The appeals were brought in the Supreme Court by a Polish national, Roksana Mirga, and an Austrian national, Wadi Samin, against decisions of the Court of Appeal upholding determinations that they were not entitled to certain benefits, namely income support and housing assistance respectively, pursuant to the provisions of United Kingdom domestic law.
The essential issue was whether the provisions and the current implementation of the domestic law in question infringed the rights of residence in the UK of citizens of European Union member states.
It was mainly also the provisions of the Citizens Directive and principles arising out of ECJ caselaw that were substantially considered by the Supreme Court and resulted in the dismissal of the appeals.
Period of Economic Activity for Ms Mirga and refusal of income support: The applicable EU provisions in relation to Ms Mirga were that in 2004, ten countries, including Poland, acceded to the EU pursuant to the Treaty on Accession 2003. By virtue of articles 10 and 24 of the Act of Accession forming the second part of the Treaty, existing member states, including the UK, were accorded, by way of derogation, certain transitional powers. Those powers included a right to derogate in relation to the free movement of workers within the EU, which was then governed by Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 in relation to nationals, known as "A8 nationals" of eight of the ten new member states. Those powers of derogation in relation to Polish nationals were contained in paragraphs 1-14 of Part 2 of Annex 12 to the 2003 Accession Treaty. So long as these provisions were in force, they enabled a host member state to exclude Polish nationals from freedom of movement rights unless they had been working in that state for an uninterrupted period of 12 months following accession.
The European Union (Accessions) Act 2003 was enacted, which, under section 2, permitted the Secretary of State to make the A8 Regulations (which were revoked in May 2011). Regulations 2 and 5 of the A8 Regulations provided that A8 nationals would only have full access to the UK labour market if they had been in registered employment under the Worker Registration Scheme for a continuous period of 12 months. The consequence was that, so long as the A8 Regulations were in force, A8 nationals could not become "qualifying persons" under the EEA Regulations unless and until they had performed registered employment for a continuous period of at least 12 months.
Ms Mirga who was residing in the UK finished her education in April 2005 and embarked on registered work within the meaning of the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1219). She continued with that registered work until November 2005. In February 2006, she became pregnant and started to do unregistered work, which she continued for two months or so. In June 2006, she left home for rented accommodation, and did a month's further unregistered work around June 2006. In August 2006, she claimed income support under the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1967) on the grounds of her pregnancy. Her baby son was born in October 2006.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refused Ms Mirga's application for income support, and his decision was upheld by the First-tier Tribunal, whose decision was affirmed, albeit for different reasons, by Judge Rowland in the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal decided that the Secretary of State was entitled to refuse Ms Mirga's application because she did not have a right of residence in the UK under the A8 Regulations and therefore was excluded from the ambit of income support by virtue of the Income Support Regulations. The Upper Tribunal's decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in a judgment given by Laws LJ, with which Tomlinson LJ and Sir David Keene agreed –  EWCA Civ 1952.
Summary of submissions Relevant to Ms Mirga in the Supreme Court: On behalf of the Secretary of State it was contended that, at the time that Ms Mirga applied for income support, she was ineligible for income support under the Income Support Regulations, because she was a "person from abroad". This was on the basis that she could not claim to be a worker as she was an A8 national who had not done 12 months' registered employment under the A8 Regulations, and thus could not be a "qualifying person" for the purpose of the EEA Regulations. Even if the A8 Regulations did not apply, it was argued that Ms Mirga would still not have been a worker, as the EEA Regulations would have required her to have worked for at least 12 months before she claimed income support. There is no question of Ms Mirga having been a jobseeker , a self-employed person , or a student under the EEA Regulations. It was also submitted that it was clear that Ms Mirga could not claim to be a self-sufficient person under the EEA Regulations, as she had no significant means of support and no health insurance.
It was argued argument on behalf of Ms Mirga, that, in the light of her right to respect for her private and family life, under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, she could not be removed from the UK, and therefore her right of residence in the UK, as accorded by article 21.1 of TFEU, could not be limited or cut back in the way that the Income Support Regulations sought to do, namely by restricting her rights to income support because she had not achieved a continuous 12 month period in registered employment. The alternative argument was that, even if it would be permissible to refuse Ms Mirga income support on that ground, it was only possible in practice if it would be proportionate to do so, and in particular if the grant of income support to her would place an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the UK, and there had been no inquiry into that question.
Supreme Court's Considerations in relation to Ms Migra: It was noted by the Supreme Court that the contention on behalf of Ms Mirga was that, as she is a worker (albeit one whose work was temporarily interrupted owing to her pregnancy), article 21.1 of TFEU accorded her the right to "reside freely" within the EU, and therefore within the UK, and that the denial of income support to her, at a time when she needed it in order to be able to live in the UK, was an impermissible interference with that right, as she would, in practice, be forced to return to Poland. The Supreme Court considered that that argument could not be said to reflect the fundamental importance of freedom of movement and freedom of establishment to the single market concept, as well as the significance attached in articles 18 and 19 of TFEU to the avoidance of discrimination between citizens of a member state and other EU nationals.
The Supreme Court was of the view that the argument faced real difficulties. It was stated that the right accorded by article 21.1 of TFEU, which was relied on by Ms Mirga, although fundamental and broad, was qualified by the words "subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and in the measures adopted to give them effect". In the present case, the "measures" included the 2004 Directive, and presumably included the 2003 Accession Treaty, which was adopted under article 49 of the Treaty on European Union.
It appeared clear to the Supreme Court from the terms of paragraph 10 of the preamble that it was a significant aim of the 2004 Directive that EU nationals from one member state should not be able to exercise their rights of residence in another member state so as to become "an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system". It also seemed clear that any right of residence after three months can be "subject to conditions". This was reflected in the terms of article 7.1, in that it limits the right of residence after three months to those who are workers, self-employed, students, or with sufficient resources and health insurance "not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state". Indeed, it was worth noting that article 14.1 even limits the right of residence in the first three months. It further appeared clear from article 24, that EU nationals' right of equal treatment in host member states was "subject to … secondary law", and in particular that they can be refused social assistance "where appropriate".
The Supreme Court therefore considered that when one turns to the 2003 Accession Treaty and the 2004 Directive, because Ms Mirga had not done 12 months' work in the UK , she could not claim to be a worker, and, because she was not a jobseeker, self-employed, a student, or self-sufficient, it seemed to follow that she could be validly denied a right of residence in the UK, and therefore could be excluded from social assistance. In those circumstances, it must follow that article 21.1 TFEU could not assist her.
The Supreme Court noted that the fact that Ms Mirga may have to cease living in the UK to seek assistance in Poland did not appear to assist her argument. Although the refusal of social assistance may cause her to leave the UK, there would be no question of her being expelled from this country. The Court found it hard to read the 2004 Directive as treating refusal of social assistance as constituting a species of constructive expulsion even if it results in the person concerned leaving the host member state. As the Court saw it, the Directive distinguishes between the right of residence and the act of expulsion. Further the Directive makes it clear that the right of residence is not to be invoked simply to enable a national of one member state to obtain social assistance in another member state. On the contrary: the right of residence is not intended to be available too easily to those who need social assistance from the host member state.
Period of Economic Activity for Mr Samin and refusal of housing benefit– After occupying temporary accommodation, Mr Samin lived in a studio flat in North London, which he had to vacate after four years in June 2010. He then applied to Westminster City Council for housing under the homelessness provisions in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 . After making inquiries, the Council decided that he was "a person from abroad who is not eligible for housing assistance" within the meaning of section 185(1) of the Housing Act, because he did not have the right of residence in the UK under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003). That decision was affirmed in the Central London County Court by His Honour Judge Mitchell, whose decision was in turn upheld by the Court of Appeal for reasons given by Hughes LJ, with which Etherton and Tomlinson LJJ agreed –  EWCA Civ 1468;  WLR(D) 336.
Summary of Submission Relevant to Mr Samin in the Supreme Court– With the support of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, it was contended for the Council that Mr Samin was not a worker within the EEA Regulations because he was now permanently incapable of work, and in any event he could not claim to be a worker because he had not worked for 12 months in the UK. Accordingly, it was argued, Mr Samin was not a "qualified person" under the EEA Regulations, from which it followed that he was ineligible for the purposes of the Housing Act. It was also argued that Mr Samin could not claim to be a self-sufficient person within the EEA Regulations because he had no assets and no health insurance.
It was however argued on behalf of Mr Samin that the refusal of housing assistance to Mr Samin constituted unlawful discrimination in breach of article 18 of the TFEU, even though he may not have had a right of residence in the UK. The alternative argument raised on behalf of Mr Samin reflected the alternative argument in Ms Mirga's case, namely that there should have been an investigation as to whether it was proportionate to refuse Mr Samin housing assistance, in particular on the ground that it represented an unreasonable burden of the UK social assistance system.
Supreme Court's Considerations in relation to Mr Samin: The Supreme Court noted that the first line of argument on behalf of Mr Samin was that the Council's refusal to provide Mr Samin with housing assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act constituted "discrimination on grounds of nationality" prohibited by article 18 of TFEU, because such assistance would have been accorded to a citizen of the UK, or a qualifying worker from another member state, who was otherwise in the same position as Mr Samin.
The Supreme Court considered also that the argument appeared to face similar difficulties as in Ms Mirga's case. This was because the article 18 right which he relied on did not constitute a broad or general right not to be discriminated against. First, its ambit is limited to "the scope of the Treaties", which means that it only comes into play where there is discrimination in connection with a right in the TFEU or another EU Treaty. Secondly, the article 18 right is "without prejudice to any special provisions contained [in the Treaties]".
The central reasoning of the Third Chamber in Brey was considered to be in paragraphs 75-78. In paragraph 75, having considered a number of points, the court concluded that "the mere fact that a national of a member state receives social assistance is not sufficient to show that he constitutes an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host member state". In the following paragraph, the court stated that the fact that a non-national has applied for the benefit in issue in that case was "not sufficient to preclude [him] from receiving it, regardless of the duration of residence, the amount of the benefit, and the period for which it is available". In paragraph 77, the court made the point that domestic legislation, such as the Austrian law in that case, could not provide that a national of another member state, who was not a worker, self-employed or a student, should be automatically barred from receiving a social benefit. In the next paragraph, the court stated that the competent authorities should be able "when examining the application of a Union citizen who is not economically active and is in Mr Brey's position" to "take into account" certain factors. They included "the amount and regularity of [the applicant's] income", the fact that he had received a certificate of residence, the period for which he would receive the benefit, and "the extent of the burden [it] would place" on the social security system. These factors were, the court said in para 78 of the judgment in Brey, for the domestic court to assess.
The Supreme Court however considered that Brey was an unusual case, because the applicant had been issued with a certificate of residence by the Austrian government, a factor which appeared to have played a significant part in the court's thinking, as it was recited in the re-formulated question in paragraph 32 and it was referred to expressly and impliedly in the crucial paragraph 78 of the judgment, and indeed in the final ruling of the Third Chamber. It appeared to the Supreme Court that the reasoning in Brey could not assist the appellants on the instant appeals, in the light of the subsequent reasoning of the Grand Chamber in the subsequent decisions in Dano and Alimanovic.
It was noted by the Supreme Court at paragraph 60 of Dano, that the Grand Chamber said that the right granted by article 18 of TFEU was subject to the restrictions noted by the Supreme Court in their judgement , and the court referred in support to the decision in Brey, and in particular paragraphs 46ff. In paragraph 46 of Brey, the Chamber had referred to "the right of nationals of one member state to reside in the territory of another members state without being … employed or self-employed" as being "not unconditional". It was also noted that the Grand Chamber also referred to article 20 of TFEU and article 24 of the 2004 Directive in terms which made it clear that the rights they grant should, in the instant context, be treated similarly to the rights granted by article 18.
The Supreme Court further noted that at paragraph 61 of Dano, the Grand Chamber described the right under article 18 of the TFEU as having been "given more specific expression in article 24 of [the 2004 Directive]". In paragraph 63, citing Brey, paragraph 61, the court pointed out that if someone has recourse to "assistance schemes established by the public authorities", he may "during his period of residence, become a burden on the public finances of the host member state which could have consequences for the overall level of assistance which may be granted by that state". In paragraph 69, it was made clear that "a Union citizen can claim equal treatment with nationals of the host member state only if his residence in the territory of the host member state complies with the conditions of [the 2004 Directive]". In paragraph 73, the court summarised the effect of article 7(1) of the 2004 Directive, and said in the following paragraph that, if "persons who do not have a right of residence under [the 2004 Directive] may claim entitlement to social benefits under the same conditions as those applicable to nationals [that] would run counter to an objective of the Directive". In paragraph 76, the purpose of article 7(1)(b) of the 2004 Directive was described as being "to prevent economically inactive Union citizens from using the host members state's welfare system to fund their means of subsistence". The Supreme Court also noted that finally, in paragraph 80 the Grand Chamber said that a person's "financial situation … should be examined specifically … in order to determine whether he meets the condition of having sufficient resources to qualify … under article 7.1(b)".
The Supreme Court was of the view that the authority of the decision in Dano had been reinforced by the decision in Alimanovic, where, in paragraph 44 and 50 respectively, the Grand Chamber specifically referred to what was said in paragraphs 63 and 69 of the judgment in Dano with approval. More broadly, the Grand Chamber in Alimanovic confirmed that a Union citizen can claim equal treatment with nationals of a country, at least in relation to social assistance, only if he or she can satisfy the conditions for lawful residence in that country. Thus, it was confirmed that article 24.2 of the 2004 Directive was, in effect, a valid exception to the principle of non-discrimination.
The Supreme Court considered that Dano and Alimanovic clearly demonstrate that the jurisprudence of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice is inconsistent with first argument on behalf of Ms Mirga and Mr Samin, at least in so far as the argument is focussed on the 2004 Directive. It was fair to say that those cases were not concerned with the 2003 Accession Treaty, however it was noted that , the House of Lords concluded in Zalewska v Department for Social Development  1 WLR 2602 that the A8 Regulations, which reflect the provisions of the 2003 Accession Treaty, were consistent with EU law, and nothing the Supreme Court heard or read in connection with the appeal cast doubt on that conclusion. In particular, it appeared to be consistent with the reasoning in Brey, Dano and Alimanovic.
Accordingly, in the Supreme Court's judgment, following the clear guidance from the Grand Chamber in Dano and Alimanovic, the first arguments raised on behalf of Ms Mirga and Mr Samin could not be maintained.
It was noted that the arguments based on proportionality were that the determination of the authorities and the courts and tribunals below in the case of both Ms Mirga and Mr Samin were flawed because no consideration was given to the proportionality of refusing each of them social assistance bearing in mind all the circumstances of their respective cases, and in particular that the authority or tribunal concerned failed to address the burden it would place on the system if they were to be accorded the social assistance which they sought. In that connection, reliance was placed by the Appellants on the Court of Justice's decisions in St Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Case C-507/12)  PTSR 1448, Baumbast v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-413/99)  ICR 1347 and Brey.
It was noted by the Supreme Court that St Prix was concerned with the question whether a person ceased automatically to be a "worker" for the purpose of the 2004 Directive, and therefore the EEA Regulations, if she temporarily ceased work owing to the fact that she was pregnant. The case was considered to provide no assistance to the appellants' arguments as advanced, except to emphasise the purposive approach to be adopted to the interpretation of the 2004 Directive.
The Supreme Court did not consider that the appellants could derive any assistance from Baumbast. It was noted that Mr Baumbast's case was predicated on the fact that he did not need any assistance from the state. Even if the decision was relied on by analogy, it was of no help to the appellants. The thrust of the court's reasoning in that case was that, where an applicant's failure to meet the requirements of being "a self-sufficient person" was very slight, his links with the host member state were particularly strong, and his claim was particularly meritorious, it would be disproportionate to reject his claim to enjoy the right of residence in that host state. Even though the applicant had a very strong case in the sense that he fell short of the self-sufficiency requirements in one very small respect, the court decided that he could rely on disproportionality only after considering the position in some detail.
In relation to the case of Brey, the Supreme Court distinguished that case as set out above. The Supreme Court stated that Alimanovic, at paragraph 59, the Grand Chamber specifically mentioned that the court in Brey had stated that "a member state [was required] to take account of the individual situation of the person concerned before it … finds that the residence of that person is placing an unreasonable burden on its social assistance system". However, the Grand Chamber went on to say that "no such individual assessment is necessary in circumstances such as those in issue in this case". It therefore seemed unrealistic to the Supreme Court to require "an individual examination of each particular case".
The Supreme Court concluded that where a national of another member state is not a worker, self-employed or a student, and has no, or very limited, means of support and no medical insurance (as was the position of Ms Mirga and Mr Samin), it would severely undermine the whole thrust and purpose of the 2004 Directive if proportionality could be invoked to entitle that person to have the right of residence and social assistance in another member state, save perhaps in extreme circumstances. It would also place a substantial burden on a host member state if it had to carry out a proportionality exercise in every case where the right of residence (or indeed the right against discrimination) was invoked.
The Supreme Court further stated that whatever sympathy one may naturally feel for Ms Mirga and Mr Samin, their respective applications for income support and housing assistance represent precisely what was said by the Grand Chamber in Dano, at paragraph 75 (supported by its later reasoning in Alimanovic) to be the aim of the 2004 Directive to stop, namely "economically inactive Union citizens using the host member state's welfare system to fund their means of subsistence".
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.
Although the decision of the Supreme Court arises out of the context of entitlement to welfare benefits, substantial reliance upon the provisions of the 2004 Citizens Directive in these two appeals, goes to show that also in the separate context of seeking to resist expulsion, as is now apparent from recent Court of Appeal decisions in this area, residence in the UK in very close continuing compliance with the provisions of the Directive (in combination with having very close regard to relevant principles arising out of ECJ caselaw), comes very much to the fore more so where judicial proceedings are in play.
This entry was posted in Deportation, EU Free movement, Human Rights, Immigration Rules, Removals and tagged 2004 Directive, A8, Economic activity, EU citzen, Mirga, Mirga (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent);  UKSC 1 Samin (Appellant) v Westminster City Council (Respondent)  UKSC; EU citizens and welfare benefits, Treaty on Accession, Welfare benefits. Bookmark the permalink.


The APS citation rcognises his pioneering mix of 3D direct numerical simulations with analysis inspired by mathematics and physics to turbulent statistics, thermal convection, intense events and novel LES approaches. His 1993 Euler calculation has withstood the test of time and continues to inspire new mathematics.
The Departments of Mathematics and Statistics are to receive £4m EPSRC funding to establish a joint Centre for Doctoral Training, MASDOC, as part of an EPSRC scheme "Future of Maths" at Lancaster, Cambridge and Warwick. These are the first centres to be dedicated to mathematical sciences. The new centres will take in their first students in the 2010-11 academic year and each will train at least 40 students over a seven year period.
Tom Collyer, a PhD student from the Mathematics Institute, has won the Times National Su Doku Championship for the second time – making him one of only two people ever to win the Championship more than once. Ranked as number 26 in the world, Tom arranged 324 numbers into 4 Su Doku grids in just 17 minutes to take first place.
Bill Hart is part of a team of mathematicians from North America, Europe, Australia, and South America who have found the congruent numbers up to one trillion, a thousand year old mathematics problem of al-Karaji: find the integers n (called congruent numbers) for which there is a rational square a2 such that a2+n and a2-n are also rational squares. Equivalently, congruent numbers are the integers which are areas of right-angled triangles with sides of rational length.
One example is given by (41/12)2+5=(49/12)2, (41/12)2-5=(31/12)2 so 5 is a congruent number. The 3-4-5 triangle has area 1/2 x 3 x 4 = 6 so 6 is a congruent number.
The advance was made possible by a clever technique for multiplying large numbers which allowed the team to resolve the first one trillion cases of the ancient mathematics problem. The numbers involved are so enormous that if their digits were written out by hand they would stretch to the moon and back. The biggest challenge was that these numbers could not even fit into the main memory of the available computers, so the researchers had to make extensive use of the computers' hard drives.
The 14th Leslie Fox Prize in Numerical Analysis was held at Warwick on June 29th. The prize committee comprised Andrew Stuart (Warwick, Chair), Mark Ainsworth (Strathclyde) and Nick Higham (Manchester). Five second prizes were awarded and one first prize.
Pictured (from left to right) are Armin Lechlieter (CMAPX Paris, second prize), Brian Sutton (Randolph-Macon, first prize), Colin Macdonald (UCLA, second prize), Andrew Stuart (Chair, Prize Committee), Daan Huybrechs (Leuven, second prize), Liuqiang Zhong (Xiangtan, second prize) and Stefano Giani (Nottingham, second prize).
Congratulations to Neil Zussman a third year undergraduate on the MMath degree. Neil reached the semi-final stage of series 60 of Channel 4's Countdown words and numbers game before being knocked out by the eventual series winner Kirk Bevins.
The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) has announced the SIAM Fellows Class of 2009 and the inauguration of the SIAM Fellows Program. Fellowship is an honorific designation conferred on members distinguished for their outstanding contributions to the fields of applied mathematics and computational science. During this inaugural year of the program, SIAM will confer Fellows status on 183 noteworthy professionals who will be recognized during the 2009 SIAM Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado.
Professor Ian Stewart, FRS has been shortlisted for Galileo Literary Prize.
The shortlist of five finalists for the Premio letterario Galileo 2009 was selected by a jury presided over by Professor Margerita Hack. The Galileo Literary Prize for Science Diffusion is promoted by numerous Italian organisations including the city and university of Padua, the Italian Ministry of Culture and the Galileo Academy of Science, Letters and Arts of Padua. The winner will be selected by a jury of 2000 school children from high schools of all the regions of Italy who have each received copies of the books.
The shortlisted book is the Italian translation by Luigi Civalleri, "L'eleganza della verità. Storia della simmetria" of Professor Stewart's book on symmetry "Why Beauty Is Truth: The History of Symmetry"
Professor Miles Reid FRS has been appointed a Distinguished Professor at Sogang University, Seoul, under World Class University project R33-2008-000-10101-0 of the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
The World Class Universities project is administered by the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) ( PDF leaflet) and is aimed at transforming Korean universities into world-class research institutions. The distinguished world-class scholars section of the programme involves a stay of at least two months per year at a host university to conduct research and operate curricula.
Professor Jeremy Gray of the Open University and an Honorary Professor at Warwick, as well as teacher of the popular MA3E5 History of Mathematics module, has been awarded the Albert Leon Whiteman Memorial Prize for 2009. The Prize, now to be awarded triennially by the American Mathematical Society, is in memory of Albert Leon Whiteman, to recognize notable exposition and exceptional scholarship in the history of mathematics.
Warwick Pure Mathematics was ranked 2nd in the UK in the 2008 RAE and Applied Mathematics ranked equal first in the UK for the proportion of its research given the top 4* "world-leading" rating.
Head of Department Professor Colin Sparrow said: I am delighted that Warwick's international reputation for research has been confirmed by the results of the most recent Research Assessment Exercise, RAE2008. Pure Mathematics came 2nd in the UK using each of the three most commonly used ranking systems. Applied Mathematics came first equal in the UK when ranked according to the proportion of 4* (world-leading) research, and 7th in the UK when ranked according to GPA (as used, for example, by the Times Higher Education).
Taking Pure and Applied Mathematics together, over 70% of our research was rated as either 4* (world-leading) or 3* (internationally excellent).
This outcome reflects the excellence and originality of all our staff, the strong support of the University for the Department and its research strategy, and the hard work of everyone concerned over the whole of the RAE assessement period (2001–2007).


285 acres of land for sale in Lawrence County, Ohio. If you are looking for an amazing property then look no further! This is one of those properties, that you wait and it will be gone. Properties this unique do not last long. Grab your boots and lets go!
Come on out and spend the day looking at this property. Current annual taxes are approximately $937. Call today with any questions or to schedule a time to view the property.


text:
package com.blinkfox.carrier.config;

import com.blinkfox.carrier.core.CarrierConfigManager;
import javax.servlet.ServletContextEvent;
import javax.servlet.ServletContextListener;

/**
 * carrier配置的servlet监听器的初始化加载类
 * Created by blinkfox on 2017/1/25.
 */
public class CarrierContextLoader implements ServletContextListener {

    // carrierConfig对应的类全路径常量字符串
    private static final String CONFIG_CLASS = "carrierConfigClass";

    /**
     * carrierConfig 销毁时执行的方法
     * @param arg0 上下文事件对象
     */
    @Override
    public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent arg0) {
        CarrierConfigManager.INSTANCE.clear();
    }

    /**
     * 应用服务器启动时执行
     * @param event 上下文事件对象
     */
    @Override
    public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
        // 根据配置的 carrierConfig 路径加载配置文件信息到缓存中
        String configClass = event.getServletContext().getInitParameter(CONFIG_CLASS);
        CarrierConfigManager.INSTANCE.initLoad(configClass);
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


This profile on me by Dan Jackson in Thrillist was originally supposed to be about Arlo Finch and Launch, but grew into a bigger piece on the many different projects I tackle simultaneously.
John August presides over a mini-empire steered by curiosity, fortified by experience, and fueled by brain power. With only 24 hours in a day, the multitasking writer of movies like Charlie's Angels, Big Fish, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory scribbles out scripts for big budget Hollywood blockbusters, outlines sequels to middle-grade fantasy novels, maps future episodes of his hit podcast, designs apps for other creative professionals looking to optimize their time, and finds time to invent fonts. If you were granted a golden ticket to tour the laboratory that is his bald head, you'd find a jolly team of meticulous, laser-focused Oompa-Loompas.
That's not really accurate, though. My inner Oompa-Loompas aren't laser-focused. They're a rowdy bunch fighting for control of my various gears and levers, each with a different idea about what the factory should make.
Over the years, I've gotten better at managing them, in part because I've recognized that I am them. There's not a me separate from my interests and fears and jealousies.
I'm the product of these competing impulses, not the master.
But I've gotten good at recognizing when an Oompa-Loompa has an interesting idea, and then marshalling the forces to try it.
I don't second-guess whether it's a good idea, or get fixated on what might go wrong. I don't ask permission. I just assume I'm not any worse than someone else, and I'll figure it out. That's how I started writing my first script, my first musical and my first novel.
But I also leave a lot of projects half-finished. Sometimes they finally come into being years later (Writer Emergency Pack), yet often they don't (an animated short; a new stage musical; my next directing project).
Giving yourself permission to move on to a better idea is tough. You're always wondering if you're one draft away. This will be the one that does it.
But as I look back over the past 20 years, most of my successes — both creatively and commercially — have come from the projects I was excited to do rather than the projects I felt an obligation to start or finish.
I've also had things I love fail. It's heartbreaking.
But the projects I never really cared about? They're worse in a way, because it was just wasted time.
It's like watching a dancing bear juggle knives.
Such a life is unlikely to go quite as planned, but at least it'll be exciting.
Why is Charlie so passive?


Johannesburg - Three months ago rapper AKA dropped a diss track that shook up the game.
The track, which he named Composure, took aim at number of MC's including Cassper Nyovest, Riky Rick and Anatii (listen to it here).
Anatii, who had worked with AKA on the award-winning collaboration The Saga, was called out for apparently overcharging AKA for a beat and for making the pair's video "trash."
Now Anatii has responded to the track by remixing the track with- wait for it- the two other rappers called out on AKA's track.
Anatii, Cassper and Riky took to the stage at the SA Hip Hop Awards this week to unveil the track.
On the remix, entitled The Saga Continues, Cassper says Anatii should have had him and not AKA on the original "so there wouldn't be a need for a remix."


MojiTOES! Ha ha ha ha....ouch.
One club I went dancing at was all black light lit. There were drinks that glowed along with the white clothes. I think it was just club soda or tonic water.
that states it is tonic water.
I look forward to reading whatever you come up with.
Thanks! Yes, I've been told about quinine tonic before, but I've tried several brands of tonic, making sure each contains quinine, the past couple years and none of them seem to glow in my black light. Perhaps it needs less ambient light, which wasn't the case with my paint effect. :( I will be testing more things with my black light to see what I can come up with naturally. The other issue is that the old display was static, so I could hide the black light well, whereas if people are moving the bottles and not putting them back in the same place I'll need to have less hidden black light...even more to test!
Is that you, selling it?? Because, if it is not -- they have all your party pictures (and recipes) as selling points!!?? Just curious if you knew (if it isn't you...)... I have been following your holiday pages and love what you do -- and I remember you having a problem with your Harry Potter invites. So just wanted to give you a heads up.


text:
12-Withdrawing Lawyers (Including Non-Compete Issues)
55-Firm Names and Letterhead
The hypothetical law firm of "Smith & Jones, P.C.," need not immediately stop using the Internet domain name and URL "smithjones.com" after Smith withdraws from the P.C. An immediate termination would not serve "the interests of the public" or "the partners in the former firm who collectively built goodwill and created value associated with that firm name." The "appropriate way of explaining why smithjones.com is no longer the Smith & Jones website" is to place a notice on that website. Although the P.C. owns the former domain name, it may not indicate on the website that the Smith & Jones "has now become" the "Jones Law Office," because that implies that Smith is no longer practicing law. Similarly, any redirection of visitors to the smithjones.com website to the "joneslawoffice.com" website also requires additional information. Such redirection is appropriate only if the joneslawoffice.com website, or a page visable during the process of redirecting, "explains the change from Smith & Jones to Jones Law Office and that Smith continues to practice law in a different firm."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Not to happy with this purchase ! They are extremely small , even smaller than they appear in the catalog ! Might be ok for a young toddler but I purchased these for a 12 year old .
These earrings are just adorable!
Backings were a little loose so I had to use different ones, no big deal!
I love everything I have gotten from here! Never a dud in anything and shipping is awesome!
They are nicely detailed though very small. Oxidized finish brings more detail out.


text:
New Macbook Pro Specs Leaked.
Feb 23, 2011 15:13 EST
Apple will be releasing its new line of Macbook Pro this Thursday and its just in that the specs of the upcoming notebook have been leaked on the net. You can check them out below:
New MacBook Pros to Bring below Specs:
no more white MacBook (Apple goes back to two lines of 13″ inchers)
16 GB SSD mSATA drives on all models to store the system
Core i3 and third USB port on the 13″ model
Matte screen option on the higher-end 13″
Option to replace the SuperDrive with a SSD on the 15 and 17″ models
HD screens on all models : 1440×900 on the 13″, 1680×1050 on the 15″
200 to 300 grams lighter : 1.8 kg for the 13″, 2.3 kg for the 15″, 2.65 kg for the 17″
Better battery life : 12 hours on the 13″, 10 hours on the 15″
8 GB of RAM on the 17″
The use of Core i3 Processor and SSD are a good thing to see in the new notebook, Also notice that the SSD will be used to store the primary OS or system drive resulting in better loading and boot times of the device. The site behind the leak also mentioned "Light Peak" technology over again, what they have said:
Finally, we spoke of "new technology" that would make his first steps in these new MacBook Pro: Integrating Light Peak in the third USB port? New battery technology? New materials explaining the drop weight? Impossible to know for now, but the wait will last only until Thursday.
Some M1 Macs Have a Screen Saver Bug That Prevents Users From Resuming Desktop Mode Again
Omar Sohail • 11 hours ago
Uzair Ghani • 13 hours ago
Samsung Heir Lee Jae-yong Has Been Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Prison
Furqan Shahid • 15 hours ago
Omar Sohail • 1 day ago
Ali Salman • 1 day ago


text:
Q: use specific maven profile to deploy a feature branch using jenkins Is it possible to use specific maven profiles when running tests/deploying a feature branch using jenkin and maven.
We have a team of developers using feature branches. We have our own maven profiles and associated uat deployment environments.
How can we set up jenkins to deploy, for example, branches :
feature/developer1-new-button
feature/developer1-replace-payment

using maven profile "developer1"

A: I havent used jenkins but I believe Bamboo is quite similar. In bamboo you can create several plans that can be triggered by changes on your repository and you can also specify for which branch name pattern you'll accept to start the build. for example I can make 3 similar plans that are triggered by changes on the repository and one for branches that start with feature/* other for branches that start with bugfix/* and other for just development. Since plans are different we can write tasks that execute goals for a certain profile. So you might have pushed the branch feature/deve... so you'll start the build for feature/* and there you might configure goal : clean deploy/test -P developer1

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange