Home » Theory » How Do I Beat A Serve And Volley Player In Tennis?
You look forward to playing almost all your matches, but the next one is against that dreaded serve and volley player at your club you can't figure out. He or she rushes the net, doesn't give you time to set up on your shots, takes away your rhythm, and demoralizes you by ending the point with quick, decisive volleys.
So how to beat the serve and volley player?
We must use a strategy that involves making the first volley extremely difficult to hit, if not impossible. If we take away that first volley, then the rest of the point should be easy. Our strategy to accomplish this will be to rush them by returning from close into the baseline, choosing targets uncomfortable for them, and either lobbing or driving hard and low to kill their first volley.
We often talk about how to use the serve and volley game to your advantage, but now we're going to focus on how to beat it. We'll detail the various ways you can make the first volley extremely difficult for your opponent thereby giving you a great chance to win the match. By the end of this post, you'll have a very clear idea of what's needed to beat the serve and volley game.
No longer will you cower at the thought of your opponent rushing the net like a mad bull. We're going to give you proven techniques to stop that charging bull in his or her tracks!
Before we talk about specific strategies to beat the serve and volley game, it's key that you keep the following things in mind before you start your match. I think about them before every match and it allows me to dictate which strategies to employ. If you're like me and want to give yourself the best chance of winning, any little edge cannot be overlooked. Here they are in no order of importance.
Wind – The wind will affect all shots in tennis. How windy is it during the time of the match? Which way is the wind blowing? By using the wind against your opponent, you can gain a slight edge. For example, by lobbing with the wind, you can force your opponent into a difficult overhead. You would not want to lob against the wind, as it could hold up your ball to be easily smashed. If the wind is moving sideways, it may not be advisable to hit in that direction, as your ball might go out. Hitting into the wind (to the other sideline) would be more advantageous.
Know Your Opponent – The more you know about your opposition, the better you'll fare. The three main things I want to know are: how good is their forehand volley, their backhand volley and their overhead? Whichever stroke is the weakest, is the one we'll key in on most of the time. If we hit to their weakness all the time, we would become too predictable, which is why we need to vary our attack slightly.
Court Surface – Are you playing on hardcourt, red clay or Har-Tru? How slow or fast are the courts? In general, the faster the court, the more it favors the serve and volley player. This is the reason we hardly ever see serve and volley play on red clay, which is the slowest surface. Hardcourt is the fastest with Har-Tru in between. If you're a club player, you'll probably never play on grass, which is extremely fast. If you're playing on hardcourt, the serve and volley game can still be beat, so don't worry about that.
Lighting Conditions – If you're playing a daytime match, the sun can be a factor. I would want to know the position of the sun so I can lob into the sun when it's most difficult for my opponent to hit the overhead. As far as night conditions are concerned, they generally will have no effect on play except for older people with poor eyesight. Those players would benefit more playing daytime matches.
Righty or Lefty? – Is your opponent a righty or lefty? This does matter. Most players (80-90%) will be righty. But playing a lefty can throw a monkey wrench into the equation. Everything is reversed. So where you set up for the return and where you place the return will be altered. The basic rule is to do the opposite of playing a righty. So if you planned on setting up to the right side of the court for a righty, now you'll stand on the left side. If you play a few lefties, you'll soon get used to the difference.
Beating the serve and volley player will rely largely on your return game. Serve and volley players always approach the net after a good, first serve. Some players even approach the net on a second serve as well, depending on its quality. Your first line of defense, or offense, to beating the serve and volley player is your return game.
When returning, we basically have the option of hitting with topspin or slice. Topspin is the easier shot for most people, but a good slice can work wonders on the return, especially on serves that "kick" or jump up high. This is especially true on the backhand side. Most players feel way more comfortable hitting a backhand slice at shoulder height or higher, rather than trying to deal with hitting a flat or topspin backhand at those heights.
The slice can be very effective against the serve and volley game, but it must have pace and be relatively low over the net. A slice that floats high or does not have pace will be eaten up for breakfast by any skilled volley player. The slice shot return can work for all the strategies mentioned in this post except for lobs and topspin shots we want dipping to the feet of the opponent. You can even hit a very hard return right into the body of the rushing opponent.
A very well-struck slice with a tight rotation can be very difficult to volley, as the reverse spin can be hard to handle and most volley players are used to flat or topspin shots, and not slices.
The serve and volley player feasts on a weak return game, so we need our returns to be accurately struck for any hope of beating them. If we float our returns or don't put them in the right place, we can kiss our hopes of winning goodbye. The techniques in this article are proven to work, but improving your return game goes hand-in-hand with it.
The first thing we can do to improve our chances is to stand close to the baseline on the return, preferably slightly inside. At most, you should set up 2-3 feet behind the baseline – and only against huge servers.
You may have seen Rafael Nadal (one of the greatest players of our age) standing 15 feet behind the baseline on the return and think it a good strategy. But he's not facing serve and volley players on the pro tour.
Or, maybe you feel comfortable standing 6-7 feet behind the baseline to give yourself plenty of time to hit the return. That's fine against baseline players who glue themselves to the baseline and dare not venture past it. You can float your returns and hit almost anywhere on the court without much retribution. However, all that goes out the window with a skilled volley player rushing the net behind a good serve.
Standing far behind the baseline does give you more time to hit the ball. Yes, that much is true. But guess what? It also gives your charging opponent more time to set up for that all-important first volley.
By standing 6 feet in back of the baseline on the return, the ball has to travel an extra 12 feet (6 feet to you and 6 feet back) before your opponent hits their first volley. This can allow as much as one second extra for your opposition to move in and set up. And a one-second difference means everything in tennis. It can easily be the reason you win or lose.
So what are the benefits of returning a serve close to the baseline? By standing close to it, we rob our opposition of time, forcing them to hit a return further from the net than they would like. This keeps them from advancing their position and allows us to create more angles of attack. It also gives us more time to set up for that very important first volley.
If you don't like standing by the baseline on your returns, try it in practice matches. Do it there first, before you play an important match. You'll soon get used to it and see how crucial it is to beating the serve and volley game.
Now that you understand the importance of returning close to the baseline, let's talk about where that first strike or return is going in terms of location. I like to think we have three clear-cut options for location on the return. It's important we know them, understand which ones will work best on our opponent and when to use them. I'm going to break down each one.
When you return, you'll want to choose one of these options. Keep in mind this will work against a serve we can control and place. Sometimes that isn't possible because the serve comes in with too much placement or speed. If you play an opponent at your level, chances are 50-75% of the serves will be controllable – meaning within your reach.
Hitting close to the sideline is a great way to diffuse and dismantle the charging serve and volley player. After all, he or she can't be everywhere. The serve and volley player is banking on a return somewhere near the middle of the court, from where they can hit an effective volley. However, a well-placed shot to the sideline makes it nearly impossible for the opposition to volley. Even if they manage to get a racquet on the ball, and hit it over the net, it will be a weak shot easily put away by you.
Now, the side of the court (deuce or ad) will dictate which sideline you will target. On the deuce side (right side), you'll want to hit down the line, meaning the right side of the court, or the closest sideline to you. On the ad side (left side), the same rule applies – hit to the closest sideline to you, which will be the left side of the court. If you hit to the opposite sideline (from either the deuce or ad side), you run the risk of placing the ball in the middle of the court, where the ball can be easily picked off by your opponent.
As we can see, going down the closest sideline is your best chance to end the point quickly. However, with great opportunity comes great danger. The danger in employing this strategy is the difficulty level of hitting to close to the sideline. It takes skill and good timing on the return, but it can be done. Specifically, the danger in going down the line is that we must hit over the high part of the net and our ball can more easily go outside the court. Still, this is a strategy absolutely necessary to beat a good serve and volley player and should be used throughout the match.
A final point that is key for the return, but not often discussed, is the height of the shot. When you hit a return, in general, the lower and faster the ball, the better for you. A low shot means that the volleyer needs to volley up to get the ball over the net. This does not allow him or her to drive the ball like on a high shot. By forcing your opponent to volley from under the net, you will have a great chance at hitting the volley return and winning the point.
Just by managing to return hard and low, more than half the battle against the serve and volley player is won. When the ball goes low over the net it is also harder to read and makes the degree of difficulty rise for the volleyer. To boot, you also increase your chance of making the opponent miss the volley entirely or hit into a half volley, which is more of a defensive shot.
So when playing a good serve and volley player, try to hit hard, keep the shot as low as possible, and away from the volleyer. This is a great rule of thumb to follow. Keeping the ball in play during that first return is essential, so if you start hitting the return to net or out, tone down the power to keep your returns in play.
You want to at least make your opponent volley that first ball instead of handing over the point. There is a fine line between going for too much and hitting your spots. This is a constant judgment call in tennis that all players face. Much of the time, this judgment is dictated by how well or not you are hitting on that particular day and how skilled your opponent is.
Now, you might think it contrary to common sense to hit directly at your opponent, but there is good reason to do so. By going right at the serve and volley player, you force them to volley from two odd positions that play into your advantage. We'll go into both in detail below. Either way will work (and it's advised to mix them up) but a definite factor in this strategy is how hard you hit and how well your opposition can volley.
Back in the 80s and early 90s, Ivan Lendl (one of the better men's professional tennis players from that era) ruled the game with his pelting forehand. If you tried to serve and volley Lendl, he would often go right at you with a 90 mph forehand that discouraged future attempts to the net. While club players can rarely generate such speeds on their forehands, a well-struck return (either forehand or backhand) to the chest of the rushing opposition will definitely not be an easy shot for him or her.
In particular, you want to aim for the side of their chest with their dominant arm. The reason for this is because it's easier to hit a backhand volley in the middle of your body but way more difficult on the forehand side. So for example, if a right-handed player is rushing the net, I'd want to hit a hard return to their right shoulder or chest area. Of course, we're not looking to actually hit and hurt someone, but the volley player usually understands the risks of coming to net. We need room to hit and so a cannot be afraid to hit a hard shot in the direction of our opponent.
This method does work, especially if you can generate pace of 70 mph or more on your shots. If the shot is too slow, most good volley players will adjust in mid-stride and put the ball away. Still, give this method a try and see if it can work for you.
Another general rule of thumb in beating a good serve and volley player is to place the ball at their feet.
If you can't go around them or over them, a well-placed ball to the feet of the volleyer will cause all kinds of problems. First, it is difficult to time for the volley player. Second, it will most likely be a defensive shot from below the net. And third, it will impinge their forward movement to the net, briefly stopping them in their tracks. It's incredibly difficult to hit a half volley on the run, even for the top professional players, much less club players.
The great thing for you in using this strategy is that it does not require a huge amount of pace. If you hit at a medium speed with some top-spin, the ball should dip right to the feet of the opponent as they reach the service line. Accordingly, the player will either miss the ball entirely, dump it into the net or give you a sitter (easy put away shot) not far from the net.
This strategy works at every level on every surface but can be especially effective on Har-Tru and red clay due to the uneven bounces. Try it out. Remember if you hit too deep, the ball will be in perfect position for the volleyer, since we are hitting down the middle of the court. Take something off the ball and add more topspin than you typically do to force the ball to dip.
A good lob can be the serve and volley players worst nightmare. This is especially true in sunny and windy conditions or if the player has trouble hitting overheads. The lob is a ball that is hit high to very high in the air, with top-spin, and optimally lands close to the baseline.
I've beaten countless foe by using the lob. It offsets the opposition's rhythm and causes them to stop, back-peddle and hit a shot of high difficulty (if placed far back on the court). What's great for us is that a high skill level is not needed to hit the lob – anyone can do it. But good feel for the ball is essential, as you are lobbing off the return of serve, not a normal groundstroke.
There are three caveats with the lob that must be mentioned.
First, do not use it all the time. If you become predictable with it, your opponent will adjust by staying back a bit longer and wait for the lob and then smash it.
Secondly, you must hit a deep lob (past the service line) in order for it to be effective against good players. A short lob that's close to the net is put-away city for your opponent. Aim within a few feet of the baseline on every lob you hit. It will take time to develop a great lob, but it's a fantastic weapon to have in your arsenal, not only off the return but on any shot.
Third, you need to hit the ball high enough in the air to make the degree of difficulty high enough for your opponent to miss. Hitting an overhead smash on a ball 50 feet in the air is definitely more challenging than hitting a ball that is 20 feet in the air. However, if you can clearly hit the ball over your opponent and keep the ball in play, than any height lob will do. But on the return, and since your opponent will most often be near the service line when you strike the ball, it will be difficult to hit over them, so hitting high up is your next best option.
Hitting a high lob also gives you more time to set up for the smash. After you hit the lob, get to the middle of the court and keep close eye on how your opponent is setting up. You can then anticipate where the smash is headed and hit it back in play. I should also mention that forcing your opponent to hit a lob on their backhand side is often far more effective than the forehand side. You do this by lobbing to the side of their body with the non-hitting arm. Of course, the player can still step to the side and hit a normal overhead smash, but sometimes they can't and you end up easily winning the point.
The overhead works particularly well in doubles when you lob the closer net player.
Check out more on the lob in this dedicated post on the lob.
Let's suppose your opponent serves to you, you make the return, and your opponent than volleys or hits an overhead somewhere on your side of the court. What's next?
Most likely, your opponent will have moved in closer to the net in a more aggressive position to end the point; serve and volley players are taught to keep moving in until near the net and can easily put the ball away on a weak return. Being this is most likely the case, we can still go down-the-line, hit right at them or make a great lob. What is probably taken away from us is the option of hitting at their feet, since they are closed in on the net now. That strategy will usually end badly for us when our opponents are within 6-7 feet of the net or closer. But, what does open up to us is the cross court pass.
If you or your opponent does not end the point after one or two volleys, then the point is probably favoring you, the returner. With your opponent at net, all you need is some time to set up for a pass (cross court or down-the-line), a good lob or even a direct hard shot right at their body. Some key points to remember if you find yourself in this part of the point.
Keep your cool and do not panic. You have the various options mentioned above to work with. Choose one and be decisive in your play. If you decide to lob, just do it and hit it well.
Footwork is key. Too many players stand around and watch their shots, not resetting for the next one. Being that the net player can quickly volley back, you need to be on your toes and ready for the next shot. Great footwork in this situation is essential.
Remember, when the player is right at the net, soft shots won't win the point. You need to hit fast paced shots, well-placed medium paced shots or a good lob. Resist the temptation to just get the ball back softly and hope the opposition will miss at the net. It's far better for us to control our own fate than leave it in the hands of the volley player.
Now that you know what it takes to beat a serve and volley player, you can at least feel confident in having a good game plan going into your next match. Often club players have no idea of how to beat a serve and volley player and hit anywhere only to lose badly.
You are now way ahead of the average club player in knowing what to do. All that is needed is to apply this information in the match. Remember, you're going to lose points, some decisively, but keep coming back to the strategies outlined in this post. Never feel discouraged out there and keep a positive attitude on every point. It sounds hokey, but it truly does work. I simply brush off bad points, knowing that I'm a good player and have a great shot at winning the next one. I have a friend named Leon, who always tells me to "hit the delete button" after a bad shot, and he's totally right.
Knowing how to beat the serve and volley game is not enough to do it on the court. You need to practice your down-the-line shots, your high-pace shots, your top-spin shots and your lob every chance you get. Push the pace in practice and go past your comfort zone. This will help you during the match. I heard that Rafael Nadal misses as much as 50% of his groundstrokes in practice because he's pushing the the envelope on almost every shot he hits. Instead of avoiding the serve and volley player, seek them out and play against them as much as possible. Doing so will allow you to feel more comfortable hitting under pressure. And through experience you'll begin to find the right shots to win the point – and ultimately, the match.
We have a host of articles in this blog to help your tennis game. If you have any questions, feel free to drop us a comment and we'll respond. Additionally, we have dozens of high-quality videos on our youtube channel where you can learn every part of tennis. If you can learn to consistently beat the serve and volley game, you'll soon become one of the most feared and respected players at your club!
Fantastic tips to players to play against serve/ volley player.


text:
Q: excel vba function not returning value? I am trying to learn excel vba and i am having an issue with a value not being returned from a function.
I have a spreadsheet and i look for data in it , in a specific column, from a specific line. I am trying to find the line that contains my data. When found, i want to return that line number to my main sub.
The function finds the data and the line number. MsgBox displays the right line number but my main sub does not seem to see it.
Below my simple function:
Function findLine()
Dim Line As Integer
Dim Output As Integer

Line = 4
mysh = "data"

Do Until Sheets(mysh).Range("B" & Line).Value = "found" And Sheets(mysh).Range("C" & Line).Value = "you"
   Line = Line + 1
Loop

Output = Line
MsgBox Output ' this displays the right line number
End Function

and the call from my name :
myline = findLine()
Msgbox myline  ' this shows an empty box.

Could you please advise about what i am doing wrong ?
cheers !

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Type: Magnetic Separator. Production Capacity: 98%. Place of Origin: Jiangxi, China (Mainland). Brand Name: JXSC. Model Number: XCRS 400x240. Voltage:.
Shanghai Taixiong Magnetic Industrial Co., Ltd. US $30000 50000 / . Sponsored Listing. Alta intensidad Foucault separador magnético de separación metal .. Xcrs serie mineral de estaño permanente Foucault Lab wet separador magnético .. Click to view the corresponding English site:eddy current separator. Categoría.


Presiding over one of the Mexico´s most glorious beachfront.
Imagine staying at a gorgeous condo, situated DIRECTLY on Sandy Beach with an incredible view overlooking the beautiful waters of the Sea of Cortez.
This condo is nicely decorated and comfortably sleeps eight. There is a full kitchen complete with appliances and cooking utensils. Linens and towels are provided. FREE Internet and SATELLITE TV on 50" Screen.
How about a large glass door that OPENS to a balcony with BBQ to cook. Enjoy evening cocktails or morning coffee or tea as you watch the sunrise over the ocean.
Whether heading across town, across COUNTRY or around the globe, when you call Casa Blanca home, a world of excitement and sophistication is easily within reach.
Beautiful Old Town Condo With Breathtaking Views!
Gorgeous Beachfront Villa, Private Pool, Maid - Casa Cielo!


text:
Q: Why doesn't MSVC optimize cout for char or const char* but it does for int? Compare the codes:
    const char x = 'a';
    std::cout<< x;
00C31000  mov         eax,dword ptr [__imp_std::cout (0C32054h)]
00C31005  push        eax
00C31006  call        std::operator<<<std::char_traits<char> > (0C310B0h)
00C3100B  add         esp,4

and
    const int x = 'a';
    std::cout<< x;
00271000  mov         ecx,dword ptr [__imp_std::cout (272048h)]
00271006  push        61h
00271008  call        dword ptr [__imp_std::basic_ostream<char,std::char_traits<char> >::operator<< (272044h)]

and
    const char* x = "a";
    std::cout<< x;
00071000  mov         eax,dword ptr [__imp_std::cout (72058h)]
00071005  push        eax
00071006  call        std::operator<<<std::char_traits<char> > (710B0h)
0007100B  add         esp,4

It seems that the const int version is better optimized than the const char* and the (even more surprising)const char version. The question - Why is there a difference in the generated code?

A: Some overloads of operator<< (including for int, but not char or const char*) are members of std::ostream; some are non-member functions taking std::ostream& as their first parameter.
Microsoft's compiler uses different calling conventions for member and non-member functions. I'm guessing that you're building for 32-bit Windows. In that case member functions will use the thiscall convention, where this is passed in register ecx and the remaining arguments are passed on the stack; and non-member functions use the cdecl convention, where all arguments are passed on the stack.

A: From the operator names: because one is a member and the other is a free function.


Costa del Sol has long been recognized as one of the most interesting places in Spain to dive, benefiting from year round sun-shine and warm temperatures making it an ideal holiday destination for divers and non-divers alike.
The coastline between Marbella and Estepona is especially interesting for its variety of marine life, because of the mix due to the two seas that are meeting each other in this area, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean. A biodiversity hotspot thanks above all to the rich Poseidonia meadows, that hold an amazing variety of life!
Different levels, from begginers to masters!


A progressive mental deterioration that can occur in middle or old age, due to generalized brain degeneration. Alzheimer's Disease is the most common cause of premature senility.
A patient with Alzheimer's suffers from memory loss and is at risk for developing dementia.
Alzheimer's is caused by environmental and/or genetic factors.


text:
Home> Tablets
The Great Equalizer 3: How Fast is Your Smartphone/Tablet in PC GPU Terms
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 4, 2013 1:00 AM EST
Digging Through the Parts Closet Choosing a Testbed CPU & 3DMark Performance GL/DXBenchmark 2.7 & Final Words
For the past several days I've been playing around with Futuremark's new 3DMark for Android, as well as Kishonti's GL and DXBenchmark 2.7. All of these tests are scheduled to be available on Android, iOS, Windows RT and Windows 8 - giving us the beginning of a very wonderful thing: a set of benchmarks that allow us to roughly compare mobile hardware across (virtually) all OSes. The computing world is headed for convergence in a major way, and with benchmarks like these we'll be able to better track everyone's progress as the high performance folks go low power, and the low power folks aim for higher performance.
The previous two articles I did on the topic were really focused on comparing smartphones to smartphones, and tablets to tablets. What we've been lacking however has been perspective. On the CPU side we've known how fast Atom was for quite a while. Back in 2008 I concluded that a 1.6GHz single core Atom processor delivered performance similar to that of a 1.2GHz Pentium M, or a mainstream Centrino notebook from 2003. Higher clock speeds and a second core would likely push that performance forward by another year or two at most. Given that most of the ARM based CPU competitors tend to be a bit slower than Atom, you could estimate that any of the current crop of smartphones delivers CPU performance somewhere in the range of a notebook from 2003 - 2005. Not bad. But what about graphics performance?
To find out, I went through my parts closet in search of GPUs from a similar time period. I needed hardware that supported PCIe (to make testbed construction easier), and I needed GPUs that supported DirectX 9, which had me starting at 2004. I don't always keep everything I've ever tested, but I try to keep parts of potential value to future comparisons. Rest assured that back in 2004 - 2007, I didn't think I'd be using these GPUs to put smartphone performance in perspective.
Here's what I dug up:
The Lineup (Configurations as Tested)
Release Year Pixel Shaders Vertex Shaders Core Clock Memory Data Rate Memory Bus Width Memory Size
NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT 2007 16 (unified) 520MHz (1040MHz shader clock) 1.4GHz 128-bit 256MB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX 2006 24 8 650MHz 1.6GHz 256-bit 512MB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 2006 20 7 480MHz 1.4GHz 256-bit 256MB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT 2005 20 7 400MHz 1GHz 256-bit 256MB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 2004 8 3 300MHz 500MHz 128-bit 256MB DDR
I wanted to toss in a GeForce 6600 GT, given just how awesome that card was back in 2004, but alas I had cleared out my old stock of PCIe 6600 GTs long ago. I had an AGP 6600 GT but that would ruin my ability to keep CPU performance in-line with Surface Pro, so I had to resort to a vanilla GeForce 6600. Both core clock and memory bandwidth suffered as a result, with the latter being cut in half from using slower DDR. The core clock on the base 6600 was only 300MHz compared to 500MHz for the GT. What does make the vanilla GeForce 6600 very interesting however is that it delivered similar performance to a very famous card: the Radeon 9700 Pro (chip codename: R300). The Radeon 9700 Pro also had 8 pixel pipes, but 4 vertex shader units, and ran at 325MHz. The 9700 Pro did have substantially higher memory bandwidth, but given the bandwidth-limited target market of our only cross-platform benchmarks we won't always see tons of memory bandwidth put to good use here.
The 7800 GT and 7900 GS/GTX were included to showcase the impacts of scaling up compute units and memory bandwidth, as the architectures aren't fundamentally all that different from the GeForce 6600 - they're just bigger and better. The 7800 GT in particular was exciting as it delivered performance competitive with the previous generation GeForce 6800 Ultra, but at a more attractive price point. Given that the 6800 Ultra was cream of the crop in 2004, the performance of the competitive 7800 GT will be important to look at.
Finally we have a mainstream part from NVIDIA's G8x family: the GeForce 8500 GT. Prior to G80 and its derivatives, NVIDIA used dedicated pixel and vertex shader hardware - similar to what it does today with its ultra mobile GPUs (Tegra 2 - 4). Starting with G80 (and eventually trickling down to G86, the basis of the 8500 GT), NVIDIA embraced a unified shader architecture with a single set of execution resources that could be used to run pixel or vertex shader programs. NVIDIA will make a similar transition in its Tegra lineup with Logan in 2014. The 8500 GT won't outperform the 7900 GTX in most gaming workloads, but it does give us a look at how NVIDIA's unified architecture deals with our two cross-platform benchmarks. Remember that both 3DMark and GL/DXBenchmark 2.7 were designed (mostly) to run on modern hardware. Although hardly modern, the 8500 GT does look a lot more like today's architectures than the G70 based cards.
You'll notice a distinct lack of ATI video cards here - that's not from a lack of trying. I dusted off an old X800 GT and an X1650 Pro, neither of which would complete the first graphics test in 3DMark or DXBenchmark's T-Rex HD test. Drivers seem to be at fault here. ATI dropped support for DX9-only GPUs long ago, the latest Catalyst available for these cards (10.2) was put out well before either benchmark was conceived. Unfortunately I don't have any AMD based ultraportables, but I did grab the old Brazos E-350. As a reminder, the E-350 was a 40nm APU that used two Bobcat cores and featured 80 GPU cores (Radeon HD 6310). While we won't see the E-350 in a tablet, a faster member of its lineage will find its way into tablets beginning this year.
Choosing a Testbed CPU & 3DMark Performance Digging Through the Parts Closet Choosing a Testbed CPU & 3DMark Performance GL/DXBenchmark 2.7 & Final Words
IntelUser2000 - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
@zlim:
It would be lot closer, because the HD 4000 in the regular variant is only 50-60% faster than the HD 3000. The HD 4000 in ULV is maybe only 30-40% faster. Reply
zeo - Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - link
Mind though that the iPad is using a quad GPU, while the Intel GMA's are single GPUs... Also this isn't counting discrete graphic cards, which scale much higher than Integrate GPU's can go. Even AMD's best APU still barely provides what would be a mid-range discrete graphic card performance. Reply
ltcommanderdata - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
These results seem to suggest that high-end mobile GPUs are very close to current-gen consoles (nVidia 7900 class) and that the HD4000 is faster than current-gen consoles. Based on realizable graphics in games it doesn't seem that close although that may be advantages in bandwidth and close-to-metal access showing through.
"Again, the new 3DMark appears to unfairly penalize the older non-unified NVIDIA GPU architectures. Keep in mind that the last NVIDIA driver drop for DX9 hardware (G7x and NV4x) was last October, before either benchmark had been released. The 8500 GT on the other hand gets the benefit of a driver released this month."
You mentioned you were using nVidia drivers from October 2012, but the latest legacy drivers for the 6000/7000 series is GeForce 307.83 from February 2013 for Windows 7 and GeForce 307.74 from January 2013 for Windows 8. Reply
perry1mm - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
This will be speaking in terms of mobile graphics for the HD 4000:
Combined with the proper specs (fast RAM, higher clocked processor frequencies without the TDP holding it back from turbo-boosting, and a higher allocation of VRAM) should come out to 125-150% better performance than the PS3 or Xbox 360, from the comparisons I have done.
Such as most games that run 1080p on PS360 (if that's even the native resolution, doubtful for most) are locked at 30FPS and for PC would be "low" settings and likely low or no AA. I can run similar games on my Vaio Duo 11 @ 1080p with low settings and low or no AA at more consistent framerates than 30. I've looked up graphical capabilities (settings) on the consoles such as Skyrim, DmC, L4D2, Borderlands 2, Far Cry 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and more...and it seems when consoles are running them at 30FPS I can consistently get 35-40, if not higher. Reply
Oh, and in reference to the "proper specs" with the HD 4000 in my Sony Vaio Duo 11, I have the i7 3537u (turbo-boost to 3.1Ghz) with 8GB 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM. Reply
jeffkibuule - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
No game runs at 1080p on the PS3/360. It's mostly 720p60, 720p30, and even 640p(30-60). 1080p is a pipe dream on current consoles. Reply
Friendly0Fire - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
There was one notable exception: Wipeout HD has always run at 60fps and 1080p and looked superb for it. Reply
SlyNine - Friday, April 5, 2013 - link
Actually there are a few games that run in 1080p@60. Soul Calibur is rendered at 1080p for instance.
Sorry you didn't know or bother checking the facts before you posted misinformation just to help prove your point.
A point that I agree with, but I hate misinformation. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
You are correct, the drivers were from February 2013 not October. I'm not sure why we thought October. I've updated the article accordingly :)
When HD 3000 launched, the unofficial word was that GPU was the first integrated GPU to finally be faster than the Xbox 360. HD 4000 is understandably quicker. The ultra mobile GPUs (likely in tablets first) will be faster than the current gen consoles in the next 1 - 2 years. Combine that with the fact that one of the ultra mobile players happens to be a big game publisher for a major console and you begin to have a rough outline of what could look like a giant trump card. Whether or not they ever play it is another question entirely.
Anand Reply
Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
I'm the one who came up with October, since that was when NVIDIA moved their DX9 cards to legacy. I had not realized there had been an interim driver release. Though it's worth noting that legacy cards don't get performance optimizations, only bug fixes. So there still would not be any optimizations in those drivers for the new benchmarks. Reply

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The juror who made the comments was replaced this morning by U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno. But the judge denied defense motions asking that two other jurors be replaced. He also rejected a defense motion for a mistrial.
Robreno, who has presided over the three-month trial, praised the work of the anonymously chosen panel, despite grumbling in both prosecution and defense camps about what appears to be a rambling process.
"The jurors are lay persons dealing with complex issues," the judge said before seating the new alternate, a middle-aged white male, in place of the young, African-American woman who was dismissed.
Robreno said the jury's conduct "has been commendable."
"You're witnessing justice being done," he said at another point during this morning's hearing.
On Wednesday, Robreno sat another alternate in place of an elderly juror who had called in sick two straight days. Each time an alternate is placed on the panel, deliberations have to start over. But in both instances, it appear the remaining members of the panel were able to quickly bring the new member up to speed.
Once deliberations started today the jury wasted little time asking to rehear several secretly recorded conversations that appear to focus on co-defendant George Borgesi, 49, and key prosecution witness Louis "Bent Finger Lou" Monacello.
Thursday was the first time since deliberations began on Jan. 8 that the jury had asked any questions about Borgesi or Monacello.
The tapes replayed this afternoon included a phone call Borgesi made from prison in which he talked with Monacello and New York mob associate Anthony Aponick who had been in inmate with Borgesi in a federal prison in West Virginia.
Monacello and Aponick were having dinner in Ralph's, an Italian restaurant on Ninth Street in South Philadelphia. They were having mussels, according to comments made during the phone call.
The the actual conversation appeared vague. At one point Borgesi talked with Monacello and said he would "straighten everything out, you know what I'm saying."
It was unclear what Borgesi was referencing. There were several other comments in the same, ambiguous vein. Defense attorneys later said that if those kinds of tapes were the best the prosecution had, the jury would be hard pressed to convict Borgesi.
The opposite spin on the tape was that, while it wasn't specific, it showed Borgesi directing Monacello.
Monacello's testimony is considered crucial in the case against Borgesi. He testified that he ran Borgesi's bookmaking and loansharking operations after the mob figure was jailed on an unrelated racketeering charge in 2000.
The defense has argued that Monacello, 46, used Borgesi's name to advance his own underworld operations.
Borgesi is Ligambi's nephew. Among other things, Monacello testified that the uncle and nephew were constantly at odds. Monacello also acknowledged that he neither liked nor trusted Ligambi.
Other tapes replayed for the jury included conversations in which Monacello coached mob associate Frank "Frankie the Fixer" DiGiacomo to lie to a state grand jury conducting an investigtion in 2007 into the Delaware County gambling operation. Monacello was unaware that DiGiacomo was wearing a body wire and cooperating with state and federal authorities.
DiGiacomo testified for the prosecution in the current case, supporting some of Monacello's testimony. But he also labeled Monacello a braggart and blowhard who used Borgesi's name.
On tapes made by DiGiacomo in the South Philadelphia law office of attorney Greg Quigley, Monacello talked about the state investigation and openly coached DiGiacomo on how to lie to the grand jury.
He also said that the state investigation had targeted him as a way to get at Borgesi.
"That's who they have a hot nut for," he told Quigley.
At another point, he said he expected to be squeezed by state investigators, predicting that they would confront him about his dealings for Borgesi and Ligambi. He said authorities would confront him and say, "Tell us what you're doing with Georgie and the other guy (Ligambi)...or you're gonna get 10 years."
In fact, neither Ligambi nor Borgesi were charged in the Delware County investigation. Monacello eventually pleaded guilty to a gambling conspiracy and obstruction of justice charge and was sentenced to about two years in prison which he served primarily in a work-release program.
From the witness stand, Monacello said he did not cooperate with authorities in that state investigation and was willing to do jail time. He said he turned informant after being indicted with Ligambi, Borgesi and the other co-defendants in May 2011 because he believed Ligambi and Borgesi planned to kill him.
The defense has challenged that assertion, alleging the Monacello cut a deal with federal authorities to get out from under his own criminal problems and that he has used Borgesi and Ligambi as his get-out-of-jail cards.
He has pleaded guilty to the same racketeeing conspiracy charge that the others face and has yet to be sentenced.
As with all the tapes that were replayed for the jury the "tell us what you're doing" tape has been spun in two differections by those trying to determine what the jury is thinking and why they want to rehear it.
In the most favorable light for the Borgesi camp, the tape shows that Monacello knew that he could use information about Borgesi and Ligambi to get out from under his own criminal problems. On the other hand, the tape could be intepreted as an unguarded acknowledgement by Monacello that he worked for Borgesi and Ligambi, the position he staked out on the witness stand.
Ligambi, Borgesi and five co-defendants are facing racketeering conspiracy charges tied to allegations of bookmaking, loansharking, extortion and the distribution of video poker machines. Ligambi, 73, also is charged with obstruction of justice and defrauding a union health and medical fund for more than $220,000 in medical expenses for himself and his family.
Jury deliberations are to begin again Tuesday following a three-day recess.


Callicoon, NY is a hamlet and census-designated place in Sullivan County, New York. Nestled in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains and along the beautiful Delaware river, Callicoon is a charming town steeped in history and rich in sightseeing opportunities. Callicoon got its name from Dutch hunters who settled the location in the 17th century. Because of the population of wild turkeys in the area, they named the community Kollikoonkill which translates into Wild Turkey Creek. Callicoon resides in the Sullivan West Central School District. It is 14 miles up river from Narrowsburg, NY.


Do you think how to apply ibn sina pharmaceutical job circular 2019 ? It's very simple to apply. You need to go their official website at first. Then open the respect jobs online application form. Read the online job application form carefully. Is there everything is well known to you? If so then start fill up the application form carefully. But you should fill up the online form as like as your academic certificate and national ID card. So hurry up to apply. So check ibn sina pharmaceutical jobs circular 2019.


text:
SANITATION AND RECYCLING INDUSTRY INC v. CITY OF NEW YORK
SANITATION AND RECYCLING INDUSTRY, INC., Michael Dibenedetto, Multi-Carting, Inc., John A. Corrieri, Inc., John P. Corrieri, Inc., Victor Ferrante, Silver Star Carting Co., Inc., Michael Verrilli, Falso Carting Co., Inc., Constantino Isabella, Isabella City Carting Corp., Kenneth Occhiogrosso, Joe's Sanitary Haulage, Vincent Cinotii, Marangi Carting Corp., John A. Toscano, Mr. T Carting Corp., Carl Dell'Olio, Dellvena Carting Corp., John Florio, Pioneer Carting Corp., James Tesi, C.T. Carting Corp., Angela Buskirk, Frank Lomangino & Sons, Inc., Arnold Sirico, Midbronx Haulage Corp., Paul Panza, Bronx County Rubbish Removal, Inc., Jay Malave, Vincent Archina, Crown Waste, Inc., Gerald Antonacci, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 655, Docket 96-7788.
Decided: February 28, 1997
Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE, and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges. Gerald Walpin, New York City (Jeffrey L. Braun, Jane J. Ferrall, Jonathan J. Faust, Rosenman & Colin, LLP, New York City, of counsel), for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Alan G. Krams, New York City (Paul A. Crotty, Kristin M. Helmers, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York City, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.
This appeal challenges the constitutionality of Local Law 42, a newly-enacted law of the City of New York, that purports to promote the efficient and lawful conduct of the commercial carting business in the City. Finding that the carting industry has been corruptly influenced by an organized criminal cartel for many years, and that law enforcement and regulation of the industry under existing law has not succeeded in rooting out illegal and anticompetitive practices, the City passed the challenged law. This targeted criminal cartel is a "black hole" in New York City's economic life. Like those dense stars found in the firmament, the cartel can not be seen and its existence can only be shown by its effect on the conduct of those falling within its ambit. Because of its strong gravitational field, no light escapes very far from a "black hole" before it is dragged back, Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time-From the Big Bang to Black Holes, 81-82 (Bantam Books 1988); the record before us reveals that from the cartel's domination of the commercial waste industry, no carter escapes. Local Law 42 establishes a new commission and regulatory scheme to address this pervasive problem.
A. The Carting Industry
At least since the turn of the century, New York City has required commercial establishments to hire private carters to collect their refuse. However, the City once made an exception for commercial establishments in residential areas, allowing them to have their garbage picked up by the City free of charge. This exception was eliminated in 1956. For the past 40 years all commercial establishments in New York have been required to contract with private carting companies for the removal and disposal of their waste. Three hundred private carting companies service 250,000 commercial accounts, removing more than 12,000 tons of commercial waste and recyclable materials each day. Most of the carting companies are "mom and pop" businesses, owned by one individual or members of a single family for decades. After private haulers took over commercial carting in residential areas, however, racketeering and anticompetitive conduct commenced almost immediately, and has continued to the present day.
The 1987 Rand study of racketeering in legitimate industries, undertaken for the U.S. Department of Justice, described how carters sold each other the exclusive right to service particular customers, while racketeers mediated intercarter disputes. Peter Reuter, Rand Corporation, Racketeering in Legitimate Industries: A Study in the Economics of Intimidation (1987). Customers had no choice in who hauled their trash and were routinely victimized by having the amount of refuse falsely inflated. A 1986 report by the New York State Assembly's Environmental Conservation Committee concluded that organized crime's domination of the waste hauling industry in New York City had become such a functional part of the industry that eliminating it would require even more stringent regulations than the then-existing regulatory scheme. New York State Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee, Organized Crime's Involvement in the Waste Hauling Industry (1986).
A joint investigation by the New York City Police Department and the Manhattan District Attorney led to the June 1995 indictment of 17 individuals, 23 carting companies, and four trade associations for their roles in an allegedly broad cartel to restrain competition and artificially inflate carters' prices and profits. According to the indictment, this cartel restrains competition by acts of violence including attempted murder, assault and arson; allocates customers to particular carters and directs substantial compensation in instances when one carter loses a customer to another; and treats carters operating outside the existing trade associations as outlaws, subjecting them to violence and threats if they compete for an established customer of a trade association member.
B. Enactment of Local Law 42
Against this backdrop Local Law 42 was submitted to the City Council, which held three hearings between December 1995 and May 1996 to consider it. The hearing record confirmed a pattern of racketeering and corruption in the New York City carting industry. The Manhattan District Attorney explained to the Council that the private carting industry is "dominated by an organized crime-controlled cartel" that has "reaped staggering economic rewards by preventing any meaningful competition for customers." He estimated that $500 million of the revenue generated in the $1.5 billion-per-year carting industry is cartel-created overcharges. A former director of the New York State Organized Crime Task Force told the City legislators that organized crime controlled the industry by manipulating the companies through the trade waste associations.
Local Law 42 was signed into law on June 3, 1996 and took effect immediately. Local Law 42 § 14. It creates a new agency, the New York City Trade Waste Commission (Commission), responsible for the licensing and regulation of the carting business. Administrative Code of the City of New York (Admin.Code) §§ 16-502 & 16-503.1 The ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to collect trade waste "without a license therefor from the commission," § 16-505(a). Licenses in effect when Local Law 42 was enacted are continued until an unspecified date to be set by Commission rulemaking. Local Law 42 § 14(iii)(a)(2). If a licensee applies for a license renewal within that time, the prior license is valid until a decision is made on the new application. Local Law 42 § 14(iii)(a)(1). A license application must provide information about all of the applicant's principals, § 16-508(a)(i), which include officers, directors, holders of over ten percent of equity, and the relatives of such shareholders in cases where the owner of record is acting on a relative's behalf, § 16-501(d).
The Commission may refuse a license "to an applicant who lacks good character, honesty and integrity," although it must state the reasons for a refusal and provide an opportunity to be heard. § 16-509(a). The law provides an illustrative list of relevant factors for the Commission to consider in making a licensing decision, such as pending criminal actions; prior convictions; "knowing association" with convicted racketeers, § 16-509(a)(v), or members of "an organized crime group," § 16-509(a)(vi); and membership in trade associations that have been convicted of specific crimes or where a person holding a position in such trade association is a member of an organized crime group, §§ 16-509(a)(viii), 16-520(j)(i).
If warranted by "adverse information" developed in the background investigation, the Commission may condition a license on the carter's retention of an independent auditor or monitor, who would scrutinize the applicant's finances and activities and periodically report them to the Commission. § 16-511. After giving notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Commission is authorized to "revoke or suspend a license" upon certain events, § 16-513, and, under certain circumstances, to suspend a license immediately, subject to "an immediate appeal" and an opportunity for a hearing on an expedited basis, § 16-514.
Detailed rules regarding the conduct of the trade waste removal licensees are also established. § 16-520. Licensees must, for example, maintain audited financial statements, records and such other written records as the Commission determines are necessary or useful, § 16-520(c); contracts shall be in a form approved by the Commission, § 16-520(e)(i); and licensees must bill their customers in a form prescribed by the Commission, § 16-520(f). Local Law 42 authorizes the creation of two special trade waste districts if the Commission concludes that improved service and lower prices will result. § 16-523(a), (c). If such districts are created and specific carters are designated to service them, existing carting contracts in those districts are terminated. § 16-524(a).
Local Law 42 also regulates hauling contracts, limiting the terms of all private carting contracts to two years, § 16-520(e)(i), and provides that customers whose contracts are assigned by one hauler to another must have an opportunity to terminate the contract within three months after the assignment, § 16-520(e)(i)(i). Transition provisions for existing contracts limit their duration to the date originally provided in the contract or two years from the enactment of Local Law 42, whichever is earlier. Local Law 42 § 11(i).
Current contracts are made terminable at will by the carter or customer, with certain exceptions: contracts are not terminable after a carter gets a license and a carter can ask the Commission to waive the termination provisions for particular contracts. Local Law 42 § 11(iii). If the waiver was sought by July 18, 1996, the contract will not become terminable unless the Commission denies the request. The Commission is authorized to "determin[e] in its discretion whether a waiver of the termination requirement would be consistent with the purposes of this act" and is instructed to "consider background information" concerning the business, its principals and the full circumstances surrounding the contract's negotiation. Id.
Local Law 42 contains a severability provision pursuant to which if any part of the law is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder is not affected. Local Law 42 § 8.
C. Prior Proceedings
Plaintiffs began the instant declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pollack, J.) on June 4, 1996, one day after the statute took effect. The complaint alleged that several provisions of Local Law 42 are invalid on their face. Asserting there would be injury to their businesses if the law's challenged provisions were given effect, plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of those provisions pendente lite. The City cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In granting summary judgment for the City and dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, Judge Pollack found Local Law 42 is not facially invalid because it can be applied constitutionally. He termed the local law "surgery" that was "essential, overdue and carefully tailored to protect the public interest with measured consideration of the interests and welfare of those who strive only for fair business conditions." From this decision, plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Plaintiffs' attack on Local Law 42 is limited to specific provisions they believe go too far and that are invalid on their face. In particular, plaintiffs contend nine aspects of Local Law 42 violate the Constitution. Provisions of Local Law 42 transgress the Contract Clause (Article I, § 10) by cutting off existing term contracts (1) two years after the law's effective date or by June 3, 1998, (2) at the customer's election in the event of an assignment from one carter to another, (3) at the customer's election in the absence of a waiver from the Commission, and (4) immediately after the Commission's mandated establishment of pilot special districts. The waiver provision violates due process because (5) it establishes no meaningful standard to guide the Commission's exercise of discretion and no provision for notice or a hearing if a waiver is denied; and (6) the independent auditor provision violates due process by authorizing the Commission to require, as a condition to granting a license, that certain licensees, the investigation of which has revealed "adverse information," retain an independent auditor, without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The law also impinges impermissibly, plaintiffs continue, on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association by the restrictions it places (7) on a carter's right to associate with individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes or are associated with groups identified by law enforcement agencies as affiliated with organized crime and (8) on a carter's right to join trade associations. Finally, (9) Local Law 42 violates plaintiffs' rights of privacy by compelling applicants for carting licenses to disclose to the Commission confidential information not related to their carting businesses, and confidential information of family members who have no relationship to their businesses-without requiring the Commission to maintain such information in confidence.
I Impairment of Contract Challenges
Because plaintiffs have chosen to raise their Contract Clause arguments in the context of a facial challenge to the statute, they bear a heavy burden. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 52-53, 91 S.Ct. 746, 754-55, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). There are only two situations where a court may uphold a facial challenge: when plaintiff can demonstrate that the challenged law "could never be applied in a valid manner," New York State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 11, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 2233, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988), or when First Amendment rights are at issue, id., a subject we discuss later.
Under Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution, no state shall pass any law "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." Although this provision sounds like an absolute prohibition, the Contract Clause must be accommodated to the police power a state exercises to protect its citizens. See Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 410, 103 S.Ct. 697, 704, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983). Instead of an absolute bar, the Contract Clause is viewed as imposing "some limits upon the power of a State to abridge existing contractual relationships." Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 242, 98 S.Ct. 2716, 2721, 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978) (emphasis in original).
Those limits on the state's otherwise valid exercise of its police power are determined by a three-part test that asks: (1) whether the contractual impairment is in fact substantial; if so, (2) whether the law serves a significant public purpose, such as remedying a general social or economic problem; and, if such a public purpose is demonstrated, (3) whether the means chosen to accomplish this purpose are reasonable and appropriate. See Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 411-13, 103 S.Ct. at 704-06; Allied Structural Steel, 438 U.S. at 242-44, 98 S.Ct. at 2721-22; United States Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 22-23, 97 S.Ct. 1505, 1517-18, 52 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977).
The first step in the analysis is to determine "whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship." Allied Structural Steel, 438 U.S. at 244, 98 S.Ct. at 2722. The more severe the impairment, the greater the level of scrutiny given it. Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 411, 103 S.Ct. at 704. The primary consideration in determining whether the impairment is substantial is the extent to which reasonable expectations under the contract have been disrupted. Id. Impairment is greatest where the challenged government legislation was wholly unexpected. When an industry is heavily regulated, regulation of contracts may be foreseeable; thus, when a party purchases a company in an industry that is "already regulated in the particular to which he now objects," that party normally cannot prevail on a Contract Clause challenge. Veix v. Sixth Ward Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 310 U.S. 32, 38, 60 S.Ct. 792, 795, 84 L.Ed. 1061 (1940). Also relevant to the determination of the degree of impairment is the extent to which the challenged provision provides for "gradual applicability or grace periods." Allied Structural Steel, 438 U.S. at 247, 98 S.Ct. at 2724.
Assuming a contractual relationship has been substantially impaired, the next step is to examine the state's justification for its action. See Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 411, 103 S.Ct. at 704. The law must have a "legitimate public purpose." Id. It should be aimed at remedying an important "general social or economic problem" rather than "providing a benefit to special interests." Id. at 412, 103 S.Ct. at 705. Sometimes this inquiry must be approached on a provision-by-provision basis-statutes aimed at solving broad societal problems may contain language whose only purpose is to benefit a small interest group. See, e.g., Garris v. Hanover Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 1001, 1009-10 (4th Cir.1980) (statute as a whole had broad general purpose, but challenged provision aimed at benefiting small interest group).
If the legislative purpose is valid, the final inquiry is to determine whether the means chosen to achieve that goal are reasonable. U.S. Trust Co., 431 U.S. at 22-23, 97 S.Ct. at 1517-18. A law that works substantial impairment of contractual relations must be specifically tailored to meet the societal ill it is supposedly designed to ameliorate. Allied Structural Steel, 438 U.S. at 243, 98 S.Ct. at 2721-22.
We discuss the four Contract Clause challenges in this analytical framework. The plaintiffs contend Local Law 42 violates the Contract Clause by (1) shortening the term of existing carting contracts to a maximum of two years, (2) rendering carting contracts terminable at the customer's option on assignment of such contracts by one carter to another, (3) rendering carting contracts terminable at will unless the carter obtains a new license or applies for a waiver, and (4) terminating immediately all contracts within a pilot district. As noted, plaintiffs' facial attack on Local Law 42 is extraordinarily difficult to mount successfully since they must demonstrate that the law may not be validly applied under any set of circumstances. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).
Plaintiffs point out that a carter who has bargained for a long-term contract will, under the new law, suddenly possess a contract whose term is no longer than two years, and which may in many cases be terminated immediately (in pilot districts and in situations where a waiver is not granted). They think this a dramatic, unforeseen change. The City responds that garbage collection and disposal is a core function of local government, and in New York City has been subject to 40 years of regulation and licensing.
Plaintiffs declare, relying on Holiday Inns Franchising, Inc. v. Branstad, 29 F.3d 383, 385 (8th Cir.1994) (state statute that retroactively alters existing franchising contracts violates Contract Clause), that although the City has for many years regulated the carting industry, it had never regulated with respect to the duration of contracts. Plaintiffs maintain therefore that they had no fair warning of legislative intervention into that area and that its unforeseen advent is a substantial impairment of their constitutional rights. We note that, although the City has never before regulated the duration of carters' contracts, carters have been for decades subject to the City's regulations and may be held to have anticipated regulation of this sort. Yet, we do not think we need decide the precise degree to which these provisions of Local Law 42 impair contractual relationships.
We say this because, as Judge Pollack correctly observed, the law has a legitimate purpose. Its aim-eradicating the vestiges of criminal control accompanied by bid-rigging, "evergreen" contracts and predatory pricing in the carting industry-is a broad societal goal, not the pursuit of the interests of a narrow class. The City has broad (though not unlimited) power to enact a law like Local Law 42 to achieve these legitimate ends without worrying that in so doing private contracts may be impaired or even destroyed. See U.S. Trust Co., 431 U.S. at 22, 97 S.Ct. at 1517-18. Otherwise, as Justice Holmes observed, a person whose rights "are subject to state restriction [could] remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about them." Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 357, 28 S.Ct. 529, 531, 52 L.Ed. 828 (1908).
The ultimate question is whether the City-in enacting Local Law 42-has chosen reasonable means to achieve its legitimate purpose. When reviewing a law that purports to remedy a pervasive economic or social problem, our analysis is carried out with a healthy degree of deference to the legislative body that enacted the measure. U.S. Trust Co., 431 U.S. at 22-23, 97 S.Ct. at 1517-18. If, as the City found, the vast majority of the contracts entered into under the old scheme were tainted by the threat of violence and anticompetitive practices, gradually phasing out those contracts and arranging for new carting contracts to be negotiated in an atmosphere free of coercion is a reasonable accommodation between the impairment of plaintiffs' contracts and the City's exercise of its police power. Further, it is clear that in some cases, e.g., those where the contract is about to expire by its terms, the impairment caused by the law will be slight. We cannot conclude that the statute may not under any circumstances be found constitutional. Thus, plaintiffs' facial attack against Local Law 42 on impairment of contract grounds (points 1-4) can not succeed.
II Due Process Challenges
We turn next to plaintiffs' due process contentions. In this regard, plaintiffs insist in substance that Local Law 42 violates due process in that (5) the waiver provision provides no meaningful standard to inform the Commission's discretion and allows the granting or denying of a license where there is no provision for notice and an opportunity to be heard and (6) the provision permitting the Commission to condition the grant of a license on the appointment of an independent auditor to monitor the activities of the licensee contains neither objective standards nor provides an opportunity for a hearing on the issue.
The law renders all contracts held by a carter who has not received a license by July 18, 1996 (no carter met this deadline) terminable at the customer's option on 30 days notice unless the carter obtains from the Commission a waiver of the termination provision with respect to identified contracts. See Local Law 42 § 11(iii). Plaintiffs assert that the contract termination provision, combined with the requirement for obtaining a waiver to avoid termination, violates due process. The first reason advanced is that the standard guiding the Commission's discretion in granting or denying a waiver is so utterly meaningless as to constitute no standard at all.
Under Local Law 42 the Commission must determine within its discretion "whether a waiver would be consistent with the purposes of the Act." Local Law 42 § 11(iii). The statute clearly states its purposes-to eliminate corruption and to protect consumers. The statute instructs the Commission to "consider background information" regarding the applicant and its principals and all the circumstances respecting the negotiation and implementation of such contracts, "including but not limited to the form and content thereof." Id.
A statute cannot be struck down as unconstitutionally vague unless it is "impermissibly vague in all of its applications." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 495, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). Under this broad standard governing facial challenges to an economic regulation, Local Law 42's recited purposes give the Commission sufficient legislative direction so that Local Law 42 is not impermissibly vague.
Plaintiffs next contend that their procedural due process rights may be violated because the statute authorizes the Commission to make its waiver decisions and decisions as to whether to appoint an auditor without an explicit hearing requirement. We note first that plaintiffs' complaint is hypothetical. Although the Act also does not require that the Commission provide waiver applicants with notice and an opportunity to be heard on their applications, the Commission chose to provide each of the 42 applicants who have been denied waivers to date with the Commission staff's recommended decision and an opportunity to respond before the Commission acted. Similarly, while the statute does not require the Commission to provide applicants with process before it conditions the grant of a license on the retention of a monitor or auditor, the Commission may nonetheless do so.
Moreover, to succeed on a claim of procedural due process deprivation-that is, a lack of notice and opportunity to be heard-a plaintiff must establish that state action deprived him of a protected property interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S.Ct. 893, 901, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). When alleging a property interest in a public benefit, plaintiff must show "a legitimate claim of entitlement" to such interest. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Plaintiffs have no property interest in a waiver of the termination of their existing contracts. The parties agree that the local law grants the Commission substantial discretion to decide whether or not to grant a waiver. The existence of that discretion precludes any legitimate claim of entitlement. Hence, no protected property interest in a waiver exists. Absent a property interest, there is no right to a hearing (point 5).
Nor have plaintiffs a property right in a possible future license. Again, the Commission is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny a license application, which forecloses plaintiffs from showing an entitlement to one. See Morillo v. City of New York, 178 A.D.2d 7, 13, 582 N.Y.S.2d 387 (1st Dep't), appeal dismissed, 79 N.Y.2d 1039, 584 N.Y.S.2d 448, 594 N.E.2d 942 (1992). Absent this showing, plaintiffs have no protected property interest in a future license-let alone one free of conditions. Having shown no property interest for due process to protect, plaintiffs have suffered no deprivation of their due process rights as a result of the independent auditor provisions (point 6).
III Intimate Associational Rights
We pass now to plaintiffs' challenges to Local Law 42 on the grounds that it unconstitutionally infringes on their right of association (points 7 and 8). The United States Constitution affords protection to two distinct types of association, "intimate association" and "expressive association." Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617-18, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3249-50, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984); City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 23-25, 109 S.Ct. 1591, 1594-95, 104 L.Ed.2d 18 (1989). Plaintiffs declare that Local Law 42 impermissibly burdens both kinds of associational freedom. We address the right to intimate association first.
That right guarantees an individual the choice of entering an intimate relationship free from undue intrusion by the state. Roberts, 468 U.S. at 617-18, 104 S.Ct. at 3249. At a minimum, it extends to relationships that "attend the creation and sustenance of a family-marriage, childbirth, the raising and education of children, and cohabitation with one's relatives." Id. at 619, 104 S.Ct. at 3250. Whether the right extends to other relationships depends on the extent to which those relationships share the characteristics that set family relationships apart-small, select, and secluded from others. Id. at 620, 104 S.Ct. at 3250-51.
Local Law 42 permits the Commission to deny a license if, after notice and opportunity to be heard, the Commission concludes the applicant "lacks good character, honesty and integrity." Admin. Code § 16-509(a). In making this determination, the new law permits, but does not require, the Commission to consider, among other things, the applicant's:
(v) ․ knowing association with a person who has been convicted for a racketeering activity ․
(vi) association with any member or associate of an organized crime group as identified by a federal, state or city law enforcement or investigative agency when the applicant knew or should have known of the organized crime associations of such person.
§ 16-509(a)(v)-(vi). Plaintiffs insist that these provisions are unconstitutional on their face because they subject a carter to the risk that a license will be denied based on associations that may include family or social relationships.
The Constitution does not recognize a generalized right of social association. The right generally will not apply, for example, to business relationships, Roberts, 468 U.S. at 620, 104 S.Ct. at 3251; chance encounters in dance halls, Stanglin, 490 U.S. at 25, 109 S.Ct. at 1595; or paid rendezvous with escorts, IDK Inc. v. County of Clark, 836 F.2d 1185, 1193 (9th Cir.1988). The Constitution does protect the right to intimate association as a "fundamental element of personal liberty," Roberts, 468 U.S. at 618, 104 S.Ct. at 3249, and so there are doubtless relationships that the Commission may not lawfully regulate. We think it plain, however, that pure business relationships with organized crime members fall outside the protected sphere. Local Law 42 goes no further. The statute was not intended to prohibit family associations or social contacts with the persons defined in § 16-509(a)(v)-(vi) when those contacts have nothing to do with the waste disposal business.
So interpreted, Local Law 42 may be applied to associations that occur in connection with the waste disposal business without transgressing on the freedom of intimate association. The restriction that only associations or contacts involved with the waste disposal business are suspect adequately protects the statute from claims that it unduly chills intimate associations. Under the circumstances, we do not need to decide whether overbreadth attacks apply to alleged infringements of the right to intimate association as they do to First Amendment rights, or whether overbreadth challenges do not apply because, as several circuits have held, the right to intimate association lies not in the First but in the Fourteenth Amendment. See Griffin v. Strong, 983 F.2d 1544, 1546-47 (10th Cir.1993); Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247, 1251-52 (7th Cir.1990); IDK, 836 F.2d at 1191-92.
IV Expressive Associational Rights
We pass now to the second type of associational freedom-"expressive association"-which protects the right of individuals to associate for purposes of engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as speech, assembly, the exercise of religion, or petitioning for the redress of grievances. These are the so-called "political" associational rights. Local Law 42 places significant restrictions on the freedom of carters to associate with others for expressive purposes. The first set of restrictions impacts the personal relationships of carters. Section 16-509(a) permits the Commission to consider-when deciding whether an applicant has the requisite honesty and integrity to receive a license-a carter's knowing association with convicted racketeers or persons whom the carter should have known are associated with groups that have been identified by local authorities as organized crime groups. §§ 16-509(a)(v)-(vi).
The second set of restrictions limits the ability of carters to associate together in trade associations. Section 16-520(j)(i) prohibits a carter from belonging to or holding a position in any trade association where the association has violated the antitrust laws or been convicted of racketeering, where a person holding a position in the association has violated the antitrust laws or been convicted of racketeering, where a person holding a position in the association is a member of a group that has been identified by a law enforcement authority as an organized crime group, or where the association has failed to fully cooperate with the Commission in connection with an investigation. §§ 16-520(j)(i)(aa)-(dd). The Commission may permit a licensee to belong to such a trade association if it determines that the association is not operating inconsistently with Local Law 42's purposes. § 16-520(j)(ii). Similarly, § 16-509(a) permits the Commission to consider current membership or holding a position in such trade associations when evaluating the worthiness of a carter to receive a license. §§ 16-509(a)(viii)(ix).
Appellants aver that the provisions restricting carters' associational rights target innocent carters who have never been accused of wrongdoing and invite probing into relationships having nothing to do with a carter's business; it is therefore overbroad and will chill their legitimate First Amendment activities. The City counters that freedom of association is protected only from unjustified interference and that rooting out corruption and racketeering is a public interest that justifies regulation of individual carters' associational rights. Because § 16-509(a) focuses only on the particular kinds of criminals largely responsible for the rampant abuses in the carting industry, the City insists Local Law 42 is narrowly drawn to achieve its purpose and could not be more narrowly tailored and still meet these legitimate government objectives.
A. Personal Associational Restrictions
Our analysis turns to plaintiffs' facial challenge to §§ 16-509(a) and 16-520(j) on overbreadth grounds. Striking a portion of a statute on overbreadth grounds is "strong medicine" to be used "sparingly and only as a last resort." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2916, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). For an overbreadth challenge to succeed, it must be demonstrated that the government has significantly interfered with the right of individuals to associate together. Lyng v. UAW, 485 U.S. 360, 366-67 & n. 5, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 1189-90 & n. 5, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988). Thus in this case, an overbreadth attack may prevail only if plaintiffs can show that an impermissible risk is created that ideas may be chilled whenever Local Law 42 is applied. See New York State Club Ass'n, 487 U.S. at 11, 108 S.Ct. at 2233.
The right of association for expressive purposes is not absolute. Roberts, 468 U.S. at 623, 104 S.Ct. at 3252. Even regulations that substantially infringe upon that right will pass constitutional muster if they serve compelling government interests unrelated to the suppression of ideas and those interests cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. Nevertheless, the City may not choose means to accomplish its goal that unnecessarily restrict protected liberty. Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 58-59, 94 S.Ct. 303, 308, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973). An infringement of the First Amendment right to expressive association-even if in pursuit of a compelling government objective-is justified only if there is no less restrictive means of achieving that end. "Precision of regulation must be the touchstone" in the First Amendment context. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438, 83 S.Ct. 328, 340, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963).
We think it beyond question that the government has a compelling interest in combatting crime, corruption and racketeering-evils that eat away at the body politic. This interest extends to the carting industry, United States v. Private Sanitation Indus. Ass'n, 995 F.2d 375, 377-78 (2d Cir.1993), and the statute is not aimed at suppressing ideas.
Further, the constitutionality of limitations on an individual's right to associate with those who have been convicted of unlawful activity has been upheld in a variety of contexts, most commonly to prevent a convicted defendant from associating with those who would lead him back into a life of crime. The government may, for instance, impose restrictions "reasonably and necessarily related" to its continuing interest in a wrongdoer's rehabilitation, and in protecting the public from further criminal acts. Birzon v. King, 469 F.2d 1241, 1243 (2d Cir.1972). Restrictions have been upheld in the context of probation, United States v. Albanese, 554 F.2d 543, 546 (2d Cir.1977); civil RICO settlements, Private Sanitation, 995 F.2d at 377-78; and union consent decrees, United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 941 F.2d 1292, 1297 (2d Cir.1991). In Trade Waste Management Ass'n v. Hughey, the Third Circuit upheld a New Jersey statute which prohibited licensees from associating "in the waste disposal business" with unsavory individuals. 780 F.2d 221, 236 (3d Cir.1985).
The limitations on personal expressive associational rights contained in §§ 16-509(a)(v) and (vi), if construed literally, raise troublesome First Amendment concerns. Such limitations permit denial of a carting license based on an applicant's "knowing association with a person who has been convicted for a racketeering activity," § 16-509(a)(v), or "association with any member or associate of an organized crime group as identified by a federal, state or city law enforcement agency when the applicant knew or should have known of the organized crime associations of such persons," § 16-509(a)(vi). On their face, these provisions would appear to prohibit even lawful expressive association for purely political purposes having nothing to do with the carting industry. We do not believe such a result was intended. When facing a similar issue in United States v. Local 1804-1, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 44 F.3d 1091, 1098 (2d Cir.1995), we gave a narrowing construction to an associational prohibition. We do so in this case, too, limiting the restrictions contained in those sections of Local Law 42 to associational conduct occurring in connection with the waste disposal business. The provisions, thus construed, permit the Commission to penalize a carter only for knowing associations, having a connection to the carting business, with (i) persons convicted of racketeering or (ii) those individuals that a carter should know are associated with a group identified by law enforcement as an organized crime group. When an applicant is shown to have knowingly associated with a person of prohibited status, the Commission must satisfy itself that the contact was improper under the City law in order for that associational conduct to serve as a basis for denial of a license. Read that way, Local Law 42 is not so overbroad as to significantly interfere with carters' personal associational rights.
B. Prohibition on Joining a Trade Association
Local Law 42 further prohibits a licensee from being a member or holding a position in any trade association under the terms of § 16-520(j) and §§ 16-509(a)(viii) and (ix). These sections permit the Commission to consider memberships prohibited by § 16-520(j), just discussed, in deciding whether to grant a license. Because the right to associate is part of the complex of those First Amendment freedoms that undergird our free society, any governmental attempt to limit it is subject to the closest scrutiny. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1171, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958).
Trade associations meet the criteria of expressive group activities protected by the First Amendment. Here, the associations serve lawful purposes; that is, they have an educational function, helping carters comply with complex regulations governing the carting business and perform a lobbying function at the city and state level. We accept, in addition, plaintiffs' argument that only a certain number of those active in the carting industry are "bad apples," and we accept further the findings of a 1986 report to a New York State Assembly Committee, which was submitted to the district court, that many proprietors of these small hauling businesses are "generally hardworking, honest people."
But, the associations also operate in illegal ways. The hearings on this local law revealed the associations enforced the cartel's anticompetitive dominance of the waste collection industry. The same 1986 Assembly report stated that no carting firm in New York City "can operate without the approval of organized crime." Hence, even these carters not accused of wrongdoing are aware of the "evergreen" contracts and the other associational rules regarding property rights in their customers' locations. The association members-comprising the vast majority of carters-recognize the trade associations as the fora to resolve disputes regarding customers. It is that complicity which evinces a carter's intent to further the trade waste association's illegal purposes.
The Constitution does not permit a blanket prohibition against joining a trade association with both lawful and illegal goals. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 918-19, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 3428-29, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Nonetheless, tangential legitimate purposes pursued by a trade association whose defining aim, obvious to all involved, is to further an illegal anticompetitive scheme will not shield the association from government action taken to root out the illegal activity. When a trade organization becomes so closely brigaded with illegal activity as to become inseparable from it, the government is justified in withholding benefits based on association with such an organization. See Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 229, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 1485, 6 L.Ed.2d 782 (1961); Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498, 69 S.Ct. 684, 688-89, 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949).
Yet, the withholding of benefits must be grounded in some definite standard. In that connection, we have some concern with that portion of § 16-520(j)(i)(cc) that bars a licensee from membership in a trade association "where a person holding a position in such trade organization ․ is a member or associate of an organized crime group" as identified by a law enforcement or investigative agency, that is, where such person is "involved" in organized crime. The scope of this provision is indefinite, far from the required touchstone of precision. To avoid constitutional invalidity, we therefore construe the restrictions imposed in subdivision (cc) of § 16-520(j)(i) as meaning that a licensee may not be a member of a trade association where a licensee knows or should know that a person holding a position in such association has been convicted of being or is a member of an organized crime group. Construing the restriction in this narrowed fashion permits us to conclude that this limited infringement on the right of expressive association is justified by the City's compelling interest in eradicating the criminal cartel's control of the carting industry. See Board of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 549, 107 S.Ct. 1940, 1947-48, 95 L.Ed.2d 474 (1987).
As the Supreme Court made clear in Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 373, 89 L.Ed. 322 (1945), the near dissolution of a trade association may lawfully be ordered where such association "has undoubtedly been an important instrument of restraint and monopoly [and] may be made such again" and where circumstances make "detection and prevention and punishment for such resumption ․ difficult if not impossible." Id. at 428, 65 S.Ct. at 393-94. The City of New York found itself faced with just such a situation. The critical role played by trade associations within the proscribed category in the scheme to restrict competition in the carting industry is abundantly established by the record. And, there is little doubt that, left in place, the trade associations could again undermine competition in ways difficult to detect and punish. Because the City can, under the circumstances here, prohibit a licensee from being a member of a proscribed trade organization, it may, a fortiori, deny a license to an applicant that refuses to sever relations with such an organization.
We note that although provisions of Local Law 42 have a direct effect on the ability of carters to associate together in trade unions that have violated the antitrust laws or engaged in racketeering, we do not believe that these restrictions have a "substantial" or "significant" effect on the ability of carters to associate together for lawful purposes. Carters remain free to form and join trade associations that have not engaged in criminal activities. To the extent that the trade associations targeted by the statute had lawful objectives in addition to their unlawful aims, those lawful purposes may be advanced freely by carters through new or different industry associations.
After engaging in the closest scrutiny, we believe the challenged provisions, as construed, are narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling governmental interest in terminating 40 years of criminal control of the carting industry in New York City. As a consequence, we hold that the prohibitions against association with trade associations are not unconstitutional on their face.
V Privacy Rights
Plaintiffs' final challenge (9) is that Local Law 42 violates plaintiffs' privacy rights. It does this first by compelling the disclosure of confidential information unrelated to the carting business. The City points out that, of the seven required disclosures appellants challenge, five deal with finances and two with legal matters, most of which are matters of public record. The rest of the requested information is disclosure that the City contends it has a substantial interest in discovering. Second, plaintiffs aver the City violates their privacy rights by defining "applicant" to include family members. The language of the local law makes any person a "principal" of a corporate applicant if the parents, children or grandchildren of that applicant own 10 percent or more of the applicant. Admin. Code §§ 16-501(a) and (d). Plaintiffs complain that the Commission required information not only about individuals associated with the carting business as owners, officers, etc., but also information from relatives, whether such persons are connected to the business or not. The City of New York has confirmed in its brief filed with this Court that the Commission does not regard family members who have no interest in the business as included in the definition of "applicant."
This concession would dispose of the challenges to the local law on the privacy grounds raised by the plaintiffs, except for the fact that there is no requirement in § 16-508(b) that allegedly private information be maintained by the Commission in confidence. Because we have no threatened disclosure of such private information presently before us, we need not now decide that issue.
The judgment appealed from is for the reasons stated accordingly affirmed.
1. Most of the new regulatory scheme is established by Local Law 42's § 2, which amends New York City's Administrative Code to add Title 16-A, consisting of § 16-501 through § 16-525, to chapter 1. References in this opinion are to the Administrative Code unless otherwise indicated.
CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge:


text:
The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Willoughby, Howard
< The Dictionary of Australasian Biography
←Willis, John Walpole
The Dictionary of Australasian Biography by Philip Mennell
Willoughby, Howard
Wills, William John→
1461643The Dictionary of Australasian Biography — Willoughby, HowardPhilip Mennell
Willoughby, Howard, one of the leading journalists of Victoria, joined the reporting staff of the Melbourne Age soon after his arrival in the colony in 1860. and subsequently joined the Argus reporting staff. He was special correspondent for the latter journal in New Zealand during the last Maori war, and was with the headquarters of General Cameron during the campaign, which resulted, after severe fighting, in the conquest of the Waikato and the retreat of the King tribes to the interior. Soon after his return to Victoria, Mr. Willouhgby was despatched by the Argus to Western Australia to investigate the convict system there. His letters showing the inordinate expense of the system to Great Britain and its injustice to the free colonies, to whose shores the exex-convicts steadily found their way, were of great service in securing the abolition of the last remnant of transportation to Australia. In 1866 the Government commenced the publication of the Victorian Hansard, and Mr. Willoughby became one of the official staff. From this post he retired in 1869, to take the editorship of the Melbourne Daily Telegraph, then just established. Mr. Willoughby remained in charge of this journal until 1877, when his services were again secured. by the Argus as a contributor, and charge of the reporting staff of the paper. Many of Mr. Willoughby's papers, such as "The British Convict in Western Australia," "Critiques on Spiritualism," "The Critic in Church," have been republished in separate form with success. Mr. Willoughby in 1891 made a valuable contribution to the literature of intercolonial federation by the issue of a brochure comprising a series of letters originally written for the Melbourne Argus newspaper.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dictionary_of_Australasian_Biography/Willoughby,_Howard&oldid=4321418"


It might come as a surprise to see how many green areas Malta actually have. Yes, there aren't any large forests that we can see abroad. However we have to remind ourselves that Malta is a tiny island in the Mediterranean with 300 days of sunshine. Which results in very little rainfall. Meaning very little greenery.
Therefore I think it is actually pretty awesome to have such beautiful parks, gardens and green areas I'm about to mention. Here is my list of TOP10 parks and gardens around the Maltese Islands. Enjoy!
This garden used to be a home to Lady Julia Lockwood. She resided here between 1842 and 1856. The layout of Sa Maison Garden is rather unusual spreading over several levels. At the highest point, you can find a watch tower offering you great views of the harbour. Definitely worth a visit. You can also check my photo blog dedicated to this garden.
Hastings Gardens is a public garden in Valletta and it's located on top of St. John's and St. Michael's Bastions. When you enter Malta's capital through the City Gate, take the first left, walk up the stairs and you will get directly to the garden. I like this garden because it's quieter than the famous Barrakka Gardens, it offers plenty of seating and most importantly there is a monument dedicated to Vaclav Havel! 💖 Read full photo blog here.
Upper Barrakka Gardens are arguably the most popular gardens on the island. Why? I think it's for three main reasons. First of all, it offers absolutely stunning view of the Grand Harbour and the Three Cities. Secondly, a lot of tourists come to witness the gun shot at noon, which takes place at the Saluting Battery (just below the garden). And lastly, the Barrakka Lift is located right here. It costs 1eur and you can go and explore the Valletta Waterfront, which a lot of people forget about!
The main attraction of the Lower Barrakka Garden is most likely this monument in the form of an ancient Greek Doric temple. It is dedicated to the memory of Rear-Admiral Sir Alexander Ball who also served as a governor of Malta. Lower Barrakka Gardens offers the best view point to admire the Malta Siege Bell War Memorial. Also let's not forget the stunning views of Grand Harbour and the Three Cities.
Possibly the best place to escape the hustle and bustle of the busy island and find your inner peace. The moment you enter Chinese Garden of Serenity in Santa Lucija you will feel you've stepped into another place, possibly another country. Hard to believe that you can find this piece of heaven here in Malta. Definitely a place to check out! If you want to know more, I've dedicated a photo blog to this garden.
This is the only garden on this list that you have to pay to enter. Why? It is a private property and the successors live in Villa Bologna until today. However they made their gardens accessible to the public for a fee of 6eur to help with the maintenance expenses. You can spend as much time as you like in the gardens and you'll also get a tablet and a map to show you around. Want to know more? Click here.
San Anton Gardens are literally across the road from Bologna Gardens. The gardens surround the San Anton Palace, which is the official residence of the President of Malta. As it has been customary for visiting heads of state to plant a tree in memory of their stay in Malta. Therefore you can look forward to seeing a variety of trees and flowers from around the world. There are also many beautiful fountains with ducks, swans, turtles and many other animals.
Why not visit the only woodland in Malta? Honestly, this should be on top of your list especially during winter/spring time when Malta is exceptionally green and blooming. Perfect for nice long walks and picnics! All you need to do is to pack up your picnic basket with goodies, your picnic blanket and head to Buskett Gardens. Don't worry if you don't fancy sitting on the ground, there are many picnic tables available on site.
This is a family paradise! Starting with plenty of parking either on site or on the street parallel to the park, two huge playgrounds, cafeteria, easy access through out the park, picnic tables, water features and so much more! There are so many reasons why you should visit Salina National Park, and here are the TOP10!
I know, it's not all about Malta and we shouldn't be forgetting Gozo! In which case I would like to mention the Villa Rundle Garden situated in the centre of Gozo's capital city Victoria. Perfect place to recharge and rest your feet after a whole day sightseeing.