (Dell, EMC, Western Digital, Sonos, Digicel, FileRight) and Accounting and Financial fields (bank notifications, annual revisions, financial predictability for Bank of America, JP Morgan/Chase, Key Bank, Citi, etc.).


So what do you do when the threats of bodily harm positive reinforcement doesn't work? Why you bribe them of course.
For example: Seamus is at a near 100% success rate for going "peeps in the toilet" since the very day we started commando-style potty training last Tuesday. As for the "cannon-balls sinking the pirate ship"??? Uh, not so much. At all. Yet. In his defense, he has had a bit of the runs a consistency problem lately and I'm not sure he can hold it. I'm trying not to be too hard on him. So we've done a temporary switch to pull-ups so I can avoid washing an unmentionable substance out of his tighty whities several times daily.
How long before I offer him the keys to the car?


Step #1: Become aware of what you are doing. Without awareness, there is no change. For instance, if you habitually bite your nails and are unaware of it, you won't ever stop because your hand ends up in your mouth without you even knowing. Awareness is always the first step in changing anything.
Step #2: Acknowledge what you are aware of. You can be aware of something without acknowledging it. For instance, there are many people who are aware that they drink too much, but they keep it a secret and don't acknowledge it to themselves or others. Acknowledging what you are aware of means that you are telling yourself the truth.
Step #3: The choice to change the habit. You can be aware of something, and even acknowledge it, but until you make the choice to change it, nothing will happen. There are people who are aware that they smoke, and they acknowledge that they want to stop smoking, however, they haven't yet made the choice to change and actually stop smoking for good. Making the choice to change means that you want an area of your life to be different and you are willing to take the actions to make that happen.
Step #4: Map out your plan. Your plan involves what you are going to do to make the change. It also anticipates situations, people, and places that would trigger the old behavior reoccurring and taking hold again, and replacing the old circumstances with new options so as to avoid occasions of temptation. If you are habitually late, then you need to have a meeting with yourself to walk yourself through the steps, and determine if you really want to be on time. If you do, your plan should include "cushions" of time to accommodate last minute emergencies, traffic, accidents, parking, and long lines. You are most probably not allowing for the "Stuff" of life to happen. You may be operating as if you lived in a perfect world, and cutting your time between appointments too closely.
Step #5: Commit to the plan. Commitment means that you will follow through to the successful completion of the project. Commitment means that you take yourself seriously, that you believe you can be trusted to cause your desired outcome to happen. It means that you will cause the result to happen, no matter what the obstacles. If you commit to cleaning up the clutter in your office it means that you will schedule a time (or several times) to sit down and tackle the piles. You may need an "Adult sitter" to support you, but you will gather the tools: files, trash can, sticky notes, paper clips, bold marker pen, scissors, and you will tackle the project with the rule, "I will handle each paper only once and I will make a choice about it," You can get the job done in comfort and style with your favorite cup of coffee, music in the background, and your best friend as your adult sitter. Commitment means that you will get the job done, no matter what!
Step #7: Reinforce, recognize, reward and celebrate the new habit. No behavior becomes embedded without reinforcement. Reinforcement means that you make the new habit stronger than the old one. Recognizing means that you notice that you are doing a good job of replacing the old with the new. Reward means that you find appropriate ways to "gift" benefit you so you feel like the winner you are.
new desirable behaviors. You can do this if you apply the principles that I have taught you. If you don't succeed the first time, hang in there and keep on going. You can have the habits in your life support you. Now go for it!


EVER fancy a game of bowling after a drink at the pub?
Now you can do just that, with the opening of the Lookout Bar Bowling Bites at Scarborough Beach.
Co-owner David Heaton took over the venue following Matisse Beach Club's closure last year and said it was always his intention to reinvent the space.
He formed the idea after visiting a restaurant with bowling lanes while in Nashville and was already working on the concept for Northbridge's old IMAX theatre when the Scarborough opportunity presented itself.
"It was following the concept of another bowling bar on the drawing board," he said.
Mr Heaton said it was a bar first and bowling venue second, and aimed to give people something more to do at a pub.
Along with eight bowling lanes, sports games will be televised on two large screens, there are pool tables and an expanded menu with weekly specials.
"In this day and age with millenials' expectations, the old stand around having a drink is boring," he said.
"There's a little bit of everything for everyone.
He wanted to offer something a bit different for Scarborough following the redevelopment.
"We're hoping it will attract a lot more people," he said.


text:
Alan Shadrake v Attorney-General
Media Summary
Civil Appeal No 212 of 2010
Decision of the Court of Appeal
1 This case arose from an application by the Attorney-General to commit Mr Alan Shadrake ("the Appellant"), the author of Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, for contempt of court on the ground of scandalising the judiciary ("scandalising contempt") in relation to certain passages contained in the book.
2 The High Court judge ("the Judge") found the Appellant in contempt of court for eleven out of fourteen of the impugned statements and sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment and a fine of $20,000 (or, in default, two weeks' imprisonment).
3 The main issues raised in this appeal were encompassed within the following three grounds of appeal relied upon by the Appellant:
(a) First, in so far as the relevant legal principles are concerned, the Appellant argued that the Judge had erred in his statement of the test for liability for scandalising contempt;
(b) Second, on the application of the law to the facts, the Appellant argued that the Judge had erred in his interpretation of the passages held to have given rise to the contempt; and
(c) Third, concerning the sentence imposed, the Appellant argued that the sentence meted out by the Judge was manifestly excessive.
The relevant legal principles
The offence of scandalising the court
4 The Court of Appeal emphasised that the law relating to contempt of court operates against the broader legal canvass of the right to freedom of speech that is embodied both within Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore as well as the common law. The issue is one of balance: just as the law relating to contempt of court ought not to unduly infringe the right to freedom of speech, by the same token, that right is not an absolute one, for its untrammelled abuse would be a negation of the right itself.
5 The Court of Appeal also noted that an act of scandalising contempt is a public injury rather than a private tort. The fundamental purpose of the law on contempt is to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined; it is not intended to protect the dignity of judges.
The "real risk" test
6 Regarding the actus reus (ie, what conduct would be considered as constituting scandalising contempt), the Court of Appeal held that:
(a) The "inherent tendency" test does not represent the law in Singapore. The "real risk" test, namely, that a statement in question must pose a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice before it is held to be contemptuous, is the applicable test vis-à-vis liability for scandalising contempt in Singapore. The adoption of the terminology of "real risk" conveys precisely the nature of the legal test to layperson and lawyer alike, thus avoiding controversy and misunderstanding.
(b) The "real risk" test is an adequate formulation in and of itself and requires no further theoretical elaboration. It is a test that means precisely what it says: Is there a real risk that the impugned statement has undermined – or might undermine – public confidence in the administration of justice (here, in Singapore)?
(c) The Appellant's counsel nevertheless attempted to introduce the "clear and present danger" test under the guise of the "real risk" test by arguing that a "real risk" arises only when there is "clear and present danger" to undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. This is a flawed argument. Both concepts do not have the same meaning. The "clear and present danger" test establishes a higher threshold for liability than the "real risk" test. As between these two tests, the "real risk" test is already a weighty one and pays far more attention to the balance between the right to freedom of speech on the one hand and its abuse on the other. This test is the predominant (indeed, almost exclusive) test that applies throughout the Commonwealth.
The concept of fair criticism
7 Regarding the concept of fair criticism, the Court of Appeal held that:
(a) There is potential ambiguity with regard to the precise role and operation of the concept of fair criticism in Commonwealth case law and (possibly) even legislation. It preferred viewing the concept of fair criticism as going towards liability, as opposed to being a defence, for contempt of court.
(b) The court ought always to apply this concept, not only in relation to the precise facts and context, but also bearing in mind the following key question throughout: does the impugned statement constitute fair criticism, or does it go on to cross the legal line by posing a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice – in which case it would constitute contempt instead?
Application of the law to the facts
8 The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge's findings that the first, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and thirteenth statements were in contempt. However, contrary to the Judge's findings, the second and fourteenth statements were found not to be in contempt.
9 The Court of Appeal nevertheless emphasised that the nine statements found to be in contempt (at paragraph 143 of the written judgment):
... scandalise the very core of the mission and function of the judiciary. More than that, their cumulative effect reveals a marshalling of a series of fabrications, distortions and false imputations in relation to the courts of Singapore. While the Appellant is free to engage in the debate for or against capital punishment, he is not free to deliberately and systematically scandalise the courts in attempting to substantiate his case against capital punishment.
10 Regarding the issue of sentence, the Court of Appeal held as follows:
(a) Sentencing, by its very nature, is neither an exact science nor an arbitrary exercise of raw discretion. The court concerned follows guidelines, but these must not be applied as if they are writ in stone. It must also be noted that there is no starting-point of imprisonment for the offence of scandalising contempt. The sanction imposed – whether it be a fine or imprisonment (or a combination of both) – will depend, in the final analysis, on the precise facts and context of each case.
(b) The Judge ought not to have granted a discount in the sentence in order to signal that the courts have no interest in stifling legitimate debate on the death penalty and other areas of law. It is clear that debate on the death penalty as well as other areas of law has been – and always will be − open to all. However, when conduct crosses the legal line and constitutes scandalising contempt, it is no longer legitimate and a discount cannot be accorded to the contemnor for abusing his right to free speech.
11 Notwithstanding the fact that the Court of Appeal found two of the eleven statements (originally found to be contemptuous by the Judge) not to be contemptuous, having regard to the other factors, this was still the worst case of scandalising contempt that had hitherto come before the Singapore courts. The Appellant's conduct therefore merited a substantial custodial sentence.
12 Despite the rejection of a discount, the Court of Appeal emphasised the fact that the Respondent had not filed a cross-appeal against the Judge's decision on both liability and sentence. Indeed, the Respondent opined that the sentence was not excessive. The Court of Appeal also observed that it had found that two of the statements originally found to be contemptuous by the Judge were not in fact contemptuous (ie, only nine (instead of eleven) out of the original fourteen statements alleged to be contemptuous were found to be contemptuous).
13 In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Judge's decision in the court below to sentence the Appellant to six weeks' imprisonment and to a fine of $20,000 (in default of which the Appellant is to serve a further two weeks in prison, with such further term to run consecutively to the first).
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court's judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court.
Supreme Court Judgments
Guide on Court Reporting
EXHIBITION - MAGNA CARTA AND US
THE RULE OF LAW AND THE SINGAPORE CONSTITUTION
THE SINGAPORE CONSTITUTION IN ACTION
DISPLAY OF MAGNA CARTA
Hearing List


At Clary Sage Salon & Spa we believe that the best investment you can make is to pamper yourself with beauty and stress relieving treatments. We are an independent, local, family owned, full service salon and spa located at the corner of 71st and 193rd Street in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Clary Sage Salon & Spa is committed to providing an exceptional experience to every guest.
In just one click you can schedule time to experience luxurious total body care, as we pamper you from head to toe!
We offer a program that rewards our loyal guests and encourages others to learn first hand about the Clary Experience.
Receive exclusive promotions by taking advantage of our VIP membership.
Stay up to date with our latest promotions and product sales!


Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by benlee, Feb 25, 2008.
I have a 10/100 linksys router and want to hook up my cable modem connection to that and then hook up my airport express for wireless. Will the 10/100 wired router slow down my connections? If not how do I go about setting this up?
No. The Express runs at 10/100, and g only runs at 54Mbps.
Thanks. So do I just put the Express in Bridge mode? and airtunes will still work along with wireless?


"Transmission" marked the significant difference in the Fries project. The company, led by Henry E. Fries (mayor of Salem 1889-1892, Salem commissioner for 18 years following), proposed to harness the power of the Yadkin River. They would then transmit that power to Salem and transform it.
A River in Time: The Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, Suzanne Cameron Linder with Emily Linder Johnson, Palmetto Conservation Foundation, 2000.
Idol's Hydroelectric Generating Station, Forsyth County, N.C., Regional Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, Carolina Section, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1984.


Daycare Centers/Businesses can buy advance tickets for $1.00 per child and $2.00 at the gate. As always, children 5 and under are FREE!
Bring completed picture to Ahlberg Hall by Noon for judging and to receive your ribbon.
Please put name on the back of the picture.
Barnyard tours will start at 10:00 AM and go every 30 minutes until 6:30 PM on Tuesday, August 6.
Mail or email forms to the fair office or call the fair office to reserve a time for a tour by Friday, July 26th.
As a Thank You for serving our country - FREE admission, FREE parking for all military personnel and their immediate family with a military ID on this day only!
Rodeo in the Grandstands sponsored by Support Our Troops Haunted House at 7pm is free to all military personnel and their immediate family, i.e. spouse or children. Single soldiers may bring 1 guest. Must provide proof of service. A DD-214 form, a military ID Card, retiree card, VFW or American Legion membership card.
Pick up tickets on Wednesday at the Support Our Troops Haunted House Booth located next to the Information Booth.
Thank you to Support Our Troops Haunted House for helping make this possible!
FREE Admission and FREE Parking for Seniors age 60+.


Last week, EPA issued a press release announcing a Federal Register Notice seeking public comment on whether EPA should consider public health risks from vapor intrusion as a factor in eligibility for the Superfund cleanup program (my emphasis on "whether" is key – read on).
The EPA proposal was boldly titled: "Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion Component to the Hazard Ranking Sytem" (emphasis on "potential").
The proposal went on to ask the public, "if" EPA should, then "how" EPA should do so.
EPA, the supposed experts, provided no substantive details on how they thought vapor intrusion should be considered. EPA provided no timetable for final decision or any commitment to final rulemaking.
EPA merely solicited public comment on a series of questions EPA posed, as if vapor intrusion was some deep unknown or new discovery.
However, a closer look at the history and current bureaucratic process suggest a very different picture – specifically, that the proposal was snagged by Obama's recent Executive Order and U-Turn on regulatory policy.
Eligibility for Superfund cleanup is established by a risk screening method known as the EPA "Hazard Ranking System" (HRS) – the higher the score the worse the risks. Sites that score above 28.5 points qualify for Superfund.
The current EPA HRS does NOT consider risks from vapor intrusion. (but NJ DEP has even worse flaws – DEP has no priority system in place).
Such a long overdue move by EPA to fix this HRS flaw would qualify hundreds of more contaminated sites for the Superfund "National Priorities List" (NPL), including at least 20 more sites in NJ where toxic chemical vapors are poisoning people in homes, schools, and other buildings (see GAO Report below).
This significant expansion in the Superfund program would cost polluters billions of dollars more in cleanup costs, and comes at a time when the Superfund pot of cleanup money is empty, and efforts to renew the funding are stalled by pro-industry Republicans in Congress (and opposed by Governors like NJ's Chris Christie, who oppose regulation and demand that environmental agencies to "do less with less" ).
So obviously, there has been – and currently is – fierce behind the scenes lobbying by polluters and anti-governmental zealots to block EPA from doing this.
My sense is that EPA's "Hazard Ranking System" proposal has, at best, been stalled or relegated to a regulatory purgatory. At worst, the proposal has already been derailed – killed behind the scenes – and amounts to a "dead proposal walking".
In the latter (and more likely) case, EPA's Fed. Register Notice would merely be going through the bureaucratic motions to save face and avoid having to ID the corpse and suffer the political embarrasment of having to admit caving to chemical industry and Republican pressure.
As we have written, the Vapor Intrusion (VI) phenomenon is nothing new. For example, EPA proposed VI guidance for toxic site cleanups almost 10 years ago, back in 2002.
Since then, the number of toxic sites where EPA and State agencies are discovering chemical vapors seeping into buildings has expanded greatly, and so has the public outrage those belated discoveries create.
But many of those VI sites are not currently eligible for Superfund because the HRS scoring method fails to consider VI exposures and risks. Thus, those sites were ignored. As a result, many people are being exposed to avoidable VI risks without their knowledge and with no program to fund cleanups.
But despite knowledge by EPA of serious VI problems nationally, for years, EPA never moved to revise the HRS scoring method. Why do you think that is the case? Surely not because of lack of knowledge of these risks by EPA scientists and staff.
In fact, the current proposal to expand the Superfund HRS did not originate within EPA.
EPA regional officials estimated that from 101 to 125 sites – about 20 to 25 sites per year – will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, which is higher than the average of about 16 sites per year listed for fiscal years 2005 to 2009. Most of the 10 states' officials GAO interviewed also expect an increase in the number of sites listed from their states. However, neither EPA regional officials nor state officials were able to provide cost estimates for cleaning up many of the sites. In addition, the number of sites eligible for listing could increase if EPA decides to assess the relative risk of vapor intrusion – contaminated air that seeps into buildings from underground sources -a pathway of concern among EPA regional officials and state officials interviewed. Although sites with vapor intrusion can pose considerable human health risks, EPA's "Hazard Ranking System" the mechanism used to identify sites that qualify for NPL listing does not recognize these risks; therefore, unless a site with vapor intrusion is listed on some other basis, EPA cannot clean up the site through its remedial program.
To better identify potential NPL sites, GAO recommends that the EPA Administrator determine the extent to which EPA will consider vapor intrusion in listing NPL sites and its effect on the number of sites listed in the future.
EPA didn't initiate, they reacted, to address the negative GAO findings and implement the GAO HRS recommendation. Back in December, EPA released an " Integrated Cleanup Initiative Draft Implementation Plan", which was open for public comment through January 10, 2011.
That EPA implementation plan called the VI HRS revision as an action item. The December Plan also suggested that EPA would soon engage in rulemaking to incorporate vapor intrusion risk into the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
One would assume that after years of experience with vapor intrusion at scores of sites, and following the public comment on the "action items" in the December implementation plan, EPA now would be in a position to propose a regulation – with specifics and meat on the bones – for public comment.
But EPA did not propose a regulation. They proposed a public notice asking "whether" EPA should propose a regulation.
Do a hollow Federal Register Notice that merely asks a set of questions and EPA plans to hold "listening sessions" constitute "action"? Not in my book.
There is a huge difference between an actual regulatory proposal and a notice seeking comment on whether EPA should regulate.
My guess is that EPA got strong political opposition, and is backing off, given the recent Obama Executive Order and U-turn in policy on regulations.
And consider the chronology closely – the timing between the May GAO Report, the December Draft Plan, the January Obama EO, and last week's proposal – that's more evidence suggests bureacratic backtracking by EPA.
To comprehensively explore, and if determined appropriate, identify approaches for adding the threat posed by contaminant vapor intrusion into occupied structures to the HRS, EPA is beginning the process of soliciting stakeholder input. To determine whether to move forward with this addition, and if so, to determine a range of potential approaches, EPA is soliciting input on the topics described below.
Case closed – time will tell if EPA follows through on this.
My advice to the folks fighting Dupont in Pompton lakes: Don't hold your breath.
I thought it might be interesting for readers to take a look at the Sunoco Coastal Eagle Refinery which was the subject of the DEP NRD Deal with new owner El Paso.
The Settlement document lacks any factual findings that describe the specific NR damages (how convenient for El Paso!). It merely references various very old remedial investigations. So until I can file an OPRA and review the documents, we'll speculate about the nature and scope of pollution impacts (DEP leaks welcome!). I do have some old RCRA documents that show a regulated old landfarm and lime slurry operations. The site is bordered by the Delaware River at the top (west) and dense (1/4 acre lot) residential neighborhoods on the left (south) and right (north).
Let's take a few closer looks – I'm no aerial map interpretation expert, but I've been to the site and will make notes.
That's Red Bank Elementary School at the bottom left. How'd you like to send you kids to that school? Surprisingly, the thin strip of land between the refinery and the school (300 feet?) was posted as "endangered species habitat". What kind of critters liketo live amidst toxic discharges? Maybe Coooper's Hawk has adapted to live there too, as well as in the suburbs! That looks like a pond – wonder if the fish are edible and how the other aquatic life are doing? Were these resources damaged by Sunoco and part of the NRD deal?
Here's what the school looks like from the ground – look closely directly above the dome of the school and see the looming refinery towers. Toxic air emissions are not good for children and other living things!
On lower left, note the wetlands, and stream flowing from the pond to the river. Note the drainage ditch along the perimeter that also discharges to the river. There may be old unlined surface impoundments and lagoons stored toxic liquid hazardous waste on site. These and hundreds of spills and leaks over decades of operation, have led to massive soil and groundwater pollution. I assume that this groundwater pollution and surface runoff from the site are polluting the Delaware and poisoning ecosystems. I wonder what the Baseline Ecological Evaluation and NR damage assessment concluded about all that? How much are those resources worth?
Looks like there are some pretty valuable natural resources and sensitive receptors at the northern perimeter of the facility too. How'd you like to live in that neighborhood?
That's a Farm down there, but it sure don't look like Old MacDonald's Farm. Does it look well maintained?
Gee, I wonder what kind of toxic crap is in this tank?
But don't worry, be happy. The business friendly Christie DEP's is looking out for you and Bob Martin is treating his "customers" (Sunoco) right! (look at that logo! Wow! The Official Fuel of NASCAR! But that tank in the lefthand background doesn't look too good).
The issue – and the story here – is not whether removing dams is good for fish and water quality.
If that were the case, then the Dupont NRD deal to plant trees and preserve land would have been given "rare praise" as well (instead of correctly condemned by Tittel and others as a "sweetheart deal").
The real issues are: 1) whether the public was adequately compensated by an oil company for hundreds of toxic spills and leaks over decades at a billion dollar profit producing refinery – and 2) whether the natural resources damaged by those toxic pollution discharges along the Delaware River have been restored.
DEP issued a press release late today announcing a Natural Resource Damage (NRD) settlement agreement involving pollution from the Sunoco Coastal Eagle refinery in West Deptford (and 3 affiliated company facilities: EPEC Polymers Inc in Flemington; Nuodex Inc. in Woodbridge; EPEC Polymers Inc. in Burlington City).
There have been hundreds of spills and discharges at the Coastal Eagle refinery over many years, leading to significant soil and groundwater pollution, off site contamination, and adverse water resource, fisheries, wildlife and ecological impacts.
The deal is unusual and raises all sorts of red flags.
First is timing: the NRD Settlement was published over 3 months ago in the NJ Register, on October 18, 2010.
The opportunity for public comment expired in November – there was little public awareness and no public comment on the deal.
So why is DEP issuing a press release now, after the public comment period is closed? Why didn't DEP issue the release 3 months ago, when it mattered and the public could have used the information and meaningfully participated?
The timing also suggests DEP is responding to last week's bad press on air quality rules for refineries that have come under attack. The coverage of that story created the impression that Governor Christie's "regulatory relief" policies were seriously flawed.
Today's DEP release puts out some good news on refineries, and creates the opposite appearance – let's just agree to call it news management.
Last, on the merits, the deal is totally arbitrary. This repeats a longstanding problem, as the NRD program has lacked transparent and enforceable standards.
We are writing concerning the need for standards to assess and restore adverse ecological impacts resulting from the discharge of hazardous substances to the environment at more than 20,000 sites in New Jersey. Individually and cumulatively, these sites represent a major threat to sensitive ecosystems and natural resources, as well as public health. It is imperative that those impacts and ecological impairments be assessed, restored, and the public fully compensated for lost uses of important fish, wildlife and other natural resources resulting from the discharge of hazardous chemicals to the environment.
The Sunoco deal is highly unusual and seriously departs from almost all prior settlements.
That was a major controversial issue recently in the Dupont NRD deal, where Pompton Lakes residents got no benefits, despite suffering years of Dupont pollution.
New Jersey courts and the business community have opposed such unprincipled and unbridled discretion to coerce NRD settlements, especially in the absence of promulgated DEP rules. Rules would provide up front guidelines, criteria, standards, and procedures for estimating the value of natural resources damaged and the parameters of settlement in the form of money compensation or restoration of equivalent natural resource functional values.
The Sunoco refinery deal provides for the removal of 3 small dams on the Raritan River. While I support dam removal, what does that have to do with toxic soil and water pollution along the Delaware?
There is simply no nexus between pollution at a refinery on the Delaware river and dam removal on the Raritan river.
Both the timing and the terms of the "Lets make a deal" nature of this NRD settlement are troubling.
I don't like to delve into the national scene, but sometimes the "I told you so" factor is too sweet to resist.
From the outset of the Obama Administration, we have been highly skeptical and publicly critical of the environmental policy agenda.
That skepticism initially was based on selection of Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator, a nice person, but long on rhetoric and short on delivery (and we never had high regard for recycled Clintonite, Carol Browner. But we have high regard for EPA Region 2 Administrator Judy Enck).
Our concerns have been confirmed repeatedly by EPA's actions since then.
As you know, PEER opposed your confirmation as EPA Administrator based upon your record as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). One of our principal concerns was that you repeatedly did not follow through on promises you made for action at DEP, leaving a trail of unfulfilled rhetorical commitments. We see a repetition of this same pattern durign your tenure at EPA.
So the fact that Obama's "ambitious goals"  have achieved – at best – what the New York Times today characterized as "modest policy gains" – and that the Administration is now backtracking on the environment, comes as no surprise to us, nor should it to anyone else who is paying attention.
And the NY Times apparently is not aware that almost all of the promised regulations that support their claim of "modest policy gains" remain just promises and have not been finalized and formally adopted. So there is still lots of backtracking to be done before 2012.
In a larger sense, today's story about the departure of Carol Browner – White House "Energy Czar" – was no surprise. It was preceded by several obvious signals of retreat, not the least of which was the collapse of cap and trade (which we viewed as a good thing, but done for the wrong reasons).
Just last week, Obama issued an Executive Order on Regulatory Review, which parroted right wing talking points about regulation.
Growing more republican every day, last Thursday, the New York Times reported that the Obama EPA was walking away from major regulations, just at the critical moment when EPA needed to ramp up regulations to address global warming in light of Republican intransigence and global warming denial in Congress.
We started in the wake of Obama's disaster at the global warming treaty collapse at Copenhagen; with deep disappointment with Congressional Democrats' inability to enact real reforms despite huge majorities in both Houses; and under a dark cloud cast by the election of NJ Governor Chris Christie.
This rulemaking is necessary because without it PSD and title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) levels provided under the CAA, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the larget GHG emitters.
EPA subsequently followed up on the "tailoring approach" with an empty – literally, in this case content-less – press conference announcement of a settlement agreement to propose regulations in the future that would apply to refineries and power plants.
It has not been reported that the EPA Settlement is a weak deal. Fine print of the settlement agreement allows EPA to violate the deadlines for regulations with virtual impunity. The settlement provides little enforcement leverage for environmentalists – see remedies in paragraph #7 .
The regulatory deadlines in the settlement give EPA another big out – thay are conditioned upon the availability of approriations and thus may be killed by Republicans in Congress who have said they will not fund global warming regulations (see paragraph #12).
The Bush EPA rejected the Section 108 NAAQS approach as too costly and politically infeasible.
So did Obama and Lisa Jackson. Same as Bush – this is not change we can believe in.
We don't have the time or energy to conduct a full blown 2 year review of the Obama/Jackson record.
Just goes to show, you gotta watch what they do, not what they say.
Obama is dominated by corporate interests.
And, as we predicted-Â just like in NJ, where she caved to Governor Corzine's political whims -Â Lisa Jackson lacks the independence and spine to stand up and fight.
Last Thursday, the Assembly Regulatory Oversight Committee  released a resolution (ACR 132) that found a DEP clean air regulation "inconsistent with legislative intent", the first step of repealing the rule.
Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, defended the rule, saying the federal Clean Air Act contemplated a strong role for states to define control measures that were state-specific.
Bill Wolfe, an environmental advocate and former DEP employee, called the oil-tank provision "a pure public health-protection measure" and said New Jersey had to take extraordinary measures to start meeting air-quality standards.
He said that the industry previously would not have been bold enough to argue against it but that Gov. Christie had created a regulatory climate inviting such challenges.
One of Christie's first acts in office last year was issuing an executive order saying that state agencies shall not adopt rules that exceed federal requirements, with limited exceptions.
He also commissioned a group to identify regulations that impede economic development for reasons that include exceeding federal standards "without well-documented cause," placing the state at a competitive disadvantage in attracting jobs.
It is obvious that the oil industry is cynically trying to capitalize on the current economic recession and Governor Christie's regulatory relief policies to roll back a 2009 DEP regulation on gasoline storage tanks.
The rule was proposed back in 2008 and has been on the books for almost 3 years. The legislature had ample opportunity to raise objections during the 2008 public comment period but failed to do so. Obviously, the only relevant thing that's changed since then is Governor Christie's "regulatory relief" policy agenda, which has invited oil industry lobbyist to mount a legislative attack.
DEP bent over backwards and gave the oil industry until 2020 – 10 years - to comply with the requirements to control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from their storage tanks, primarily located at refineries. DEP estimates that the rule will reduce current VOC emissions from gasoline tanks by 130 tons per year. DEP estimates that these requirements will apply to about 70 tanks and cost $58 million. If that cost were fully passed through to consumers, the impact would be less than one penny per gallon of gas at the pump.
Obviously, that $58 million wouldn't put a dent in the industry's rising multi-billion profits.
But, strategically, this DEP gas storage tank rule is chump change -  there are far larger issues in the pipeline.
Refineries will be required to reduce emissions even further to meet new EPA ozone standards (EPA proposed to reduce the current 75 ppb ozone standard to a range of 60 – 70 ppb in the January 19, 2010 Federal Register).
The oil industry is using this gas tank rule to draw a line in the sand and frame the debate on larger upcoming issues. As usual, they rely on the Big Lie about environmental requirements and the economy  (the current slogan is "job killing").
For example, ACR 132 sponsor Burzichelli used that Big Lie in the Inquirer story, where he falsely claimed that the recent closure of the Sunoco refinery in West Deptford was related to environmental compliance costs. But, in reality, that refinery closed due to slack or declining demand for gas as a result of the recession.
If the business community can back DEP off these current requirements, they build power to deter future requirements.
Here's how the oil industry is seeking to back DEP off.
This veto power has been used very rarely. Instead, legislative oversight hearings are typically is used more as a political threat in order to extract concessions.
Oil Industry lobbyist testimony repeatedly cited Governor Christie's regulatory relief policies (cost benefit analysis and a policy not to be more stringent than federal minimums) and the Red Tape Report recommendations to promote flexibility.
The icing on the cake that makes this game possible?
Costs are also considered on a unit specific basis if costs are shown in an Alternative VOC control plan submitted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.17 to be economically infeasible because of unusual site specific circumstances which result in extreme costs.
In this case, the DEP rule in question requires that gasoline storage tanks install vapor controls to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including hazardous air pollutants like benzene, a known carcinogen.
VOCs are ozone precursors and contribute to unhealthy air quality commonly referred to as smog, or in regulatory jargon, exceedence of the NAAQS for ground level ozone.
NJ does not meet the current ozone standard and must sharply reduce current emissions.
In setting primary ambient air quality standards, EPA's responsibility under the law is to establish standards that protect public health. The Clean Air Act ("Act") requires EPA, for each criteria pollutant, to set a standard that protects public health with "an adequate margin of safety." As interpreted by the Agency and the courts, the Act requires EPA to base this decision on health considerations only; economic factors cannot be considered.
The prohibition against the consideration of cost in the setting of the primary air quality standards, however, does not mean that costs, benefits or other economic considerations are unimportant or should be ignored. The Agency believes that consideration of costs and benefits is an essential decision making tool for the efficient implementation of these standards.
 The impacts of cost, benefits, and efficiency are considered by the States when they make decisions regarding what timelines, strategies, and policies make the most sense.
New Jersey's comprehensive set of strategies to meet the NAAQS for ozone are found in the EPA approved State Implementation Plan (SIP).


Listen to this show here!
For the sake of variety, we normally try not to have the same guest on our show too frequently, but I had to make an exception for Susan Standfield-Spooner (Gojigo) who will be on the airwaves for the second time this summer. Hearing about her activism ideas is like taking a drink from a waterfall and you want Every. Damn. Drop.
Born and raised in Vancouver, Susan went on to study International Politics at Queen's University before embarking on a career in television in the USA and then in 2004, moved to Nairobi. She has recently returned to Vancouver for an indefinite amount of time and has been injecting some much-needed enthusiasm, strategy and drive to the Vancouver activism scene, armed with an immense amount of life experience in many fields of work and coupled with a "we can get this done and no one is going to stop us" attitude.
Susan is currently applying for a research grant to study how animal agriculture is polluting the Fraser River and Estuary, and she has taken water samples from Vancouver's Hallmark chicken slaughterhouse waste-water to be tested in a laboratory. She discusses the impact of this toxic waste run-off to the citizens of Vancouver and our natural waterways.


*To obtain DISCOUNTED DELIVERY on local orders over $30, please enter the discount code of 'SPECIAL' during the checkout.
GUARANTEED SAME DAY DELIVERY (if ordered before 4pm) to Armstrong Creek, Batesford, Bell Park, Bell Post Hill, Belmont, Breakwater, Ceres, Corio, Connewarre, Drumcondra, East Geelong, Fyansford, Geelong, Geelong West, Grovedale, Hamlyn Heights, Herne Hill, Highton, Lara, Leopold, Lovely Banks, Manifold Heights, Marshall, Moolap, Mount Duneed, Newcomb, Newtown, Norlane, North Geelong, North Shore, Rippleside, South Geelong, St Albans Park, Thomson, Torquay, Wallington, Wandana Heights, Warralily, Waurn Ponds, Whittington.
NEXT DAY DELIVERY to all other areas, Aireys Inlet, Anglesea, Avalon, Bannockburn, Barwon Heads, Bellarine, Bellbrae, Bells Beach, Breamlea, Clifton Springs, Curlewis, Drysdale, Indented Head, Jan Juc, Lorne, Marcus Hill, Ocean Grove, Point Lonsdale, Portarlington, Queenscliff, St Leonards.
UPDATE THE SHIPPING ADDRESS to that of the recipient when using your Paypal acount; click for example.
SPECIAL MESSAGES & INSTRUCTIONS need to be given by adding Note to Seller during the Paypal checkout; click for example.
PAYMENT IS VIA PAYPAL and you may use the 'Pay with a credit or debit card' link if you do not wish to create a Paypal account.
PHONE ORDERS ARE WELCOME please call us on 0439 716 707 to place your order.
FOR THE FULL TERMS, CONDITIONS & REFUND POLICY please visit the folowing link; Floral Perfection Terms & Conditions.


T2Laser is a Benbox replacement for Grbl based laser and CNC systems. It supports grey scale images, vector graphics and also has basic sketch features. You can add text to images, contour cut-out images or convert raster to vector and output it to the laser all in a single G-Code file. Advanced algorithms for photo engraving and clipart / logos, as well as multi-pass vector cutting capabilities. Resolution, speed and power are user defined so you can maximize quality while reducing the engraving time.
Click here for more information and an overview of T2Laser features.
Visit the benboxlaser.us forum to discuss T2Laser with other users.
Examples created with T2Laser can be found on our Facebook gallery page.
T2Laser is trial software. We recommend you install and evaluate it with your machine before purchasing a license. See the Store tab for pricing and license options.


text:
Tag Archives: turner broadcasting system
When Tesla is 100 percent solar, it'll be a 'game changer'
August 15, 2021 adminBlogballard power systems, solar system model, turner broadcasting system
Elon Musk is no stranger to big solar power announcements.But when Tesla is truly 100 percent on solar, the company can create a "game changers" opportunity, according to the president of the solar energy company's manufacturing unit.Tesla has already been able to transform itself into a "transformational" company that's made significant progress in scaling its
What's next for Turner Broadcasting System in the coming years?
July 25, 2021 adminContactapple system status, headright system, reproductive system, systems engineering, turner broadcasting system
Headright System.The system in charge of video services, including HBO Go and HBO Go Live, will close next year.A spokesman for HBO told me that "there are no plans to shut down the headright system."A spokeswoman for Hulu said "Hulu has been exploring options for the headleft system for a while and we are actively


Despite an increased focus on cybersecurity awareness in the workplace, employees' poor cybersecurity habits are getting worse, compounded by the speed and complexity of the digital transformation. Of the 1,600 global employees Vanson Bourne surveyed, 75% of respondents admitted to reusing passwords across accounts, including work and personal.
Organizations are at varying stages of the digital transformation, and that evolution has presented an increasingly complex IT environment to manage securely. Yet the survey findings points to a workforce who are less committed to security best practices.
Read more about the findings of the new survey on Help Net Security.
Is your security approach exposing your organization to risk? The answer is "yes" if your security strategy focuses exclusively on external threats. If the breaches of the last 24 months have taught us anything – it's that insider threats are a cause for equal if not greater concern.
The problem with traditional implementations is a security-with-blinders focus on files, infrastructure, and data in order to secure systems. They limit access to unauthorized users, but do not take into account the risk involved with negligent or malicious users that have already been given access to the system. This is the real risk of insider threat.
Read more about how to tackle insider threats on Help Net Security.
Malicious insiders pose the biggest cybersecurity threat for companies today because they can cause the most damage, and are much harder to detect than outsiders. According to the 2018 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report, 28 percent of all data breaches involved insiders and that insiders accounted for 76 percent of all compromised records.
Detecting insider threats using conventional security monitoring techniques is difficult, if not impossible. Data science, however, provides a promising alternative. The emerging field of security analytics uses machine learning technologies to establish baseline patterns of human behavior, and then applies algorithms and statistical analysis to detect meaningful anomalies from those patterns that may indicate illicit behavior.
Read more about how science can fight insider threats on Help Net Security.
Often, the most terrifying of all threats to a company's IT network, is that posed by the insider. According to a Ponemon report, over the past two years the insider threat has escalated for businesses, with the average number of incidents involving employee or contractor negligence having increased by 26 percent, and by 53 percent for malicious and criminal insiders.
CyberArk research sheds light on how IT security decision makers aren't exempt from putting their organisations at risk. A startling 85% worried that they might personally introduce a cybersecurity incident into their company.
Read how businesses across all sectors, can take steps to avoid an insider threat nightmare, according to David Higgins of CyberArk, on Information Security Buzz.
Despite concerted efforts by many US organizations to improve security awareness among users, a new study shows they still have a long way to go. Some 75% of respondents today pose a moderate or severe risk to their company's data, according to MediaPRO's third annual State of Privacy and Security Awareness Report, and 85% of finance workers show some lack of data security and privacy knowledge.
The firm surveyed more than 1,000 employees across the United States to quantify the state of privacy and security awareness in 2018. More people fell into the risk category this year than in 2017 – and that number had nearly doubled since the inaugural survey.
Read more about the disturbing findings of the report on DarkReading.
Information targeted for fraud covers a wide range of personal data, including personal identification data, personal financial data, and personal medical data. Understanding the insider threat requires understanding what motivates people to behave, whether that behavior is positive or negative.
Read more about IT sabotage and insider threats, and learn about the preventative measures organizations can take, on TechTarget.
Computer professionals may think their enterprise security is good, but they think their skills are better. In fact, almost half think they could pull off a successful insider attack, according to a new report by Imperva.
Indeed, 43% of the 179 IT professionals surveyed said they could successfully attack their own organizations, while another 22% said they would have at least a 50/50 chance at success. When it came to the attack surface, only 23% said they would use their company-owned laptops to steal information, while nearly 40% said they would rely on their personal equipment.
Read more about the findings of the new Imperva report on DarkReading.
The human factor is a key concern for businesses trying to keep networks secure, according to Kaspersky Lab's State of Industrial Cybersecurity 2018 survey. With 40% of Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) computers undergoing attacks every six months, companies must try and find ways to end dangerous employee behaviors, said the press release.
Human employees are a huge problem in all of cybersecurity, with most cyberattacks designed to take advantage of human errors rather than flaws in software. Whether it's clicking on malicious links or accepting fraudulent emails, nearly half (49%) of organizations in all sectors face critical security consequences due to employee errors, according to the release.
Read more about the findings of the new Kaspersky Lab survey on TechRepublic.
Finn Partners Research released findings from its Cybersecurity at Work study that examined the level of cyber risk that employees pose to their organizations.
The in-depth study, which surveyed 500 full-time office employees across the US, found that nearly two in five workers admitted to clicking on a link or opening an attachment from a sender they did not recognize. This security slip-up is significant due to the installation of malware on their devices and the harvesting of sensitive corporate data.
Read more about the findings of the study by Finn Partners Research on Help Net Security.
The pervasiveness of the insider threat is something every company worries about. And according to the conclusions reached by Dtex Systems based on threat assessments from several global organizations, 100 percent of companies have blind spots that enable the continued presence of the insider threat. No argument there.
Every company that provides their employees with decision-making authorities gives their employees the power to make decisions that undermine the company. What stops wholesale anarchy are unified goals, awareness training, and, above all, trust. No company can bring the insider threat down to zero percent. But there are many that bring it close to zero.
Read more about the Dtex 2018 Threat Report, which serves to bring to the forefront those areas where companies can invest their resources to bring down the threat posed by their trusted insiders, on CSO.


text:
West Virginia: Rep. Mollohan Draws Late Primary Foe
By Greg Giroux
Posted February 1, 2010 at 6:01pm
Rep. Alan Mollohan has drawn last-minute opposition in the Democratic primary. He'll be opposed for renomination by veteran state legislator Mike Oliverio.
Oliverio mailed his candidacy papers to state election officials on Saturday, just ahead of a midnight postmark deadline.
Oliverio was first elected to the state Senate in 1994 and re-elected three times in a Morgantown-area district. He previously served one term in the state House.
Oliverio's challenge of Mollohan marks only the third time in 14 re-election campaigns that Mollohan has been opposed in the Democratic primary. Mollohan last faced intraparty opposition in 1998, when he took 87 percent of the vote against W.E. Ruehl, a little-known financial adviser. In 1992, Mollohan easily beat Rep. Harley Staggers Jr. in the Democratic primary after redistricting paired the two in the same district.
Six Republicans are challenging Mollohan, including former state Rep. David McKinley and former state Sen. Sarah Minear.


Through this service, DFS Accounting Services, LLC can provide daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly income and expense results along with total cash on hand.
Track your income and expenses for a smooth tax season.
DFS Accounting Services, LLC has assisted numerous clients in tracking income generated and expenses incurred from Fantasy Sports Playing, Sports Betting, Gambling and Cryptocurrency Investing. Through this service, we can provide daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly income and expense results along with total cash on hand. Individuals who incur expenses (i.e. cable sports package subscriptions, monthly advice column fees, investment research) use this service to make tax time smooth and seamless.
Our recordkeeping service fee is based on the volume of transactions required to be recorded and the frequency of the reports being provided. Should we determine the fee to be higher than quoted, we will advise you prior to performing any services.
If you have more than 45 weekly transactions in QuickBooks, or need a customized quote for what we don't have listed here, please feel free to reach out to us to discuss.


this was a newspaper series that e-types did for Learning Lab Denmark. Scott Hansen made us discover this great work.
First Crashtest of Prototyp #3.
Prototyp #3 and #4 are finished. They are made of the same piece of wood. The lines of the big table continue in the small table. Material : solid oak.
First real prototype finished! I called the colours "lost colours" because I felt like I havn't seen them in a long time. They fit perfect to the solid oak.
The first sketches of Prototype #2.


You may or may not have heard about the new Online Court proposals, intended to bring the UK justice system up to date and make use of the wonders that the internet has to offer. The proposal is to have an online dispute resolution facility available within the next two years. It has been suggested that this will initially cover claims of up to £10,000 with an aim to work towards handling claims of up to £25,000. The process was initially proposed as being "lawyer-free" although more recently it has been suggested that there will be "a very limited element of fixed costs". It will involve online 'facilitators' who assist parties with negotiations to try to reach an agreement, and if that fails, a Judge will rule on the case. The parties would not appear in person to give evidence, nor would this take place in a court room. It would be more of a virtual courtroom with the potential option of telephone hearings.
This is of course just a summary of the proposal but in any event it seems that much of the detail remains unresolved and clearly needs some careful thought.
As well as modernising the UK justice system, the purpose of this is apparently to save costs and speed up the court process as well as increasing access to justice. However, what about those who do not or cannot use the internet? What about vulnerable clients or those who do not speak English? Those who have learning difficulties or struggle to read and write? It is certainly not increasing their access to justice.
At Hodge Jones & Allen we have a large housing team that undertakes a variety of work, but a large portion of that work is claims for housing disrepair. Disrepair covers a wide range of issues from a leaking roof to a faulty extractor fan. We have been considering whether disrepair claims could be suitable for the proposed Online Court process and have some real concerns about the effect this would have on claimants.
Running a disrepair claim requires a specialist housing lawyer with the right expertise. It is not a simple claim for damages where someone owes you a defined sum of money. It often involves not only an order for damages but also an order to compel the landlord to carry out repairs. Furthermore, the process of quantifying damages is not straight forward and requires careful consideration of case law. How can tenants be expected to quantify their own claim? This would put them at a significant disadvantage as they will be lacking the necessary skills and resources. They may even have unrealistic expectations of the level of damages, resulting in them paying an inflated court fee or the case ending up before a judge when it should have settled. Equally, they may end up settling for something which is totally inadequate and unjust.
It is also concerning that social housing tenants will be up against a landlord with their own legal team and expert surveyors on hand, which carries the obvious risk of a significant inequality of arms.
This blog only touches the surface of the serious concerns that we have about disrepair claims moving to the Online Court system. Hodge Jones & Allen recently provided a substantive response to the interim report from Lord Justice Briggs in which he set out the proposals for the Online Court system. We identified a wide range of practical and fundamental problems that would arise if disrepair claims were dealt with using the Online Court process…watch this space for the final outcome!


text:
Q: What is uninterruptible blocking? Consider this code from TIJ 4th edition
class SleepBlocked implements Runnable {
  public void run() {
    try {
      TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(100);
    } catch(InterruptedException e) {
      print("InterruptedException");
    }
    print("Exiting SleepBlocked.run()");
  }
}

class IOBlocked implements Runnable {
  private InputStream in;
  public IOBlocked(InputStream is) { in = is; }
  public void run() {
    try {
      print("Waiting for read():");
      in.read();
    } catch(IOException e) {
      if(Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
        print("Interrupted from blocked I/O");
      } else {
        throw new RuntimeException(e);
      }
    }
    print("Exiting IOBlocked.run()");
  }
}

class SynchronizedBlocked implements Runnable {
  public synchronized void f() {
    while(true) // Never releases lock
      Thread.yield();
  }
  public SynchronizedBlocked() {
    new Thread() {
      public void run() {
        f(); // Lock acquired by this thread
      }
    }.start();
  }
  public void run() {
    print("Trying to call f()");
    f();
    print("Exiting SynchronizedBlocked.run()");
  }
}

public class Interrupting {
  private static ExecutorService exec =
    Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
  static void test(Runnable r) throws InterruptedException{
    Future<?> f = exec.submit(r);
    TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.sleep(100);
    print("Interrupting " + r.getClass().getName());
    f.cancel(true); // Interrupts if running
    print("Interrupt sent to " + r.getClass().getName());
  }
  public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
    test(new SleepBlocked());
    test(new IOBlocked(System.in));
    test(new SynchronizedBlocked());
    TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(3);
    print("Aborting with System.exit(0)");
    System.exit(0);
  }
}

Here is the output
Interrupting SleepBlocked
InterruptedException
Exiting SleepBlocked.run()
Interrupt sent to SleepBlocked
Waiting for read():
Interrupting IOBlocked
Interrupt sent to IOBlocked
Trying to call f()
Interrupting SynchronizedBlocked
Interrupt sent to SynchronizedBlocked
Aborting with System.exit(0)

Here you can see that all the created threads have been interrupted at last(atleast that's what I think because no one execute its run method to last) but instead after that Bruce Eckel keeps on saying that

you cannot interrupt a task that is trying to acquire a synchronized
  lock or one that is trying to perform I/O.

Or does interrupt means something else here??
Also he stated that

SleepBlock is an example of interruptible blocking, whereas IOBlocked
  and SynchronizedBlocked are uninterruptible blocking.

What does he mean by uninterruptible blocking here? Can anyone specify the difference between two?

A: He is out of date, or your edition is. NIO supports interruptible I/O, via InterruptibleChannel, although only in the rather useless way that the channel gets closed, due to the ludicrous Linux interrupt semantics.
java.io and java.net I/O operations are not subject to interrupts, and there is nothing in your question that proves otherwise. If they were, you would have seen "Interrupted from blocked I/O" in the output, and you didn't. Your I/O thread is still blocked in in.read().

A: Each thread has an interrupted status that is used as a boolean flag. When someone would like to interrupt a thread, this flag is set to true. There is no precise definition of what interruption means, but it is generally used as a signal for cancellation.
A thread can get interrupted either while running and doing some work or while waiting/sleeping (in WAITING or a TIMED_WAITING state).

*

*If interrupted while running, only the interrupted flag is set to true and nothing else. So logically if you want to cancel your job you should keep checking this value:

Callable<V> task = () -> {
    while (more work to do) {
        if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) return null;
        // Do more work
    }
    return result;
};

*If interrupted while in wait/sleep status an InterruptedException is thrown (and interrupted state is cleared, so if you check the flag within the catch block it will be false). Examples of these methods are: wait(), Thread.sleep(), BlockingQueue.get(), Semaphore.acquire() and Thread.join().

So if a method is known as uninterruptible, then you can expect that it is not going to throw an exception but will set the interrupted flag to true and continue running. You could take a look at the semaphore example with acquire and acquireUninterruptibly:
static class SemaphoreBlocked implements Runnable {

        Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(0);
        @Override
        public void run() {
            try {
                semaphore.acquire();
            } catch (InterruptedException e) {
                log.info("Semaphore interrupted, {}", Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted());
                throw new RuntimeException(e);
            }
        }
    }

static class SemaphoreBlockedUninterruptibly implements Runnable {

        Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(0);
        @Override
        public void run() {
            semaphore.acquireUninterruptibly();
            System.out.println("Exiting");
        }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange