text:
EoFF interviews Orion Acaba, the voice of Nine in Final Fantasy Type-0 HD!
Lone Wolf Leonhart
Eyes on Final Fantasy has the distinct pleasure of being able to interview Orion Acaba, the voice of Nine in Final Fantasy Type-0 HD! You may know him from one of his many roles such as Ivar in Tales of Xillia, Gerome and Kellam in Fire Emblem: Awakening, Apollo Justice in Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Duel Destinies, and many more!
With the release of Type-0 HD being right around the corner, we decided to ask Orion the questions you've all been sending us from around the web about his thoughts on Type-0 and Final Fantasy in general. He's been very kind in giving us this opportunity and we're very happy he took the time out of his schedule to answer our questions! Without further ado, here's a written transcript of our interview. The full audio can be found at the end, including a shout out to Eyes on Final Fantasy in Nine's voice!
What have you seen of Type-0 so far?
I got to see a lot of the cinematics while recording, so I got a little sneak peak at a bunch of scenes and events that are going to take place. The HD remix that they did looks incredible versus the PSP version that I initially saw. It looks amazing!
How does the recording process work? Do you get to spend time with any of your fellow voice actors, or do you record separately? Does it vary by what game you're doing at the time?
I was alone. 90% of the time you will be alone doing voiceover. Every now and then they will throw the cast in with eachother. I believe they did that for Final Fantasy XV, I'm not sure. It would have been nice to have other people in the booth, but most of the time when doing voiceover work, it's always one person doing solo performances.
How do you work up the energy for a highly intense scene if you're alone in a booth, and there's no one to work off of?
You literally have to rely on your imagination. That's what all voice actors do in any scene. Whether it's funny, high intense, or drama, it's always you versus the thought in your head of who you're reading against. That dictates a lot of the energy you'll put into it and that's what the voice directors are there for. If we're missing something, they're there to push us along to where we need to be.
What is your favorite moment in Type-0? Is there anything you can tell us without giving away spoilers?
My favorite moment in Final Fantasy Type-0, without giving anything away, is the character Nine gets to throw a moogle across a room. I believe that's a first in Final Fantasy history for a character to do, and it's hilarious!
You've said in the past that you're a huge fan of the Final Fantasy series and have played and beaten all the games, with the exception of the MMOs. Is that just main entry titles, or have you also played spin offs and side stories such as Final Fantasy Tactics, Crisis Core, and Dissidia?
I am a huge fan of all the Final Fantasy games and have played them, even the offshoot ones like Tactics, Dissidia, and Crisis Core. Final Fantasy Tactics is one of the best games ever made! Crisis Core kicked so much ass, and Dissidia was amazing. They're all fun, and I've played all of them til my thumbs have blistered.
That's kinda the thing I find funny about Type-0 is it seems to be getting a little bit overshadowed by XV, which kinda pisses me off, but what people fail to realize is that some of the best Final Fantasy games have been the offshoot games such as Tactics and Crisis Core.
As a fan, what are your thoughts on the upcoming Final Fantasy XV? Will you play the demo like everyone else when Type-0 comes out on the 17th?
I will not be playing the demo of Final Fantasy XV because I will be too busy playing my game, Type-0. I'll wait for XV to come out on its own, thank you very much!
Do you play any of the games you're a voice actor in? What it's like hearing your own voice like that?
I play all the games I voice in. It's super fun and it's one of the reasons I got into the business to begin with. I am one of a handful of my fellow voice actor peers who actually are gamers. I know some of them dabble in games here and there but they're not actual gamers. I am an actual gamer, that's all I do with my spare time.
Again, we'd like to thank Orion very much for taking some time out of his day to answer our questions! You can check him out online at orionacaba.com, or send him a tweet at @orionacaba. Let him know you read this!
Are there any questions you'd like to see in a future interview? Let us know in the comments and we'll see if we can get more of them in the future. Don't forget to play as Nine when Final Fantasy Type-0 HD releases on March 17th!
This article was originally published in forum thread: EoFF interviews Orion Acaba, the voice of Nine in Final Fantasy Type-0 HD! started by Lone Wolf Leonhart View original post
Features,
Psychotic - 03-14-2015, 11:45 PM
Orion seems like such a down-to-earth guy and I think it's great that he has an interest in the games he works on. Oh, and that voice is incredible It's also fantastic he took time out to talk to a fansite - great job securing an interview with him!
I think Nine just became my favourite Type-0 character for the EoFF shout out he gave in the video!
Fynn - 03-15-2015, 12:36 AM
I loved him in SMTIV!!!
fat_moogle - 03-15-2015, 01:20 AM
I find it interesting how a lot of voice acting is done solo. I remember an interview once with Vanille's VA, saying how she'd never met Ali Hillis (Lightning). That gave me a new appreciation for VA's, it must be really tough to get a scene just right without fully understanding the context and other characters emotions etc.
Enjoy playing Type-0, Orion!
Loony BoB - 03-20-2015, 12:11 AM
Finally remembered to listen to this while at home now that I'm playing Type-0. Genuinely cool sounding guy, he sounds even cooler in his normal voice than he does with his Nine voice (although his Nine voice certainly suits the character better). Also, that name. Orion Acaba. That's just generally badass to begin with.
Muchos thanks to Orion for answering our questions!


text:
CAF President mourns ex-Egypt star Basry
CAF President Issa Hayatou has expressed shock at the death of former Egypt midfielder Taha Basry.
Basry, a Zamalek legend passed away on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 at a Cairo hospital after a protracted illness. He was 68.
"On behalf of the CAF Executive Committee and on my own behalf, I extend my deepest condolences to the Egyptian Football Association (EFA) and the bereaved family. My thoughts are with them at this difficult moment," Hayatou said.
Basry joined Zamalek in 1965 and was a member of the team that won the Egyptian League title during the 1977/78 season and two Egyptian Cups in 1975 and 1977.
He featured at three Africa Cup of Nations; 1970, 1974 and 1976, as well as appearing at the 1986 edition as a member of the Pharaohs coaching staff. He was also named Egyptian Footballer of the Year for the 1977/78 season.
As a coach, he had stints with ENPPI, Arab Contractors, Ghazl El-Mahalla and Petrojet.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The scalloped skirt goes across the front and wraps around the sides, setting the stage for the swirled cut-away panel facings on the three doors. Finished in Harvester Textured Cream and a dark rich wood tone top, this classic credenza will keep your serving pieces and candles close at hand in the three upper drawers, while providing a wonderful display area for larger items both inside and on the expansive surface.
The Coast to Coast Accents Three Drawer Three Door Credenza by Coast to Coast Imports at Miskelly Furniture in the Jackson, Pearl, Madison, Ridgeland, Flowood Mississippi area. Product availability may vary. Contact us for the most current availability on this product.


text:
Q: How does this code print a series of numbers in C? This is a basic C program and it doesn't use looping or conditions to print digits. I wanna know how it does what it does, along with purpose of "exit" and "main".  Is main used for recursion here?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void main(int j) {
    printf("%d\n", j);
    (&main + (&exit - &main)*(j/1000))(j+1);
}

A: Suppose that j is 500. Then (&exit - &main) is something (doesn't matter what) and (j/1000) is 0, so (&main + (&exit - &main)*(j/1000))(j+1) is effectively main(501). In contrast, if j is 1000, then (j/1000) is 1, which means (&main + (&exit - &main)*(j/1000)) is the same as (&main + (&exit - &main)) (which is to say, &exit), so it calls exit(1001) instead.

A: I suggest it is supposed to work as follow:

*

*when j < 1000, call &main + (&exit - &main)*(j/1000) with argument j+1. Since j/1000 == 0, it calls main(j+1).

*when j = 1000, since j/1000 == 1, it calls &main + (&exit - &main) * 1 == exit.

However, there are a lot of errors in this tiny C program. For instance, void main(int) is not a standard main signature.

A: This one actually compiles to assembly that doesn't have any conditionals:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void main(int j) {
  printf("%d\n", j);
  (&main + (&exit - &main)*(j/1000))(j+1);
}

Try: Added '&' so it will consider the address hence evading the pointer errors.
This version of the above is in standard C since it doesn't rely on arithmetic on function pointers:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void f(int j)
{
    static void (*const ft[2])(int) = { f, exit };

    printf("%d\n", j);
    ft[j/1000](j + 1);
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    f(1);
}

A: *

*&main is the address of the main function (entry point of any C
program)

*&exit is the address of the exit function (terminates the program)

Consider your statement:
(&main + (&exit - &main)*(j/1000))(j+1);

if j < 1000, then
 (&exit - &main)*(j/1000) == 0 (integers division)
 // So we are calling main(j+1)
else if j == 1000
 (&exit - &main)*(j/1000) == &exit - &main
 // So we are calling (&main + &exit - &main)(j+1), which is calling exit(j+1)

So your program is calling main() recursively until j == 1000, at which point it calls exit
This program is so wrong in terms of programming/best practices/etc..., that you should just forget about it.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


What is implied? He said: "I promise [to bring] a lamb3 as a burnt-offering" or "...as a peace-offering," and he brings a ram,4 or he vowed a calf5 and brought an ox,6 or a kid7 and brought a goat,8 he fulfills his obligation.
What is implied? If a person vowed to bring a burnt-offering from cattle," he should bring an ox.18 Should he say: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," if the practice of the people of that locale is to use the term "burnt-offering" without any description to refer even to a fowl offered as a burnt-offering, he may bring even one fowl, a turtle dove or an ordinary dove. If their practice is to use that term only when referring to a burnt-offering of cattle, he should bring an ox. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
When a person says: "I promise to bring an ox worth a maneh,"23he should bring an ox worth a maneh in that place aside from its accompanying offerings.24 If he brought two [oxen] for a maneh, he did not fulfill his obligation.
[The following rules apply when] a person says: "This ox is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished. If he desires to bring two for the price he receives for it.25If he brings even one ram26 for the price it receives, he fulfills his vow.
If he says: "These two oxen are burnt-offerings," and they become blemished, should he desire, he may bring one with the money he receives for their sale.27 "This ram is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished, if he desires he may bring a lamb with the money he receives for its sale. Similarly, if he vows a lamb and it becomes disqualified, he may bring a ram with the money he receives for its sale.
If he says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering" and he set aside an ox and it was stolen, he may fulfill his obligation with a sheep.28 If he says: "I promise to bring this ox or its value as a burnt-offering," [his commitment] is established as binding.29 If [the ox] is disqualified, he may bring only an ox with the money he receives for its sale.
When a person vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering or a peace offering, specifying that it would be brought from cattle, but forgot what he designated to bring, he should bring an ox and a cow.41 Similarly, if he is unsure with regard to sheep, he should bring a ram and a ewe. If he is unsure with regard to goats, he must bring a he-goat and a she-goat.
If he forgot the species from which he designated the sacrifice, he should bring an ox, a cow, a ram, a ewe, a he-goat, and a she-goat.42 If he said: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering of fowl," he should bring a turtle-dove or an ordinary dove.43 If he designated one particular species in his vow and forgot which one, he should bring both a turtle-dove and an ordinary dove.
What is done with wine that is brought independently? It is salted58 and then poured entirely59 down the shittin60 like the other libations.61 Frankincense which is brought independently should be salted and then offered on the pyre in its entirety.
If he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving offering from money from the second tithes and its bread from ordinary property," he may bring [the sacrifice] as he vowed.66 If he brought it all from ordinary property, he fulfilled his obligation.67 Similarly, if he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from the second tithe," he may bring it [as vowed].68 He should not bring the bread from wheat that is the second tithe, but from [flour purchased with] money [for which] the second tithe was redeemed like the animal which was [purchased with] such money.
Even though he explicitly stated that he would bring the bread from [the money of] the second] tithe, he should not bring its libations from the money of the second tithe, for at all times, libations must be brought solely from ordinary funds, as explained.69 [The rationale is] that concerning [the libations],70 [Numbers 15:4] states: "The one who offers them shall offer his sacrifice." Implied is that the sacrifice must be his without having any dimension that belongs to the Most High.
For he has not fulfilled his vow.
For it is as if the promise to bring the smaller animal included the possibility of bringing the larger one.
An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).
One that is more than one year and one month old (ibid.).
An animal in the second year of its life (ibid.).
The laws to follow also apply with regard to a peace-offering. They do not apply with regard to a guilt-offering or a sin-offering, for those sacrifices may not be brought voluntarily.
A sheep that is between the age of one year and one year and one month. Thus it is no longer a lamb, but it is not yet considered as a ram (ibid.).
There is an unresolved doubt regarding the status of a pilgas. Hence, the person cannot be considered as having fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, since its status is unresolved, we are not definitely certain that he did not fulfill his obligation.
The Kessef Mishneh questions why is he not considered to have fulfilled his obligation if he vowed to bring a lamb. As stated in the previous halachah, if one vows to bring a small animal and instead, brings a large animal, he is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Thus in the case at hand, if a pilgas is considered a lamb, he will have fulfilled his obligation and if it is considered as a ram, he would have fulfilled his obligation, based on the principle stated in Halachah 1. The Kessef Mishneh answers that the animal's status is considered one of doubt, an intermediate state between the two. Hence it is not considered as acceptable as either type.
This law applies only with regard to burnt-offerings, for peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl.
Turtle doves may only be brought as sacrifices when they are small and under-developed. Ordinary doves, by contrast, may be brought as sacrifices only when they have developed and reached a mature state (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2).
An intermediate stage in which the fowl is unacceptable, because it is too mature for a turtle-dove and not mature enough for an ordinary dove (ibid.).
Since there is an unresolved doubt concerning a fowl that reached this state of development, a person who brings one such dove would certainly not fulfill his obligation. In this instance, however, since he brought one for each species, one might think that it is considered as if he fulfilled his vow. For if this is considered as a stage of development, he will have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable ordinary dove. And if it is not considered acceptable, he would have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable turtle dove. Nevertheless, since a priest is not permitted to offer such a fowl as an initial preference, he is not considered to have fulfilled his vow.
For he did not bring the animal that he vowed to bring as a sacrifice.
This follows a general principle stated by the Rambam, that with regard to the interpretation of the wording used in vows, everything is determined by local custom.
I.e., and not a calf.
As Malachi 1:14 asks rhetorically: "You bring the stolen and the lame and the sick and offer it as a sacrifice. Shall I accept it from you." See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:1.
Although ibid.:11 states: "One who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing," this is a desirable ethical standard, but not a halachic imperative.
Menachot 13:8 mentions prices to be paid for animals offered as sacrifices. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that the prices mentioned were the average prices for animals at that time.
As long as the animal is unblemished.
The wine, meal, and oil brought together with the offering, as stated in Chapter 2.
In this instance, since the ox was consecrated as a burnt-offering and was no longer fit to be offered as such, the proceeds of its sale must be used for that purpose. It does not matter, however, which animal(s) is purchased for that purpose.
In the previous halachah, it was not acceptable for him to bring two oxen that have a combined worth of 100, for he made an explicit vow to bring one ox worth 100 and until he does so, he does not fulfill his obligation. In this halachah, once the consecrated animal is disqualified, there are no qualifications regarding which animals may be brought as burnt-offerings. See Menachot 108a.
I.e., the sacrifice he brings need not even be of the same species as the animal he originally designated for sacrifice.
The new point this clause is teaching is that even if two animals were originally consecrated, one may be brought with the proceeds of their sale.
For when taking the vow, he did not specify what animal he would bring. This applies provided people of this locale also refer to a sheep as a burnt-offering (see Halachah 3). Moreover, if he had pledged to bring that particular ox as a burnt-offering, he is not obligated to bring any sacrifice at all (Radbaz).
Even if the animal is disqualified, he is obligated to bring another one like it as a sacrifice.
For we assume that anyone who consecrates his property does so generously (Menachot 108b).
For it is also possible that this was his intent, since consecrating the middle one is still acting generously, because there is a smaller one.
The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as implying that once the second one becomes blemished, the holiness automatically falls on the third. This runs contrary to Rashi's approach (Menachot, loc. cit.) which requires the person to make a stipulation conditionally transferring the holiness that might have fallen on the middle ox.
For by saying "An ox," we assume he meant the choicest one (Menachot, loc. cit.). The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Meilah 7:7 appears to run contrary to this explanation.
And then his father died without informing him which one was consecrated (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.).
For we assume that he intended to offer the most choice one as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that this case is different from the one in the previous halachah where concern is also given to the middle one, because since he already designated the animal, we assume that he chose the best one.
For even if he originally designated a small animal as a sacrifice, we follow the principle stated in Halachah 1 that a person who vows to bring a small animal, but instead brings a large one fulfills his obligation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 13:6); see also Ra'avad].
Whether a ram or a lamb.
Whether a grown goat or a kid.
I.e., he must allow for the possibility that he designated any of the three types of animals that could be offered as burnt-offerings and he must offer a large animal from each species for the reason mentioned above.
He must bring both, because they are considered as two separate species and not as developed and underdeveloped specimens of the same species.
As stated above with regard to burnt-offerings, he is obligated to bring a developed specimen. Unlike a burnt-offering, these sacrifices may be brought from females as well as males. Hence, although bringing a large animal fulfills his obligation even if he originally vowed to bring a small one, he is still required to bring both a male or a female, for he is unsure of the gender of the animal he originally designated.
Peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl, so there is no need to bring doves.
Bringing either will enable him to fulfill his vow.
As stated in Halachah 13, when one brings frankincense, he must bring at least a handful.
Since the primary elements of the burnt-offering are burnt on the altar and the wine is poured over the altar, it is possible that this was his intent.
I.e., aside from the wine brought as part of the accompanying offering of flour (Kessef Mishneh).
A large silver coin used in the Talmudic era.
As a burnt-offering. The Radbaz states that this word should be included in the statement of the person's promise.
In addition to the burnt-offering, this could include wine, frankincense, and flour.
Menachot 106b derives this concept from a comparison to the flour offered from a meal offering, just as there a handful is offered, so too, a handful of frankincense should be offered.
The Hebrew term is written in the plural. Hence at least two logs are required.
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3.
He would place the money in a container designated for that purpose and the priests would take the money and purchase the wood (Tosefta, Shekalim 3:3).
Kin'at Eliyahu questions how one takes a handful of oil.
As required of all the sacrifices (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11).
See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.
Although Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit., states that salt is not required for wine that is offered on the altar, that refers to wine offered as a libation accompanying other sacrifices. When, however, wine is offered alone, salt is required (Kessef Mishneh).
None is given to the priests to partake of.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which states: "There were two cavities in the southwest corner [of the Altar], resembling two thin nostrils.... The blood [which was poured onto the Altar] would run off through them and... [ultimately,] go out to the Kidron River."
It is not poured over the fire, because it would - at least partially - quench the fire and that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'asaer Sheni, ch. 4, when a person lives far from Jerusalem and cannot easily take produce from the second tithe to the holy city, he should redeem it for money. That money must be used to purchase food which must be eaten in Jerusalem according to the strictures that apply to the second tithe.
And the second tithe is considered as holy, "consecrated unto God."
This is a general principle. The rationale is that since the person is obligated to bring the offering, it must be brought from resources that belong to him entirely (see the conclusion of Halachah 17).
I.e., the bread is considered as an integral part of that offering and not an additional element. Thus when he vows to bring a thanks-giving offering, that vow also requires him to bring bread. Hence the bread must come from ordinary property (Radbaz).
As stated below, if he specifies, he is allowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering using the money from the second tithes, for he will partake of the meat of that sacrifice in Jerusalem. What is unique here is the fact that the sacrifice will be from the second tithes and the bread from ordinary funds. Even so, the sacrifice is acceptable.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:5; based on Menachot 81b), the Rambam writes that it is indeed more desirable for him to bring the sacrifice from ordinary funds.
In this instance as well, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that it is desirable for him to bring everything from ordinary property.
This refers not only to the wine libations, but to all vows for sacrifices.
If he said: "I will bring these6 [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brings them [baked] on a flat frying-pan or promised to bring it [baked] on a flat frying-pan and brought it [baked] in a deep frying-pan," [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.7 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If he said: "I will bring these cakes in one vessel" and he brought them in two or [promised] to bring them in two and brought them in one, they are unacceptable.10If he did not specify what he would bring when he took the vow, but [merely] said: "I promise to bring two esronim and when he designated [the meal for the offering], he set [the flour] aside in two vessels and afterwards, brought it in one vessel, it is acceptable. For the verse states "as you vowed" and not "as you set aside."
If he said: "I promise to bring an isaron," he should bring one isaron. "I promise to bring isaronim," he should bring two. If he specified [the number of esronim] he vowed and then forgot how many he specified, he should bring 60 esronim in one vessel.30 If he forgot how many esronim he specified and which type [of meal-offering] he specified, he should bring 60 esronim of each of the five types [of meal-offerings].
What is implied? He should bring one isaron in the first vessel, two esronim in the second vessel, three in the third, until he brings 60 esronim in the last vessel. If he also forgot what type [of meal-offering] he designated, he should also brings [60 offerings] according to this pattern in 60 vessels of each type. Thus he will be bringing 1830 esronim from each type.
When a person says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering of barley,"32"...a meal-offering of a half an isaron,"33 or "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense,"34 he is exempt, because he did not vow an entity that is sacrificed.
If he said: "I promise to bring a meal-offering35 of barley," "...of lentils,"36 "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense," or "...a meal-offering of a half an isaron," we ask him [what his intent was]. If he says: "I only took the vow because I thought it was permissible to offer such [sacrifices]. Had I known that one could only offer a complete isaron of fine [wheat] flour together with oil and frankincense, I would not have taken a vow," he is exempt. If, [however,] he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring an offering like those that are offered.
If he vowed to bring an isaron and a half37 and he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he must bring two [esronim].38 If he said: "I promise to bring coarse flour"39 or "I promise to bring a half an isaron" without mentioning the term "meal-offering," he is exempt.40 It as if he never took a vow at all.
Similarly, if one said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread,"41or "...a sacrifice without its accompanying offerings,"42 he is exempt. If he said:43 "Were I to have known that such offerings are not sacrificed, I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring [an offering] like those that are offered.
When a person says: "I promise to bring the bread of a thanksgiving-offering," He must bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread. [The rationale is that] it is known that the bread is never offered without the thanksgiving-offering and he mentioned merely the conclusion of the sacrifice.44 If he said: 'I promise to bring the bread to fulfill the obligation for so-and-so's thanksgiving offering," he should bring the bread for a thanksgiving offering together with the offering of his friend.
A person may vow or pledge to bring wine independently.45 One should not vow to bring a log of wine or two lugim,46 for there are no libations that are [only] a log or two lugim.47 Nor should one vow five lugim, for five lugim are not fit for the libations of one animal or for those of two animals.48 One may, however, vow three, four, six, or more lugim,49 because they are fit for the wine libations for sacrificial animals.
What is implied? If a person vows seven [lugim], they are considered as the libations for a sheep and for a ram.50 If he vowed eight, they are the libations for two rams; nine are the libations for an ox51 and a sheep or those of three sheep. If he vowed ten, they are the libations for an ox and a ram or two sheep and a ram. Similarly, all numbers [can be seen as such combinations].
A range with an opening for one pot [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:9)].
I.e., one of the common ways to bake in the Talmudic period was to heat rafters and stones until they were glowing hot and place dough upon them. Afterwards, the stones and rafters were covered and thus the dough would bake (ibid.).
A pit covered with mud into which wood was placed and kindled. The dough was placed within and it was covered so that it would bake like an oven (ibid.). These are not acceptable, because the person took a vow that he would bring a meal offering cooked in an oven and these devices do not fit that description.
See Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to the difference between the two.
Because he did not bring the sacrifice he vowed to bring.
Pointing to cakes that he prepared to bake.
For he specified that the cakes be prepared in one way and they were not.
Implying that the vow must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
If he can take a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 4.
Because he did not fulfill his vow. It is, however, necessary to ask him and have him respond as the Rambam states. Otherwise, we assume that he is not bringing this offering in fulfillment of his vow, but rather as a separate sacrifice. In that instance, although he would not have fulfilled his vow, the sacrifice would be acceptable.
Since he offered them as he vowed, the fact that he originally brought them in two vessels is not significant.
In that instance, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:29, the law is that if one can take handfuls of each individually, they are acceptable. If not, they are not.
See Chapter 12, Halachah 4, for a description of these meal-offerings.
Since he used the plural, at least two offerings are required.
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the word "types" is a printing error, because even if he brought two of the same type of meal-offering, he fulfilled his obligation. The Radbaz, however, initially explains that the Rambam's wording could be interpreted as being precise. Since the person said two meal-offerings, we can assume that he meant of two different types. Otherwise, he would have just vowed to bring one large meal-offering. Nevertheless, ultimately, the Radbaz rejects this interpretation and states that the Rambam's intent is "even of two types," i.e., he may bring two offerings either of one type or of two types.
Here also, since he spoke of "meal-offerings," using the plural, he is required to bring two.
For he said "a type," limiting him to only one type.
Since he used the plural for both offerings and types, he should bring two offerings and they should be of two different types.
One offering from each type, as in the previous clause. Hebrew grammar occasionally allows for a singular term to be used in a plural sense. The Kessef Mishneh notes that this matter is debated by Menachot 105a and a ruling is not reached. Hence he questions how the Rambam can require him to bring a second offering: If it is not required, he will be bringing ordinary flour into the Temple Courtyard (which is forbidden). Hence he maintains that the person must make a stipulation when bringing this offering: "If I am obligated to bring it, this is to fulfill my vow. And if I am not obligated, it is a freewill offering."
For in this way, he will certainly fulfill his vow.
I.e., in contrast to the community at large. For there is no concept of a voluntary communal meal-offering and all the required communal meal-offerings have specific measures.
As indicated by the following halachah, it appears to be preferable that he bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in the other, rather than dividing the sum evenly between the two.
Even though oil is always mixed with the flour at a ratio of one log to every isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 7), nevertheless, if there is a very large quantity of flour, it will be difficult to get a proper mixture.
Because there is too large a quantity of flour.
As long as the meal and the oil could be mixed together, the fact that they were not mixed together is not significant, because there is nothing inherently lacking in the mixture. If, however, they could not be mixed together, there is an inherent difficulty with the mixture, therefore it is disqualified. Note the parallels to the declaration made with regard to the firsts fruits mentioned in Bava Batra 82a.
I.e., he does not divide them into three equal portions.
For an individual meal-offering is never more than 60 esronim and if he had promised a lesser amount, bringing more will not disqualify his offering (Radbaz).
This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 3, if a person vowed to bring two esronim in two vessels and he brought them in one, the offering is unacceptable. By bringing the full range of vessels from one to sixty, the person will certainly have included the entire number he vowed to bring. Any extra are considered as voluntary offerings.
The Radbaz notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Menachot 13:2 and the opinion the Rambam quotes here is that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. The Sages, however, differ and maintain that it is sufficient to bring one meal offering of 60 esronim. The Radbaz questions why the Rambam chooses to follow Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, for it is a minority opinion. Moreover, he notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explicitly states that the halachah does not follow this view. The Radbaz explains that since the Talmud (Menachot 106a) tries to justify other teachings according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, we can assume that it is accepted as halachah.
Which is unacceptable, because as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all the meal-offerings are brought from wheat except the meal-offering of a sotah and the omer offering. Those are obligatory offerings and cannot be vowed by a person.
Which is also unacceptable, because a meal-offering may not be less than an isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 5).
Such an offering is also unacceptable, for oil and frankincense are absolute requirements (Chapter 12, Halachah 7).
The difference between this and the previous clause depends on the precise Hebrew term used. If he said minchat ("meal-offering of"), as in the first clause he is not obligated at all, for the grammatical structure of the term is that of an adjective and the emphasis is on the words that follow. If, however, he used the term minchah ("meal-offering"), we assume that the fundamental intent of his vow was to bring a meal-offering. Since the specifics he mentioned were unacceptable, we ask him to clarify his intent. The Ra'avad does not accept this distinction, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position.
Which is also unacceptable. Although Menachot103a debates whether a person could possibly err and think that a meal-offering from lentils is acceptable, from the resolution of that passage, it appears that such an error is plausible.
Based on the conclusion of the clause and the explanations in the previous halachah, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that this law applies only when the person said: "a meal-offering (minchah) of an isaron and a half."
For he obviously desired to bring more than one isaron.
As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all of the meal-offerings are brought from solet, "fine flour," and not kemach, "coarse flour." This he is vowing to bring an entity that is never offered.
The Ra'avad differs concerning this point and states that in this instance as well, he should be asked to clarify his intent, as mentioned in the previous halachah.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, which includes the bread as an integral part of the thanksgiving-offering.
See Chapter 2 which explains that every sacrifice is offered together with wine, meal, and oil.
I.e., as in the previous halachah, he is asked about his intent (Kessef Mishneh).
We assume that this was intent when making the vow. The Radbaz explains that it is not even necessary to ask him to clarify his intent, since he mentioned the thanksgiving-offering when making his vow, we take for granted that this was what he meant to say.
See Chapter 14, Halachah 1; Chapter 16, Halachah 14.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the wine libations are 3, 4, or 6 log, depending on the animal offered.
For no two offerings will reach a total of five. See also Halachah 14.
For any number over six will be able to be broken up into multiples of 3,4, or 5, as stated in the following halachah [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 12:4)].
The libations for a sheep are three lugim and those for a ram are four. We assume that the person that the person desired to bring them both.
Which are the libations for an ox.
Since libations of three and four lugim are brought, we assume that he did not want to make an empty statement. Hence, we ask him to increase the amount so that he will also be able to bring a valid offering. We do not reduce the amount, because there is an unresolved discussion in Menachot 104a if that is acceptable.
Based on the ruling in Halachah 9 with regard to a meal-offering of a half an isaron, the Radbaz states that if one says: "a wine libation of one log," he should be asked to clarify his intent.
See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 7.
See Chapter 10, Halachot 3, 14, for the details of the number and types of animals sacrificed on that day. The wine and oil brought as accompanying offerings for these sacrifices totaled 140 lugim. We assume that a person would not vow or pledge a larger amount. The Radbaz clarifies that this ruling applies to a very wealthy person who can be assumed to have made a generous vow. A person of ordinary means, by contrast, should be required to pay the largest amount he could conceive of having pledged (see Hilchot Arachin 2:8-10).
There is a positive commandment to offer all of the sacrifices - whether sacrifices of animals or fowl or meal-offerings - in [God's] chosen house,1 as [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There you will perform everything that I command you." Similarly, it is a positive commandment for a person to take the effort to bring animal sacrifices2 that he is obligated to bring3 [and transport them] from the Diaspora to [God's] chosen house,4 as [ibid.:26] states: "[Only] your sacraments that you possess and your vows shall you bear... [to the place that God will choose]." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that [the verse] is speaking only about sacrificial animals from the Diaspora which he takes the effort to deal with until he brings them to [God's] chosen house.
One who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard negates a positive commandment5 and violates a negative commandment,6 as [ibid. :13] states: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings in any place that you see." If he offered a sacrifice [in such a place] willfully, he is liable for karet,7 as [Leviticus 17:8-9]: "[Any man]...who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice, but did not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... he will be cut off from his people." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed8 sin-offering.
Similarly, one who slaughters sacrificial animals outside [the Temple Courtyard], even though he does not offer them as a sacrifice, [is liable].9 If he acted willfully, he is liable for karet, as [ibid:3-4]: "[Any man]...who will slaughter an ox, a sheep, or a goat... it will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood... He will be cut off." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
Which source serves as a warning not to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]? [It is derived through] an association of verses. [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There will you offer your burnt-offerings" and it continues: "There you will perform everything that I command you." [We can conclude:] Just as [the Torah] warns explicitly against offering a sacrifice outside the Temple and one incurs punishment for this, as it is written: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings...," so too, it has warned with regard to the "performance" that is involved in slaughtering for which it is explicitly stated that one receives punishment. For the Torah does not prescribe punishment unless it has issued a warning.
If he slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] in the Temple Courtyard and offered it outside, he is liable for offering it. If he slaughtered [such an animal] outside, but offered it inside, he is liable for slaughtering it.
He is not liable unless he slaughtered sacrificial animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. If, however, he slaughtered an animal that was forbidden [to be offered on] the altar11 or one of the sin-offerings that was consigned to death12 outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.13 [The rationale is that Leviticus 17:414] mentions "before the Sanctuary of God." Whenever [an animal] is not fit to be come to the Sanctuary of God, one is not liable [for its slaughter].
What is meant by a disqualifying time factor involving the status of its owners? A sacrifice whose owners have not reached the appropriate stage of time to offer it.
What is implied? If a zav,22 a zavah,23 and a woman who gave birth24 slaughtered [the animal designated for] their sin-offerings outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting,25 they are exempt. Similarly, if a person afflicted with tzara'at26 slaughtered his sin-offering and[/or] his guilt-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his counting,27 he is exempt, for the owners of these sacrifices are not yet fit for their atonement. Nevertheless, if these individuals slaughtered their burnt-offerings28outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting, they are liable. [The rationale is that] a burnt-offering is a present29 and it is the sin-offering and the guilt-offering which are the fundamental [factors leading to] atonement.
Similarly, when a nazirite slaughters his sin-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his nazirite vow, he is exempt.30 If he offered his burnt-offering or his peace-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable. For the sin-offering is what prevents him [from completing his nazirite vow] and it is the fundamental dimension [of the conclusion of] his nazirite vow.
Whenever one is exempt for slaughtering a sacrificial [animal] outside the [Temple Courtyard], one is also exempt for offering it there.
[The following rules apply if] one slaughters the two goats offered on Yom Kippur35 outside [the Temple Courtyard]. Before [the High Priest] recites the confessional over them,36 he is liable for both of them,37 since [they are both] fit to come before God for the confessional. After [the High Prist] recited the confessional, one is exempt for slaughtering [the goat] that is sent [to Azazel], because it is no longer fit to come before God [as a sacrifice].
When the fetus [being carried by] an ordinary animal was consecrated [as a sacrifice for] the altar, it is forbidden to slaughter [the mother] outside [the Temple Courtyard].41 If he slaughtered it, he is not liable for lashes, because it42 is not fit to come before God [as a sacrifice].
When one stole [an animal] and consecrated it and afterwards, slaughtered it outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable.43 From which time was it considered in his property with regard to his being liable for karet for it? From the time he consecrated it.
When one slaughters a sacrificial animal outside [the Temple Courtyard] even though he had no intention of sacrificing this animal to God,52 he is liable.53 This is [implied by the prooftext]: "It will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood."54 [One can infer that] even if [the person slaughtering] thinks of the blood [from the sacrificial animal] as blood that was shed55 and not as a sacrifice, he is liable.
If one slaughtered [a fowl] in [the Temple Courtyard]65 and offered it outside, he is exempt, for he offered something that is not fit to be offered. If he slaughtered the fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] and offered it outside, he is liable twice,66 because slaughtering a fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] is acceptable. It is comparable to performing melikah inside.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 84) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 440) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this excludes sacrifices from fowl, but this understanding is not accepted by all authorities.
Temurah 21a states that the firstborn offering is not included in this commandment.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 85) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 453) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. The Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as an independent mitzvah.
The one stated in the previous halachah.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 186) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. There are several historical dimensions to this prohibition. First of all, in the era between the destruction of the Sanctuary of Shiloh and the construction of the Temple, it was permitted to offer sacrifices on bemot (literally, "high-places"), i.e., individual altars. See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:3 which explain the transition between these periods. It is also relevant with regard to the sanctuary constructed by Chonio, the son of Shimon the just described in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:14.
This term is used to distinguish this sacrifice from the adjustable guilt offering. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 439) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
This applies even if he performed both transgressions without realizing the prohibitions involved in the interim, for they are two separate transgressions that are not dependent on each other (Radbaz).
I.e., the animals mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 for a definition of this term.
It is, however, forbidden to do so.
The source for this prohibition, as stated in Halachah 3.
The prohibition involves slaughtering sacrificial animals and since these animals are not fit to be sacrificed or their owners are not fit to sacrifice them, they are not considered sacrificial animals in the full sense.
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:8 which states that it is a positive commandment to offer sacrificial animals after eight days of life, but not before.
See ibid.:2 which states that "Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue." Before this stage, they are not acceptable (ibid.:9).
See Hilchot Shechitah 12:1-2 which states that it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day. No matter which is slaughtered first, one must wait until the following day to sacrifice the other.
A person with a physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure and obligates him to bring a set of sacrifices (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1, 3-4; 2:1).
Who is ritually impure after giving birth and must bring a set of sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3, 5).
As explained in the above sources, a zav and a zavah must wait seven "spotless days" after their condition ceases before bringing their sacrifices. A woman must wait 40 days after giving birth to a male and 80 days after giving birth to a female before bringing her sacrifices.
A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy that is a spiritual manifestation of the impurity resulting from improper speech (the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at). Such a person must bring a set of sacrifices when emerging from ritual impurity (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1, 3-4).
Such a person must also wait seven days after his condition ceases before bringing his sacrifices.
The sacrifices of all of these individuals include a burnt-offering and a sin-offering and the sacrifice of a person emerging from tzara'at also includes a guilt-offring.
To appease God and restore His favor.
See Hilchot Nizirut, ch. 8, for the details regarding the sacrifices a nazirite must bring upon completion of his nazirite vow. He may not bring these sacrifices beforehand.
See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices.
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:7 which describes the situations under which such sacrifices should be brought.
With regard to these sacrifices, it is possible that it will be discovered that the person definitely did sin. In such an instance, the sacrifice is not offered. If the sacrificial animal has not been slaughtered, it is left to pasture until it contracts a blemish. If it was slaughtered, its blood is poured down the drainage channel. Since there is a possibility of this taking place, the animal is not deemed a sacrificial animal in the full sense and one is not liable for slaughtering it or offering it.
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt since only its blood is offered on the altar, but not its body. Hence, there is room to free one from the obligations involved with a sacrificial animal. Nevertheless, he argues, a conditional guilt-offering is offered on the altar. Hence one should be liable for slaughtering and offering it outside the Temple. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh question the Ra'avad's objection, noting that the Rambam's ruling has its basis in Keritot 18a.
As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1, with the exception of a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice, whenever a sacrificial animal was slaughtered for the sake of an offering other the one for which it was intended, it is acceptable, but it does not fulfill the obligation of the owner (see also ibid.:20). Since the sacrifice would be acceptable if it was offered in the Temple, the person is liable for slaughtering it outside.
The goat sent to Azazel and its pair whose blood is taken into the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.
More precisely, the confessional is recited only over the one sent to Azazel (ibid. 4:2).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the matter is dependent not only the confessional, but on the lottery in which the goats are designated for their respective purposes. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam's ruling is based on Zevachim 113a. Although there are other interpretations of that passage, the Rambam has a foundation for his decision.
Or for either of them, were he to slaughter only one.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 5, which states that the gates to the Temple building must be open for the slaughter of peace offerings to be acceptable.
The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only during the remainder of the year. The rationale is that as explained below, during the remainder of the year, an animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering is not disqualified if it is not offered for the desired intent. On the day preceding Pesach, when the Paschal sacrifice is offered, it is unacceptable if it is not offered for the desired intent. Hence on that date, were someone to slaughter an animal designated for this purpose for the sake of another sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard, he would not be liable.
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:7. Since it is considered as a peace-offering, just as one is liable for slaughtering an animal designated as a peace-offering outside the Temple Courtyard, so too, he is liable for slaughtering such an animal.
Since the fetus it is carrying will later be offered as a sacrifice, it is forbidden to cause that sacrifice to be disqualified.
Neither the mother nor the fetus.
Even though the animal did not belong to him and hence, he had no right to consecrate it, our Sages considered it as his own so that he would be liable for karet. See Gittin 55b. The Kessef Mishneh raises questions on the Rambam's ruling based on that passage, but Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the Rambam's decision.
For then it is still considered as belonging to the owner. Hence, the thief's consecration is not effective. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:7 which speaks of the disqualification of a thief's offering. From Hilchot Geneivah 2:6, it appears that the thief must have also consecrated the animal after the owner's despair and not before. Otherwise, the consecration would not be effective.
Karet or lashes for slaughtering the animal outside the Temple Courtyard.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that Zevachim 107b uses this prooftext to teach the following concept: that one who slaughters on the roof of the Temple Building is exempt. Hence he suggests that a printing error crept into the Mishneh Torah and that the text should be amended to fit the Talmud's teaching. This conception is not, however, shared by all authorities.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.
For he did not slaughter the animal outside the Temple Courtyard.
Note the contrast to Chapter 19, Halachah 12, with regard to offering an animal as a sacrifice.
The verses use a singular form.
The commentaries note that although the Rambam's ruling has a source in Zevachim 108a and in the Sifri, his process of exegesis is different than that used in those sources.
But instead was slaughtering it for mundane purposes.
In this as well, there is a contrast to offering an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
Here also, the Rambam's method of exegesis is different from that of his apparent source, Zevachim 108b. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:3), he cites the method of exegesis used by the Talmud.
I.e., an ordinary animal, not one designated as a sacrifice.
The Ra'avad maintains that the person is exempt in such a situation. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that there is a fundamental difference between slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and slaughtering it outside. When it is slaughtered inside the Temple Courtyard at night, it is disqualified as a sacrifice, because of it having been slaughtered at night and hence, it is not acceptable wherever it was offered. If, by contrast, it was slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard, it becomes placed in the category of animals slaughtered in such a place. Hence the time when it is offered is not significant. The Kessef Mishneh also justifies the Rambam's approach.
Even during the following day (Kessef Mishneh).
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:6.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
This disqualifies the sacrifice, for as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, the blood of a sacrificial animal must be received in a sacred vessel.
For the animal was no longer acceptable as a sacrifice.
For the prooftext defining the prohibition (Leviticus 17:3) mentions slaughter, but not melikah (Zevachim 107a).
This is equivalent to slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and offering it outside.
Thus disqualifying it, for in the Temple Courtyard, a fowl should be killed through melikah not ritual slaughter.
Both for slaughtering and for offering.


The venerable F-16 Fighting Falcon is getting second life as an unmanned vehicle. Boeing is repurposing the retired single-engine aircraft into remote-controlled drone that the US Air Force will use to test newly developed weapons and to train pilots.
The program has been underway for a while, but according to Engadget, the first of the renamed QF-16 target drones were delivered to Florida's Tyndall Air Force Base last week. A total of 126 of the unmanned drones are scheduled to be provided by Boeing to the Air Force.
Five of those are in the process of being outfitted as part of a pre-production run and should be ready for service by October, the website added. They will be used as stand-ins for the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker fighter jets by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron.
Gareth Jennings of IHS Jane's Defense Weekly said that the first of the drones, aircraft QF-007, was delivered to Tyndall AFB on March 11. Jennings added that Boeing has delivered six pre-production QF-16s, and that under the terms of its deal with the Air Force, it will deliver a total of 13 low-rate initial production (LRIP) platforms, of which QF-007 is the first.
The USAF expects to receive all of the LRIP drones by October 9, and will used the 126 QF-16s to replace the BAE Systems QF-4, IHS Jane's Defense Weekly added. The new drone is required because of dwindling numbers of the QF-4s, and the unmanned McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II no longer represents the type of air-to-air threats that American pilots are expected to encounter on future operations.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon has earned a reputation as one of the world's most capable fighter jets, and was used predominantly in the fleets of more than two dozen customers globally. It featured an innovating "fly-by-wire" control system and was capable of maneuvering at speeds of up to nine G's, allowing it to have a tighter turning radius and giving it a tremendous advantage in a dogfight.
Due to the force experienced by the pilots when performing such maneuvers, the F-16 was outfitted with a small side-mounted control stick on an armrest. Rather than needing to be moved back and forth, the joystick responds to hand pressure. In a tight turn, the otherwise immobilized pilot was able to fly his plane with the mere twitch of a figure, the UK newspaper said.


text:
The 10 Most Breathtaking Coves Along The Gulf of Gökova
Muğla Gökova Gulf of Gökova Çınar Cove Cleopatra Island Küfre Cove Boncuk Cove British Cove Akbük Cove Lacivert Cove İncekum Kandilli Cove Zeytinli Cove
The Turkish novelist, ethnographer and travelogue Cevat Şakir Kabaağçlı, known by his pen-name of the Fisherman of Halicarnassus, famously said, "See Rome to Die, See Gökova to live." Gökova is a holiday-makers paradise. Home to wonderful fresh fish, gold...
Çanakkale Troy Troia UNESCO Wooden Horse Trojan Horse Historic National Park of Troy Museum of Çanakkale
Troy is enchanting and historic place, embracing the cultural treasures of the east and the west, brought to life by the ancient epics. 2018 was declared "Year of Troy" in Culture and Tourism to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Troys addition to the UNES...
Kastamonu Ilgarini Cave Pınarbaşı Ilgaz Mountains Ilgaz National Park Comnenes Cide
Enjoy the magnificent atmosphere of Kastamonu that inspires believers, skiers and ecologists! Situated inland amid beautiful forests, the city of Kastamonu boasts several important monuments: the 12th-century Byzantine castle built by Comnenes, the 13th-c...
26 Images That Prove Istanbul Is The Most Instagrammable City On The Planet
Istanbul Instagram Photography
Instagram has finally made it possible to answer the age-old question: "What's the most beautiful city in the world?" The answer, unequivocally, is Istanbul. As the point where Europe meets Asia, Istanbul already had a head start; but it clinches the titl...
17 Gorgeous Memories of Summer on Turkey's Turquoise Coast
Turquoise Turkish Coasts Sea Beach
EDITOR'S NOTE: This past summer, Matador sent a group of Instagram all-stars on trips to the Turquoise Coast of Turkey. Cole Rise, Christoffer Collin, and The Globe Wanderer joined Matador's own Scott Sporleder and Ross Borden on a mission to capture the ...
20 of Turkey's Most Impressive Historical Sites
Historical Sites History Ancient City Turkey Aphrodisias Simena Sumela Monastery Göreme Kayaköy Basilica Cistern Aspendos Hagia Sophia Bodrum Castle Olympos Perge
Turkey's location at the meeting point between Europe and Asia has given rise to an incredible history as waves of people, states, eras, and empires have left their mark on the coastline and mountains, the people and culture. Turkey may have more ancient ...
Romance and Wedding in Turkey
Romance Wedding Engagement Love Henna Night
Turkey is home to countless places to discover, full of distinct spaces to visit… Turkey, offering through the year incomparably beautiful settings for your romantic moments, is where you and your beloved one can make your holiday dreams come true… A para...
Eskişehir Porsuk River Çi Börek Odunpazarı Karacahisar Castle Şarhöyük Meerschaum Lületaşı
With its rich history, Eskişehir has become a well-known European city in Anatolia, whose cultural richness encompasses both the past and the present. Excavations carriet out in Şarhöyük, thought to be the first area of settlement in the city, prove that...
9 Historic Places In Turkey Where You'll Feel Like You've Stepped Back In Time
History Sumela Monastery Mudurnu Safranbolu Fırtına Valley Amasya Çamlıhemşin
History runs deep throughout the entirety of Turkey, but you'll find each of the places described below in the Black Sea region, a strip of territory running across the north of the country from the outskirts of Istanbul all the way to the Georgian border...
10 Awesome Things To Do On Your Trip To Istanbul And Turkey's Black Sea Region
Istanbul Black Sea Black Sea Region Falconing Sailing Whistling Language Zilkale Kuskoy Pokut Highland Turkish Tea
EDITOR'S NOTE: In the fall of 2015, Matador sent a team from The Buried Life to explore Istanbul and Turkey's Black Sea region. What they found was a part of the world that Western travelers don't often think about…and why that's such a shame. Here are so...


This page is a list of Christmas dishes as eaten around the world. These food items are. popular all over the Caribbean on Christmas (except Cuba and Puerto Rico).
Fish soup (halászlé) various recipes; Stuffed cabbage (töltött káposzta). Dec 19, 2014. Add tropical flair to your holiday celebration with these delicious Caribbean Christmas food traditions. Read the Christmas Menu: Caribbean Theme discussion from the Chowhound Home Cooking, Christmas food community. Join the discussion today.
Caribbean Ginger Stewed Chicken With String Beans. This is a dish mom would always make on a Monday, when she would have leftover stewed chicken from Sunday's massive lunch (well if my brother and I didn't attack the chicken the evening before as we watched Knight Rider). Christmas is at the door step and Christian families around the world celebrate Christmas Day with a family dinner. But the kind of Xmas meal eaten can be very. Inspiration and Ideas Tips& Tricks Puerto Rican Tostones (Fried Plantains)" One of my family's faves!
I don't think there's any kid who doesn't like tostones. Apache/ (Amazon) Server at geniuskitchen. com Port 80 in# SundaySupper, Dinner ideas. – Christmas Eve Pizza& Martinis by The Webicurian. – West Indian Curried Goat by The ROXX Box There is a delicious array of traditional West Indian Christmas recipes for you to sample on your vacation in the Caribbean. Not to mention plenty of rum! Every year we do a different themed menu for Christmas Eve and Christmas Dinner.
Last year we did New Orleans. This year we are doing the Caribbean. Indian; International; Italian. sides and desserts largely enjoyed in Trinidad and Tobago are perfect for Christmas breakfast, lunch or dinner. Recipe links are. Dec 15, 2011. The recipes for these main dishes, sides and desserts largely enjoyed.
recipes from Chef Khalid Mohammed's Caribbean Christmas spread). The Best West Indian Recipes on Yummly | West Indian Chicken Curry With Cinnamon And Tomatoes, West Indian Curried Chicken, West Indian-style Channa Wrap Christmas lunch in Trinidad West Indies.
There is a delicious array of traditional West Indian Christmas recipes for you to sample on your vacation in the Caribbean. Not to mention plenty of rum! View top rated Caribbean christmas dinner recipes with ratings and reviews.
Caribbean Christmas Ring, Menu For Medieval Christmas Dinner, Eco Panini!etc. A classic local dish in Martinique: stewed kidney beans, fish and the WHITEST rice I've ever seen. This pic though I pinned of food from Chez Carole, a tiny little.
Like other hibiscus drinks served across the Caribbean and West Africa, the base of red sorrel is the fruiting flowers of the hibiscus plant, which are steeped in hot water and then cooled. The addition of ginger and other spices lend red sorrel a lovely yuletide taste. Dec 18, 2011. Articles tagged with West indian christmas dinner ideas Christmas Recipes' at CaribbeanPot.
com. My own cookbook of island and international fare, developed over 30 years visiting, living and working in the islands. Caribbean recipes, international recipes, indian recipes, african recipes, chinese recipes Here are 6 Must Haves at a Caribbean Christmas Dinner that will leave you slumped back in your seat feeling the ethnic fatigue kicking in—in a good way.
Dec 24, 2016. Here are 6 Must Haves at a Caribbean Christmas Dinner that will leave you slumped back in your seat feeling the ethnic fatigue kicking in—in a. This easy make-ahead dish borrows from Indian raita, a cucumber and yogurt mixture designed to cut the heat of spicy foods. weekend getaway ideas, regional.
Find all the best Caribbean Vegetarian recipes on Food Network. We've got more caribbean vegetarian dishes, recipes and ideas than you can dream of! At Christmas the ham will be glazed to perfection and sitting at the center West indian christmas dinner ideas the table on exhibition for everyone to see with that enticing look drawing everyone to dinner. Like the other components of a Christmas dinner, it isn't complete without ham. There has to be ham involved. Just has to be. Check out our recipe roundup of traditional Christmas dishes (link) in Trinidad& Tobago for menu ideas for your own Christmas dinner or lunch.
Share this! Tweet Our Caribbean travel guide will offer more inspiration, too. More recipe ideas. Cheap cut; Cheap eats. thyme and hot pepper sauce before folding in shortcrust. Whats cooking for dinner tonight? Heres a roundup of our 10 best Indian dinner recipes, from scrumptious biryanis to lip smacking curries and kebabs that you and your family can enjoy this summer. The Best West Indian Recipes on Yummly | West Indian Chicken Curry With Cinnamon And Tomatoes, West Indian Curried Chicken, West Indian-style Channa Wrap Arguably, the biggest traditional 'nyamings' on the Jamaican calendar is Christmas dinner.
For many, it is the only time that family and close friends get together annually, to share good food and enjoy each other's company. Cookies to decorate, Christmas dinner ideas, and holiday party traditions like pudding and cake. Indian Italian. Christmas Recipes Indian Christmas Menu Ideas. By Petrina Verma Sarkar. Updated 04/26/18.
Share Pin. Add it to West indian christmas dinner ideas dinner party menu and friends will think you slaved to prepare it for them. In truth, Nargisi Kofta is fairly simple to make. 06 of 14. Chicken Tikka Masala. belchonock / Getty Images. Many restaurants and hotels will celebrate with local Christmas traditions and have West Indian Christmas recipes for you to experience.
A Traditional West Indian Christmas In St. Vincent and the Grenadines, they celebrate Nine Mornings Festival where for the.
Celebrate Christmas With 8 Caribbean Food Traditions. Like other hibiscus drinks served across the Caribbean and West Africa, the base of red sorrel is the fruiting flowers of the hibiscus. Down a shadowy alley in the main town of Marigot, the restaurant also serves big helpings of West Indian atmosphere, with its colored Christmas lights, bar trimmed in fretwork, and daisy-patterned. Together we will make jamaicandinners. com a perfect place for knowledge on Jamaican food of the Caribbean West Indies.
JAMAICAN DINNERS JAMAICAN DINNER. Enjoy easy ideas for holiday parties and holiday dinners, including the perfect eggnog and classic Christmas cookies. Chef Sian Jamaican Black Cake Recipe (Caribbean Christmas Cake) If you know anything at all about West-Indian Caribbean culture you already know that Jamaican.
Seasonal Recipes Find all the best Caribbean Christmas recipes on Food Network. We've got more caribbean christmas dishes, recipes and ideas than you can dream of!. Dinner Party. The recipes for these main dishes, sides and desserts largely enjoyed in Trinidad and Tobago are perfect for Christmas breakfast, lunch or dinner.
Lots of wonderful and easy-to-make dinner party menus with recipes. From an easy, casual dinner party menu to gourmet dinner party menus. Perfect dinner party menus and recipes for easier entertaining. The menus are here to help you entertain with ease with our best dinner party recipes and ideas.
Quick& Easy DIY Christmas Treats Easy& Fun DIY Fall Treats Easy& Yummy DIY Holiday Treat Recipes Quick& Easy DIY Christmas Treats DIY Holiday Treats ♡ Pinterest Inspired Christmas Party. Dec 16, 2016. Top 12 Caribbean Holiday Recipes, It's the end of the year!
It's the holidays, It's Christmas time and we are celebrating. OH! and it's cold. Image result for caribbean christmas dinner menu ideas. Trinidadian Corn Corn pies of various sorts appear on many Caribbean dining tables on Sundays. Christmas Recipes - Christmas is a season of sharing love, gifts and goodies to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Its also a time of feasting on various delicacies and tasty meals.
Simple Indian Recipes. Christmas; Cinco de Mayo. With this collection of 17 Old West Cowboy Recipes. cowboy-inspired party food is great for feeding a hungry crowd or for some pre. Inspiration and Ideas Tips& Tricks Puerto Rican Tostones (Fried Plantains)" One of my family's faves! I don't think there's any kid who doesn't like tostones.


We kick off a new series this week looking at 10 of most memorable (and historic) views of London and to kick it off, we're looking at the views from one of London's most prominent historic institutions, St Paul's Cathedral.
There are two external galleries at St Paul's – the first is the Stone Gallery which stands at 173 feet (53.4 metres) above ground level. Encircling the dome, it is reached, via a route which takes the visitor through the internal Whispering Gallery, upon climbing some 378 steps.
Located above it, encircling the cathedral's famous lantern (which sits on top of the dome), is the Golden Gallery. It stands some 280 ft (85.4 metres) above the cathedral floor, and can be reached by a climb of 528 steps.
From it – and the Stone Gallery below it – can be seen panoramic views of the City of London and across the Thames to Southwark.
The lantern above, meanwhile, weighs some 850 tonnes and on its top sits a golden ball and cross – the current ball and cross, which weigh about seven tonnes, were put there in 1821, replacing the original ball and cross which had been erected in 1708.
St Paul's Cathedral was the tallest building in London from 1710 into the 1960s (when it was surpassed by Millbank Tower and what is now known as the BT Tower). Sir Christopher Wren's St Paul's is not as tall as the original medieval cathedral which reportedly had a spire reaching 489 feet (149 metres) into the sky compared to St Paul's as it is now, standing to a height of some 365 feet (111.3 metres) above ground level.
PICTURES: Top – Looking up at the lantern with the Golden Gallery around the base; Below – View looking west from St Paul's down Fleet Street (the spires of St Brides and St Dunstan-in-the-West can be seen).
The HMS Belfast has marked 45 years since it sailed up the River Thames to its current mooring site off The Queen's Walk, just to the west of Tower Bridge. The ship, which is Europe's only surviving World War II cruiser and which, as well as taking part in that conflict, also saw action in the Korean War, opened to the public in 1971. More than nine million people have since visited the ship which features nine decks, all of which are open to sightseers. For more on the ship, see www.iwm.org.uk/visits/hms-belfast.


text:
Oregon icon and environmental activist George Atiyeh died in the Beachie Creek Fire. His family confirmed the death in a Facebook post on Thursday.
"Although we are saddened that this was the final outcome, we are thankful to finally have closure," wrote his daughter, Aniese Mitchell. "We appreciate all the love and support from family, friends and community." She asked that donations in his honor be directed to the Opal Creek Ancient Forest Center.
George and Hillary Atiyeh and their dog.
OPB/Sage Van Wing
Atiyeh was a miner-turned-logger-turned-environmentalist, who grew up exploring the woods of Opal Creek, where his family ran a mining operation. When it became clear that the old-growth forests around Opal Creek were being considered for logging, Atiyeh fought back, using what he described as legal and not-so-legal tactics to save the forest. It earned him few friends and made him many enemies in the logging communities of the Santiam Canyon, but Atiyeh did not stop.
When it became clear that one man could not save Opal Creek on his own, Atiyeh began flying politicians and journalists over the forests and clear-cut patches, providing a birds-eye view of the toll logging had taken on Oregon's old growth forests. Those trips were credited with helping to change the tide of public opinion in favor of the forests.
Atiyeh succeeded, and today old growth forests, streams and waterfalls of the 20,454-acre Opal Creek Wilderness have become as iconic as Atiyeh himself. His remains were found on his property.
You can read more about Atiyeh's life here, and listen to the story in Atiyeh's own words in a conversation with Dave Miller on OPB's "Think Out Loud."
Residents return slowly to Santiam Canyon
Officials were able to lower evacuation levels to Level 2 "Be Set" Friday for a narrow stretch of land along Highway 22 from Lyons to Detroit to Idanha, which burned in the Beachie Creek and Lionshead fires.Conditions remained hazardous, so the Oregon Department of Transportation will be escorting home and business owners on a pre-arranged schedule in and out of their properties. Debris and fire-damaged trees continued to fall into the roads: it was not safe for motorists to travel Highway 22 on their own.
As residents return home to evacuated areas, officials say to expect areas of both burned and unburned trees. Because there is no complete line of burned forests, fire crews will continue to connect containment lines throughout the area, which might take several days.
Although it's safe for residents to return, they should be prepared to leave again at any moment. High winds could also topple fire-damaged trees, which may appear healthy. Fires are still actively burning, and stumps and tree roots continue to smolder near homes. Firefighters ask residents not to call 911 for these logs: they are being tracked by fire crews. The area is still smoky.
Oregon receives emergency aid for fire-damaged roads
U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, a Springfield Democrat, announced Friday that the Oregon Department of Transportation will receive nearly $8 million in federal disaster funding.
Several of Oregon's Cascade highways were badly damaged during an unprecedented fire event following a Labor Day windstorm. The fires burned vegetation holding rocks in place, sending them crashing into the roads. The Oregon Department of Transportation has been working to remove small slides, downed trees, and rockfall for the last two weeks.
After a fire, the understory and root structures that hold surface soil in place are gone. Small and large bits of soil and debris called "dry ravel" slowly move downhill, filling up creek beds and runoffs. Those runoffs eventually lead to the same canyons Oregon's highways follow through the mountains.
Several storms have brought inches of rain and gusty winds to burned areas, further complicating cleanup. These highways pass through steep canyons and are already prone to landslides and rockfall during the rainy season. Fire has only made that worse. High winds continue to bring down trees and cause small rock and landslides along the highways. ODOT officials expect that to continue even after roads are opened. They expect travelers will experience delays and temporary closures for months to years as more debris is freed by rain and time.
There are eight major routes over Oregon's Cascade Mountains. Five of them were seriously impacted by fires. Of the damaged roads only Highway 138, which traverses the Cascades near Roseburg and Crater Lake National Park, is open. Conditions on the road are still dangerous. Officials are asking travelers to stay in their car, stay moving, and to be prepared to find unexpected debris blocking the roads. Since so many major routes are closed, the others are congested and travel is slow.
Fire updates
Heavy rains soaked fires burning across northwestern Oregon on Thursday. Unlike the thunderstorms that rolled through previously, the rain came slowly, which helped it penetrate deeper into the ground.
There was no new growth and very little fire activity at the Beachie Creek Fire, and no additional growth is anticipated Friday. Officials were able to lower evacuation levels for some residents along Highway 22.
The Lionshead Fire grew by a little over 1,000 acres Wednesday and Thursday. It is considered 28% contained. The fire remained active, but most of the activity is in previously unburned "green islands" deep within the fire's perimeter.
Fire activity remained low at the Holiday Farm Fire, Archie Creek Fire and Riverside Fires, where dry fuels continued to burn under thick, sheltering forest canopies.
The Slater Fire saw some rain Thursday, which aided firefighters in controlling new spot fires that started during Wednesday's wind event. That moisture is expected to have dried by Saturday, and high winds are expected to continue to make containment difficult. Warm, dry, windy weather is expected to build through the weekend and into next week. The fire was 25% contained and several communities in the Illinois Valley and to the north and west of the burned area remain under evacuation warnings.
Fire-suppressing rain is expected to continue in much of the Cascades Friday and through Friday night. Although the rains have helped suppress fire behavior, they are not expected to put the fires out.
Tags: Science & Environment


Happy to issue an invoice with a reference to CountingUp, could we also be have a feature to include our own company logo?
I am happy to announce it is live and ready to use! Simply open the Countingup app, tap the 'More' tab on the bottom of the screen and choose 'Change logo'.
We're working on the ability to upload your company logo. This is in testing at the moment so should be with you very soon.


D.I. is a Southern California punk band featuring ex-Adolescents and Social Distortion drummer Casey Royer on vocals. Royer formed the group after he and former Social Distortion original member Rikk Agnew (also formerly of Christian Death), left the original Mike Ness crew.
Since forming in 1982, D.I. has had many line-up changes and Royer has been the only constant member of the band. They almost usually consist of former members of The Adolescents and Social Distortion (including the Agnew brothers Rikk and Alfie). The band has continued to work to this day, although they have been inactive perodically, which include the band going on hiatus between albums. During their years of touring and recording albums, D.I. never gained a large mainstream success, but they have influenced many of today's later punk rock groups, including F.T.E., Face to Face, Guttermouth, Jughead's Revenge, The Offspring and Pennywise. Members of the band also joined up with Daddy X and The Dirtball of the Kottonmouth Kings, to create the punk rock/hip-hop group The X-Pistols, in 2010.


For the third consecutive year, OU Daily alums were part of Pulitzer Prize winning teams as announced Monday at Columbia University in New York.
Dana Branham, a December 2017 graduate who is now a one-year reporting intern at The Dallas Morning News, contributed as an intern last summer to the Cincinnati Enquirer's project examining the effects of the opioid crisis, which won the 2018 Pulitzer for local reporting. David Fallis, a 1988 graduate and deputy investigative editor at The Washington Post, was part of The Post's team that won the 2018 Pulitzer for investigative reporting.
The honors continued an illustrious run of Daily alums being part of teams that have captured journalism's highest honor.
In 2016, Hailey Branson Potts and Mark Potts were part of the Los Angeles Times' team that won for breaking news reporting. Also in 2016, Fallis was part of The Post team that won for national reporting. In 2017, Ryan Chittum was part of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists' team that won for explanatory reporting.


text:
Trump coming to Johnstown
MICHELLE GANASSI michelleg@dailyamerican.com
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is coming to the area 18 days before voters choose the next president of the United States.
The New York businessman will be holding a rally at the Cambria County War Memorial in Johnstown at 4 p.m. Friday. Doors open at 1 p.m. Trump is running against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Democrat.
Somerset County Republican Party Chairwoman Colleen Dawson said Trump's visit so close to the election highlights the importance of the region to his success in Pennsylvania.
"I think it is his way of honoring the faithful in Somerset and Cambria County," she said. "We are a stronghold for Trump. We have a lot of conservative Republicans. They are concerned not just about the presidency, but the appointments to the Supreme Court. I think people are deeply concerned about the appointments. I think people understand that, and they look past the national media and they get into the bones and they get into the issues. And I believe that is why Donald Trump is coming to this area."
Pennsylvania is considered a must-win for the next commander in chief. Dawson challenged Somerset and Cambria counties to produce an 80 to 85 percent voter turnout.
"Pennsylvania is crucial," she said. "We have to get out the vote in Somerset and Cambria. We need to really get out the vote. I truly believe Somerset County can come out in record numbers for Donald Trump. We are going to nullify Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and if all of the rural counties can do that then Donald Trump takes Pennsylvania. This election is unlike any other in history."
Dawson estimates that the local party has distributed between 3,500 and 4,000 signs and 2,000 T-shirts.
"Trump sees what is going on," she said. "We had four billboards donated to Trump in this county, 2,000 T-shirts. This is truly grassroots."
For tickets visit www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule.


text:
Visit Csíkszereda!
Blog about a wonderful city, Csikszereda
Trip to Csiksomlyó
Yesterday I was in Csiksomlyó with my cousin, and we take here some photo. I want to share white you some from these pictures.
Click to picture for sideshow!
Posted by vargai
Filed in *
Tagged: church, csíksomlyó
Csikszereda is a town in Romania, situated in the Eastern part of Transylvania, in Hargita County. Csikszereda is the Municipality of Hargita County. Around the town there are volcanic mountain ranges called the Hargita and Csik Mountains, at the crossing of the roads which pass through the Carpathian Passes of Tolvajos (Vlăhiţa) and Gyimes.
The town is situated on the banks of the river Olt, at the foot of the Nagysomlyó Mountain (1033m). The altitude of the town is between 655m and 730m above the sea level, Geographical coordinates: lat.:46˚21' N, long.: 25˚ 48' E.
Csikszereda was founded in the 16th century, nearby still exist localities as Somlyó (1333), Csiktaploca and other villages – with which the town has merged in the flood area of the river Olt, where market (peasant pairs) was held on Wednesdays (hungarian szerda).
The first known authentic document which certifies this town as "a plain town" is a letter of Queen Izabella, mother of János Zsigmond, Prince of Transylvania, dated back from August, 5th, 1558, in which the inhabitants of the town were exempted from the taxes but not from the ones for the Ottoman Empire.
At Somlyó in 1630, there was a Franciscan gymnasium, and in 1676 there was a printing shop founded by the Franciscan monk Joannes Kájoni. The parish church was built in 1758.
Csikszereda's oldest street is Petofi street. It was built up in 1869.
Petőfi Street in 1930
Today the people calls it Walking street, because car traffic is not let in.
Petőfi Street 2009
Here you can see Live Webcam from the town.
Tagged: csíkszereda, geography, history, petőfi street
Castle of Mikó
Castle of Mikó at night
The Castle of Mikó is situated in the southern part of Csíkszereda and it is the most famous landmark of the town. Ferenc Mikó of Hidvég (1585-1635) was Gabor Bethlen's relative and confident, he was chief Commander of Csík-, Gyergyó-, and Kászon Chairs (traditional names for the Székely counties). He built the castle with four bastions on the corners, a regular rectangular ground, planed and sketched in the style of the most beautiful Italian Renaissance sketches from the period between1620-1635. It's "Golden Bastion" was mentioned by sources in 1654. The fortress was burnt down by the Tartars in 1661, and then fortified in 1714 by the Austrian garrison troops with an external defense ring consisting mainly of ramparts.
Click to image for a 360 grades panorama (Near Castle of Mikó, in april)
Today, the Castle of Mikó, among others, hosts the Museum of the Székelys of Csíkchair.
Click to image for a 360 grades panorama (Near Castle of Mikó, at yesterday night)
Update: The previously mentioned 360 grades panoramas are not available anymore, but you can reach the Google's 360 street view: link
Tagged: castle, csíkszereda, history
Church from Csiksomlyó
The Franciscan church and cloister in Somlyó were founded around 1400.
The Baroque church was build between 1804 and 1876 in Somlyó.
Due to the prayers of the relatives of the Szekler from Csík, Gyergyo and Kaszon chairs that fought against the Protestant reigning prince Janos Zsigmond in 1564, the Holy Virgin helped them to obtain the victory. To commemorate this event, pilgrims gather at Csíksomlyó every Whit Sunday.
Hungarian and Székely anthem on Csíksomlyó:
Tagged: anthem, church, csíksomlyó, history
Csikszereda's Hockey teams
Csikszereda is one of the coldest towns in Romania. In winter the temperature may sink under -30 °C, because of this it is ideal for winter sports. In Csikszereda there is an ice rink named Vákár Lajos, which operates in summer and in winter, there are 2000 seats. The Vákár Lajos ice rink is Romania's biggest ice rink, here train two teams, HC Csikszerda and Sport Club. These are the strongest teams in Romania. The first team came into existence in 1929.
The Vakar Lajos ice ride from outside
My favourite team is HC Csikszereda, this team won the Mol League in the 2008-2009 season. The Mol League is a championship, there play teams from Romania and Hungary. My favourite Romanian player is Mihály Árpád, he currently plays in HC Csikszereda.
The Vakar Lajos ice rink from inside
The standard of the local hockey leauge is behind that of the American hockey but the local people watch the Romanian hockey with big interest.
Tagged: csíkszereda, hockey
I live in the centre of Csikszereda. When I look around from my windows I can see the center of the town where are many interesting buildings.
Firstly I can see the county hall, the Sapientia university, the urban park, this is the biggest park in Csikszereda and the cultural centre. Here are many concerts, lectures. Furthermore I can see the Nagy Istvan Art Secondary School, a Bank named Carpatica, and a Greek catholic church. The most interesting is the main square (here you can see a panorama of this) where are many exhibitions and one or two concerts a year. Finally when I look around I can see the forest, which is around the town, this is a very relaxing sight.
I like to live here, because here I'm close to everything and the view is good.
Tagged: csíkszereda, me
anthem castle church csíksomlyó csíkszereda geography history hockey me petőfi street
Additional blogs about Csíkszereda
aagota
csixereda
ikarosz
kafkulec
pitylee
seklerburg
slipikelifestyle
szereda
zsuuu
Csíkszereda musings
MY NEW BLOG ABOUT NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Soros Oktatási Központ


George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence: Frederick Weissenfels to George Washington . 1780. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mgw422312/.
(1780) George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence: Frederick Weissenfels to George Washington . [Manuscript/Mixed Material] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/mgw422312/.
George Washington Papers, Series 4, General Correspondence: Frederick Weissenfels to George Washington . 1780. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/mgw422312/>.


New Form Productions Inc.'s promotion is open to legal residents of The United States who are over the age of 13, excluding New Form employees (herein referred as "New Form" or "Promotion Sponsor"), its parent and affiliated companies, representatives, dealers and agents, Promotion suppliers and judges, and those with whom they are domiciled. Promotion is operated by Ingaged Inc. on behalf of New Form.
Promotion Period starts at midnight on July 19th, 2018 and continues until August 22nd, 2018 the "Promotion Closing Date". No purchase necessary. All times are Pacific time.
TO ENTER the Promotion Go to "http://bit.ly/txtstories" to complete the entry form on or before the Promotion Closing Date. Additional entries will be assigned to each registrant for each unique share. Any attempt or suspected attempt to enter against these terms, any use of robotic, automatic, programmed or any entry methods not authorized by these rules, shall be deemed as tampering and will void all of your entries. All entries that are incomplete, illegible, damaged, contain an erroneous phone and/or email address or do not conform to or satisfy the Promotion Sponsor may disqualify any condition of the rules.
PRIZE - Ten randomly chosen entrants will win a New Form t-shirt or hat.
DRAW – The Prizes will be selected on the 1st of August, 2018 and prizes will be delivered upon confirmation with winners. Enquiries may be sent to service@ingaged.com. Selected entrant will be contacted by email at the email address indicated on his/her entry.
Prizes must be accepted as awarded and are not transferable, redeemable, refundable or exchangeable for cash and not replaceable if lost/stolen. Promotion Sponsor reserves the right to substitute a prize with a prize of at least equal value in the event of the unavailability, for whatever reason, of the advertised prize.
By entering this Promotion and/or accepting a prize, entrants consent to the use of their entry, name, city of residence and/or voice, statements, any photographs or other likenesses for publicity, advertising or informational purposes carried out by the Promotion Sponsor and/or its advertising agencies in any medium or format without further notice or compensation. The Promotion is subject to all applicable federal, state and municipal laws and regulations.
No communications will be entered into except with selected entrants. To receive a copy of the list of the winners, send a postage-paid, self-addressed envelope on or before the Promotion Closing Date.
Odds of winning depend on the number of eligible entries. Promotion Sponsor takes no responsibility for lost, stolen, delayed, damaged, misdirected, late or destroyed entries, or for typographical or other production errors. Promotion Sponsor is not responsible for any errors or omissions in printing or advertising this Promotion. All entries become the property of the Promotion Sponsor.
By entering this Promotion, entrants release and hold harmless the Promotion Sponsor, its advertising and promotional agencies and the sweepstakes judge(s), their affiliates and respective directors, officers, owners, partners, employees, agents, dealers, representatives, successors and assigns (collectively the "Releasees") from any liability in connection with this Promotion or, if declared a winner, the prize.
This Promotion will be run in accordance with these rules, subject to amendment by Promotion Sponsor. Entrants must comply with these rules, and will be deemed to have received and understood the rules by participating in the Promotion. The terms of this Promotion, as set out in these rules, are not subject to amendment or counter-offer, except as set out herein.
Promotion Sponsor assumes no responsibility for failure of the internet or the website during the promotional period, for any problems or technical malfunction of any telephone network or lines, computer on-line systems, servers, access providers, computer equipment, software, failure of any email or traffic congestion on the internet or at any website, or any combination thereof including any injury or damage to an entrant's or any other person's computer related to or resulting from playing or downloading any material in the promotion. Promotion Sponsor reserves the right to cancel or suspend this Promotion should a virus, bug or other cause beyond their reasonable control corrupt the security or proper administration of the Promotion. Any attempt to deliberately damage any web site or to undermine the legitimate operation of this promotion is a violation of criminal and civil laws. Should such an attempt be made, Promotion Sponsor reserves the right to seek remedies and damages to the fullest extent permitted by law, including criminal prosecution.
If the identity of an entrant is disputed, the authorized account holder of the e-mail address submitted at the time of entry will be deemed to be the entrant. The individual assigned to the e-mail address for the domain associated with the submitted e-mail address is considered the authorized account holder. A selected entrant may be required to provide proof that he/she is the authorized account holder of the e-mail address associated with the selected entry. All entries must be submitted from a valid e-mail account that may be identified by reverse domain name search. The sole determinant of time for the purposes of receipt of a valid entry in this Promotion will be the Promotion server machine(s).
No other agreements: I acknowledge and represent that there are no other agreements or understandings with New Form that apply to my submission. In the event this representation is not accurate, I agree that any prior agreements or understandings are superseded by these terms and conditions, and that no modifications or exceptions to these terms and conditions will apply unless agreed to by both me and New Form in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of New Form.
Applicable law: These terms and conditions, and any submission made by me is governed by the substantive law of and is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and the State of California, without any regard to any choice of laws provision that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.


text:
Wolfgang von Wieser (* 13. Juni 1887 in Prag; † 22. Februar 1945 in Wien) war ein österreichischer Mediziner.

Leben
Wieser war der Sohn des Ökonomen und zeitweiligen Handelsministers Friedrich von Wieser. Nach Besuch von Gymnasien in Prag und Wien studierte Wolfgang von Wieser ab 1905 Medizin in Wien und wurde 1911 promoviert. Von 1910 bis 1913 war er Assistent an der I. Anatomischen Lehrkanzel in Wien. Während des Ersten Weltkriegs leistete Wieser Kriegsdienst als Chirurg und Röntgenarzt an einem Krankenhaus in Wien. Nach dem Krieg arbeitete er weiter als Röntgenarzt; wegen gesundheitlicher Schäden durch Röntgenstrahlen wurde er jedoch schon 1924 pensioniert. 1932 habilitierte er sich für medizinische Radiologie und war in verschiedenen medizinischen Gesellschaften aktiv.

Wieser unterstützte die Heimwehrbewegung und sympathisierte mit dem Nationalsozialismus, war aber nicht Mitglied der NSDAP. Von Februar 1934 an war er für ein Jahr stellvertretender Reichsführer des österreichischen Kriegsopferverbandes. Von 1934 bis 1938 gehörte er dem österreichischen Staatsrat an. Ab 1935 leitete er das Röntgeninstitut des Wiener Allgemeinen Krankenhauses.

Nach dem "Anschluss" Österreichs 1938 wurde er seiner politischen Funktionen enthoben, seine Lehrbefugnis ruhte. Seine eigene Praxis konnte er weiterführen.

Schriften
 Kompendium der Röntgenaufnahme und Röntgendurchleuchtung, Bd. 1: Die Röntgentechnik von Friedrich Dessauer und einem Beitrag über Stereoskopie, 2., vollständig umgearbeitete Aufl. Nemnich, Leipzig 1915.
 Röntgentherapie des Schwachsinnes bei Kindern. Thieme, Leipzig 1928 (Radiologische Praktika; 10).

Literatur
 Gertrude Enderle-Burcel: Mandatare im Ständestaat: Christlich – ständisch – autoritär, 1934–1938. Biographisches Handbuch der Mitglieder des Staatsrates, Bundeskulturrates, Bundeswirtschaftsrates und Länderrates sowie des Bundestages. Hrsg. durch das Dokumentationsarchiv des Österreichischen Widerstandes und die Österreichische Gesellschaft für Historische Quellenstudien, Wien 1991, ISBN 3-901142-00-2, S. 263–264.

Radiologe
Mitglied des Staatsrates (Österreich)
Person (Cisleithanien)
Mediziner (20. Jahrhundert)
Absolvent der Universität Wien
VF-Mitglied
Österreicher
Geboren 1887
Gestorben 1945
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia