text:
Pamela Geller's Jewish Philadelphia Jihad Started Three Centuries Ago: Ends Today
April 11, 2015 NOI Research Articles 752
Pamela Geller, Jewish Leader
The American Jewish leader Pamela Geller is on an impossible mission to destroy Islam. Her best attempt at that unworthy goal is not to engage Muslim leaders to dialogue "with wisdom and goodly exhortation," but to foment disunity. Geller is from the Charlie Hebdo school of interfaith relations, and through her so-called American Freedom Defense Initiative organization she has paid for an ad campaign and plastered her badly mangled interpretation of the Holy Quran on 84 Philadelphia buses. The ads feature a photograph of the Palestinian activist Haj Amin al-Husseini sitting with Adolf Hitler in 1941. Usually the deploying of the image of Hitler in such a manner earns stern rebukes from the Jewish leadership but just the opposite has occurred. Philadelphia District Court Judge Mitchell Goldberg ruled that a rejection of the ads by the Philadelphia bus company would violate Geller's First Amendment right of "free speech."
Judenrat: Jewish Nazi police force
If one were so inclined to slander Judaism, one could just as easily have placed 77 ads depicting the 77 Nazi Jews who were officers in Hitler's army, or ads showing the photos of the smiling members of the Judenrat, the Jewish police force that was in charge of
rounding up fellow Jews for shipment to the death camps. They even had uniforms and star-of-David arm badges (see photo). No Muslim has ever claimed those Jews to be representative of the Jewish religion. But after Geller's campaign to slander Islam, maybe they should.
Turns out, Pamela Geller is following a grand Hebrew tradition that can be traced to the early pioneers of Philadelphia's Jewish community. The Jewish founding families appear in city records as early as 1703, and they also loved to place paid political advertisements that expressed their religious and racial points of view. More than three generations before the liberty bell was rung in the steeple of the Pennsylvania State House to signal an alleged "freedom for all," Jews became wealthy and powerful in the City of Brotherly Love. Through an examination of the advertisements they placed in the local colonial papers, we can see the chilling Judaic connection they have with the race-baiting Pamela Geller of today.
Jonas Phillips was a founder of Philadelphia's original synagogue, Mikveh Israel. In February of 1792, he placed an advertisement in the city newspaper to track down his "Negro Woman Slave" who "took nothing with her but the clothes she had on." Acco rding to the ad, which offered a two dollar reward for her capture, Phillips was willing to forgive her for seeking her God-given freedom—or, as he put it, "absconding." In another public notice he was selling "A young handy NEGRO MAN, about nineteen years of age"—a human being as a regular in-stock item, along with fish hooks, silks, ginger, linens, and other dry goods.
All of the early Jewish Philadelphians forced Black human beings into slavery. Even the city's Ashkenazi rabbi owned African slaves. Two Jewish historians reviewed this despicable human rights record and concluded: "The Jews who could afford them had both servants and slaves. The Quakers were the only people who as a religious denomination opposed the institution of slavery."
And speaking of Hitler, Levy Andrew Levy was part of a massive Indian trading operation based in western Pennsylvania. It was Levy who participated in the extermination plot against the Indians by providing them with blankets deliberately laced with smallpox.
Back the n Philly didn't have a bus system, but Jewish merchant David Franks had some ships that a Geller of his time would have gladly placed her ads. In 1761 Frank's schooner Hannah was docked on the Delaware River with a "Cargoe of Likely Negroes Just Imported Directly from Guiney" for sale.
In her A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin a disgusted Harriet Beecher Stowe mentions the Jewish slave traders that set up shop in Philadelphia. She called the Davises
"the great slave-dealers. They are Jews [who] are always in the market, giving the highest price for slaves. During the summer and fall they buy them up at low prices, trim, shave and wash them, fatten them so that they may look sleek, and sell them to great profit."
Geller's people weren't just slave trading Black human beings, they further secured their wealth by becoming key pillars in the supply chain that kept the Southern slave system in operation. Scholar Elliott Ashkenazi wrote that Southern plantation suppliers looked to the "hundreds of Jewish wholesalers" based in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore to sell all they needed to keep a stolen African people producing cotton—the most valuable crop the world had ever seen.
When the Civil War threatened to break apart the nation, Philadelphia Jews spoke often and ardently for the Confederacy and the maintenance of Black slavery. Local Rabbi Sabato Morais spoke against slavery he was muzzled, according to Ismar Elbogen, "by the timid leaders" of his congregation. B'nai B'rith leader Dr. Solomon Solis-Cohen blamed Blacks in America for their own lynchings. Jewish Texan Jacob De Cordova visited his Jewish brethren in Philadelphia in 1858 to entice Jews to settle in Texas, where "By a wise provision of our state constitution, the institution of slavery has been guaranteed."
The Geller Islamic hate ad is probably running on Philly bus route "R," which will take you down West Hunting Park Avenue and right by Simon Gratz High School. The Gratz family was closely connected with the Hays, Moses and Franks families in their slav e-shipping businesses. Michael Gratz's wife Miriam wrote a letter to him dated June 2, 1777—one month short of the original Fourth of July—that reminded: "Dont forget your promise in getting me a negro boy or girl if to be had, as servants is very scarce. [sic]"
But that is not the worst of it. Bernard Gratz's slave overseer wrote to his boss in 1772 about a troublesome early, early colonial FOI named "George." He had tried to sell him at auction but
"he protested that he would not be sold, and if anyone should purchase him, he would be the death of him, which deterred the people from bidding….[H]e behaved himself in such an insolent manner I immediately sent him back to the jail with directions to the jailer to keep him at hard labor, which he refuses to do, and goes on in such an insolent manner that it is impossible to get a master for him here….He's now almost naked, and if not furnished soon with some clothes, I fear he'll perish. P.S.: He's now chained and handcuffed on account of his threats."
Let us put up our own Philadelphia bus ads and declare July 4, 2015, "BROTHER GEORGE DAY" in honor of a true hero that represents the Muslim spirit of Philadelphia Freedom!
Imam Mikal Shabazz, of the Philadelphia-based Masjidullah, says that Geller has provided a teachable moment. Sis. Kameelah Mu'Min Rashad, of the advocacy group Muslims Make It Plain, echoes the Imam, saying that Geller "actually has given us a gift" by helping to achieve Muslim unity, and "encourages us to work together as one ummah or community." This is beautiful language that we should heed.
One of the things we do know from Jewish history is that they built their massive power all over America through unity: they worked in a collective manner to run a goodly portion of the slave system, the cotton trade, the sugar trade, and to established the financial infrastructure that secured it all. We too can build on our interdenominational efforts to unify as a Muslim ummah and generate a financial platform of our own—without kidnapping and exploiting human beings or chasing after runaways. Minister Farrakhan said it so beautifully: "Let's be Muslims every day of the year, thinking of the poor and the weak, and the orphan, and the man that is 'in the dust'; and let us go and 'free a slave,' and awaken the masses." The Geller debacle in Philadelphia is a mighty, mighty step in that direction.
[NOTE: This unfortunate Jewish human rights history goes far beyond Philadelphia and is well documented in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vols. 1 & 2, and the companion volume of slave-sale ads titled Jews Selling Blacks.]


text:
Critical examination of history
Commitment to the victims of National Socialism
Photocompetition
A critical examination
of history Working for
human rights Commitment to the victims
of National Socialism
THE FOUNDATION REMEMBRANCE, RESPONSIBILITY AND FUTURE (EVZ)
In remembrance of the victims of National Socialist injustice, EVZ Foundation works to promote human rights and understanding between peoples. The Foundation is thus an expression of the continuing political and moral responsibility of the state, the private sector and society as a whole for Nazi injustice and towards the victims.
The Foundation supports international projects in the following areas:
A critical examination of history
Working for human rights
The EVZ Foundation was established in 2000, primarily to make payments to former forced labourers. The payments programmes were completed in 2007. The Foundation's capital of EUR 5.2 billion was provided by the German Government and German industry. A total of EUR 358 million was set aside as Foundation capital in order to finance project support. The Foundation finances its long-term funding activities out of the income generated by this capital.
Member of the Association of German Foundations
PrintRecommendBack to top

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The C6 ListenPoint Control Unit is an ideal unit for audio visual integration as it accommodates integration with teleconferencing devices bringing the outside world into the room. The control unit connects to the Room Module using a single Cat-5e cable. Audio and control devices connect via the rear panel. The control unit includes pro audio inputs/outputs, a direct teleconferencing/Skypeâ"¢/VOIP port and USB for customization and control. The tilting LCD is easy to read and displays the status of all microphones on the system including battery level. Designed to blend into any room, the control unit can be wall, desk or rack mounted.


(2008/THOUSANDS) 12 tracks, recorded 2007, incl. three studio tracks and five live recordings by the Sureshots plus four studio tracks by the John Lewis Trio! Great Rockabilly stuff!
Kundenbewertungen für "Sureshots & John Lewis Trio"


text:
import asyncio
import unittest
from zeroservices import BaseService
from ..utils import test_medium, TestCase, _async_test

try:
    from unittest.mock import Mock
except ImportError:
    from mock import Mock

class _BaseDiscoveryMediumTestCase(TestCase):

    def setUp(self):
        self.loop = asyncio.new_event_loop()
        asyncio.set_event_loop(None)

        self.mock_1 = Mock()
        self.mock_1.__name__ = 'Mock1'
        self.mock_2 = Mock()
        self.mock_2.__name__ = 'Mock2'

        self.node_info_1 = {'node_id': '#ID1', 'service_info': {'name': '#S1'}}
        self.node_info_2 = {'node_id': '#ID2', 'service_info': {'name': '#S2'}}

        self.first_discovery_medium = self.loop.run_until_complete(self.get_medium(self.mock_1, self.loop, self.node_info_1))
        self.second_discovery_medium = self.loop.run_until_complete(self.get_medium(self.mock_2, self.loop, self.node_info_2))

    def tearDown(self):
        self.first_discovery_medium.close()
        self.second_discovery_medium.close()
        self.loop.stop()
        self.loop.close()
        self.first_discovery_medium.check_leak()
        self.second_discovery_medium.check_leak()

    @_async_test
    def test_discovery(self):
        yield from self.first_discovery_medium.send_registration_infos()
        yield from self.second_discovery_medium.send_registration_infos()

        # Wait some time for message propagation
        yield from asyncio.sleep(0.01, loop=self.loop)

        # Check that we received some informations in second medium
        self.assertEqual(self.mock_2.call_count, 1)
        call = self.mock_2.call_args[0]
        self.assertEqual(call[0], 'register')
        self.assertDictIsSubset(self.node_info_1, call[1])
        address_1 = call[1]['address']

        # Check that we receive some informations in first medium
        self.assertEqual(self.mock_1.call_count, 1)
        call = self.mock_1.call_args[0]
        self.assertEqual(call[0], 'register')
        self.assertDictIsSubset(self.node_info_2, call[1])
        address_2 = call[1]['address']

        self.assertEqual(address_1, address_2)

    @_async_test
    def test_node_info_immutability(self):
        # Mutate node info 1 and check that the right message is sent
        self.node_info_1['node_id'] = 'New #ID1'

        yield from self.first_discovery_medium.send_registration_infos()

        # Wait some time for message propagation
        yield from asyncio.sleep(0.01, loop=self.loop)

        # Check that we received some informations in second medium
        self.assertEqual(self.mock_2.call_count, 1)
        call = self.mock_2.call_args[0]
        self.assertEqual(call[0], 'register')
        self.assertDictIsSubset({'node_id': '#ID1'}, call[1])

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Many modern families have two parents with full-time jobs, which leaves them with some tough decisions to make concerning child care. While some families are fortunate to have nearby family to watch the kids, many people have to choose between day care centers, in-home providers and nannies. If you're in the midst of making this decision, consider the following advantages of daycare services.
More affordable and reliable Typically it is less expensive to sign up for daycare services than to hire a nanny or pay for in-home childcare. While some people feel that the home environment is worth the extra money, you can't ignore the cost factor. Many working parents appreciate that daycare centers offer more reliable hours. You never have to worry about the daycare center closing because a particular teacher is sick or having a family emergency.
Adhere to state regulations In-home childcare centers must follow the same state guidelines as public and private daycare centers, while nannies do not. Working with a childcare provider that must follow state regulations gives many parents a peace of mind. In addition to licensing, centers are subject to health and fire inspections. Some centers even take the extra step to become quality approved, ensuring that their children receive kindergarten preparation skills. It is easier for parents to evaluate varying options for childcare when there are clear standards.
Clear cut expectations With a daycare center, there are clear rules for parents, such as when you can drop off and pick up children and what sort of snacks they will and won't eat during the day. If you've had trouble hiring a nanny or babysitter who can't accommodate your work schedule or who doesn't follow your established home guidelines, a daycare may be the answer.


Captivating and powerful, the 2018 Mazda MX-5 RF brings a new definition to the word luxury. As you embark on each day's adventures in this two-door design with seating for two, you are given a new appreciation for the open road. Available trim levels include the GS and the GT.
Modern and athletic style come forward with the interior design of the 2018 Mazda MX-5 RF. You are given advanced touches such as added insulation to places like the inner wheel housing for a quieter, more sophisticated ride. Combat chilly days with the adjustable heated seats as you find your perfect position through the 6-way manually adjustable driver's seat. Genuine Nappa leather-trimmed upholstery is available with an elegant touch and look. With both hands on the leather-wrapped steering wheel, you are given access to your settings through the mounted audio, cruise and Bluetooth controls.
Energetic and refined, the exterior of the 2018 Mazda MX-5 RF promotes a distinct KODO "Soul of Motion" design. Rich in aerodynamics, this design is more than the curving of the body profile or the sharp boldness of the headlights. It is an essence and beauty that reflects a passion for driving. Enjoy the functionality of the power retractable hardtop as you open up to the remarkable views above. Keep your interior environment peaceful with help from the noise-isolating windshield and noise absorption headliner.
Connect on the go without distraction from the task at hand when you drive the 2018 Mazda MX-5 RF. You are given a range of innovative technological features that both connect you to the outside world and provide interior entertainment. Through the 7-inch colour touchscreen display with MAZDA CONNECT you are given access to your compatible devices with Bluetooth phone connection capability. Find your way with ease as the voice-activated navigation system delivers turn-by-turn directions to a range of destinations.
Track tested engineering is brought to centre stage with the 2018 Mazda MX-5 RF as you experience enhanced driving dynamics everywhere you go. Nimble handling is delivered through the optional 6-speed automatic transmission with manual-shift mode, Drive Selection switch and paddle shifters, promoting an intuitive performance you can count on.
Some conditions may apply. See West Coast Mazda for full details in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia, Canada.
Sporty and stylish, the 2018 Mazda MX-5 RF delivers an on road experience that is rich in road-gripping performance and alluring design details. You are given an opportunity to indulge in sophistication with every moment spent on the road.
Check out the 2018 Mazda MX-5 RF at your local Greater Vancouver Mazda Dealer - West Coast Mazda. From its vast selection of new and used vehicles, to it team of dedicated and highly-trained professionals, West Coast Mazda is here for all your vehicle needs.


text:
Cal Ripken talks about possibility he'll manage in the future
Cal Ripken joined the show to talk about the playoffs and the possibility he'd want to manage the Nationals or any team..
Ripken talked about the possibility of him becoming a manager again. He said since retiring he's had several focuses, but now that his kids are out of the house they've changed.
"I'm not lobbying," Ripken said. "I'm not throwing my name out there. Everyone is asking me, are you getting the itch to come back.
Ripken also had very interesting comments on the difference between baseball players and athletes from other sports. He said football players are the best athletes but usually their baseball swings aren't very good. And he said basketball players have bad baseballs swings in general. He said Michael Jordan couldn't adjust because he didn't develop from about age 16 on.


text:
Eucalastacus torbeni är en kräftdjursart som beskrevs av Sakai 1992. Eucalastacus torbeni ingår i släktet Eucalastacus och familjen Calocarididae. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Tiofotade kräftdjur
torbeni

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The 2002 Central American and Caribbean Games were held in San Salvador, El Salvador from 27 November through 7 December 2002. The defending champion Cuban national baseball team did not come, citing security concerns.

 won its second Gold for baseball in a Central American and Caribbean Games, both of which came when Cuba skipped the event.

 claimed Silver.

 won Bronze.

 was 4th at 4-3.

 (3-4),  (2-5),  (2-4),  (3-3),  (0-4) and  (0-4) completed the pack.

Final standing

2002 Central American and Caribbean Games
2002
Central American and Caribbean Games


text:
An Antic Disposition
You are here: Home / Archives for OOXML
OOXML
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2008/07/22 By Rob 18 Comments
We are coming down to the last week for JTC1 to decide on whether to hear the four NB appeals concerning various claimed errors in the processing of DIS 29500 (OOXML), or whether summarily to dismiss these appeals without hearing them. The decision lies with two committees, the Technical Management Board (TMB) in ISO and the Standards Management Board (SMB) in the IEC.
Back on July 4th, the Secretaries General of ISO and the IEC referred the four NB appeals, with their comments, to the TMB/SMB. Groklaw has the text of these comments, in PDF format, as well as HTML transcription.
The comments of the Secretary General are accompanied by a ballot, asking the question:
The members of the Technical Management Board are invited to indicate, by replying yes, no or
abstention on EITHER a) OR b) for each of the four appeals (see item 14 in annex A):
a) not to process the appeal any further:
Item 1 ABNT
Item 2 BIS
Item 3 FONDONORMA
Item 4 SABS
b) to process one or more of the appeals, which would require setting up of a conciliation panel
by no later than 4 August 2008.
This is quite a strange animal to see. Why are we having a ballot at all, and only a 30-day one? This is questionable from several perspectives.
First, why are the Secretaries General the ones calling for a ballot? The Directives do not call for them to do so. In fact the Secretaries General are not even called upon to make a recommendation. They are only asked for comments. The Directives say:
11.3.3 The Secretaries-General shall, following whatever consultations they deem appropriate, refer the appeal together with their comments to the TMB/SMB within one month after receipt of the appeal.
11.3.4 The TMB/SMB shall decide whether an appeal shall be further processed or not. If the decision is in favour of proceeding, the Chairmen of the TMB/SMB shall form a conciliation panel (see 9.2).
But deciding is not the same as voting. One of the cardinal principles of JTC1 is to discuss and seek consensus, not rush to a vote. Indeed, this is one of the matters under appeal, the rush to voting at the OOXML BRM. JTC1 Directives, section 1.2 says (my emphasis):
These Directives are inspired by the principle that the objective in the development of International Standards should be the achievement of consensus between those concerned rather than a decision based on counting votes.
But here we are, with a vote pushed on the TMB/SMB.
The sense of the vote is wrong as well. The Directives call for a decision on "whether an appeal shall be further processed or not." Note the wording. It did not call for a decision on "whether to accept the recommendation of the Secretaries General". But somehow, we skip discussion, skip over consensus and get a ballot question which asks the opposite question first "not to process the appeal any further". In an environment where many parties automatically vote Yes to the ballot question, changing the sense of the question in this way is prejudicial to the appellants.
So it is clear from the start that the powers that be do not want to give these four NB's the opportunity to make their case or be heard. In any case, let's take a deeper look at some of the subjects under appeal and see if we can detect what it is exactly that cannot bear the scrutiny of a duly processed appeal.
First up is the alleged mishandling of the contradiction period last year. The Secretaries General dismiss this complaint, saying that it was a matter of judgment:
The Directives give the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF latitude to use judgement as to whether a meeting should be organized to address alleged contradictions. Considering that other issues could potentially be identified during the DIS ballot, the JTC 1 secretariat and ITTF concluded that it was preferable to initiate the ballot and to allow all issues to be addressed by the BRM. The NBs were fully informed of all the claimed contradictions and Ecma's responses to them.
This argument doesn't hold water. Although the JTC1 Secretariat and ITTF are allowed judgment, this is not an absolute license which cannot be questioned. The Secretariat and ITTF also have defined duties, and their actions or inactions with respect to these duties can be questioned and are subject to appeal. Specifically, an NB may appeal the issue of an inaction of JTC1, according to JTC1 Directives, 11.3. So for the Secretaries General to suggest that this inaction cannot be appealed because it is a matter of judgment is nonsense. Judgment and duty are the proper matters for an appeal.
So what is the duty in this case? As stated in JTC1 Directives, 13.4:
If a contradiction is alleged, the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF shall make a best effort to resolve the matter in no more than a three month period, consulting with the proposer of the fast-track document, the NB(s) raising the claim of contradiction and others, as they deem necessary. A meeting of these parties, open to all NBs, may be convened by the JTC 1 Secretariat, if required.
If the resolution requires a change to the document submitted for fast-track processing, the initial document submitted will be considered withdrawn. The proposer may submit a revised document, to be processed as a new proposal.
If the resolution results in no change to the document or if a resolution cannot be reached, the five month fast-track ballot commences immediately after such a determination is made.
The Directives call for the JTC1 Secretariat to make a best effort to resolve the matter (JTC1 Directives, 13.4). The JTC1 Secretariat is not given latitude to do nothing, or allowed discretion to immediately defer this question to the ballot period, without making a best effort to resolve the matter.
When a new 6,000 page DIS is submitted to JTC1 only one month after the publication of another standard (ODF) in the exact same space (XML document formats for office applications) and 19 NB's submit contradiction statements, and the JTC1 Secretariat's "best effort" is to hold no consultations with the NB's claiming contradictions, to hold no meeting, to make no attempt to resolve the question, then I believe that any NB would has a legitimate grounds for appeal on the inaction of JTC1 with regards to contradictions. There is no evidence that a "best effort" was made here to resolve the contradictions. Doing nothing is clearly incompatible with the required "best effort".
It should be noted that JTC1 has had challenges in the past getting ITTF to carry out their responsibilities with respect to contradictions, which lead to this resolution adopted unamimously at the 2000 JTC1 Plenary:
Resolution 27 – Consistency of JTC 1 Products
JTC 1 stresses the strong need for consistency of its products (ISs and TRs) irrespective of the route through which they were developed. Any inconsistency will confuse users of JTC 1 standards and, hence, jeopardize JTC 1's reputation. Therefore, referring to clauses 13.2 (Fast Track) and 18.4.3.2 (PAS) of its Directives, JTC 1 reminds ITTF of its obligation to ascertain that a proposed DIS contains no evident contradiction with other ISO/IEC standards. JTC 1 offers any help to ITTF in such undertaking. However, should an inconsistency be detected at any point in the ratification process, JTC 1 together with ITTF will take immediate action to cure the problem.
Perhaps it is time to give ITTF another reminder of their obligations in this regard?
Further, the determination claimed to have been made by the JTC1 Secretariat and ITTF was not communicated to JTC1 NB's. Instead, the JTC1 Secretariat merely forwarded Ecma's responses to the contradiction submissions along with a notification that the DIS ballot should then commence. No statement was made as to whether the ballot was commencing because the contradictions had in fact been resolved, or because a resolution could not be made, which are the only two outcomes allowed by the Directives in 13.4. Not to notify NB's of the actual state of the resolution of the contradictions submissions is incompatible with the JTC1 Secretariat's duty to make a best effort to resolve the matter.
This failure by JTC1 materially effected the ensuing ballot, since Microsoft was then able to take advantage of this procedural nonperformance and repeatedly represent to NB's that the contradictions had been rejected as invalid and could not be considered in the DIS ballot. In fact, this led to several NB's issuing explicit, but erroneous instructions to their members that the contradictions had been resolved and thus could not be raised again as a criterion for determining their national position, e.g., in Australia.
Further, although the Secretaries General claim that "the JTC 1 secretariat and ITTF concluded that it was preferable to initiate the ballot and to allow all issues to be addressed by the BRM" the documented fact is that the BRM Convenor explicitly disallowed any discussion of contradictions at the BRM.
Another subject of appeal was the irregular voting procedures used at the DIS 29500 BRM in February. This is the P-member versus O-member question. The Secretaries General dismiss this appeal in this way:
2e. Correct but inapplicable. The BRM was neither a meeting of JTC 1 nor of SC 34 but was open to all 87 national bodies which submitted a vote (including abstentions) on the DIS. Applying 9.1.4 would have disenfranchised the voting NBs present at the BRM which were not P-members. The fact that any votes in the BRM would be open to all national delegations present was communicated over three months prior to the BRM.
This argument presented is flawed, and amounts to saying, "The voting was done by P- and O-members because the meeting was attended by delegations from P- and O-members". Who attended the meeting is immaterial. Liaisons such as Ecma also attended the BRM? Should they have been able to vote merely because they attended? No, of course not. Voting rights are defined in JTC1 Directives, and this must not be set aside in favor of an ad-hoc rule made without NB consultation or approval.
Asserting that applying 9.1.4 would disenfranchise NB's is an example of circular reasoning. One can only be disenfranchised if one first has the right to vote. So the statement by the Secretaries General is arguing a conclusion (O-members are permitted to vote at BRM's) by assuming the very thing it tries to prove.
JTC1 Directives 14.4.3.9, which defines the parallel BRM process for the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) transposition process, reads: "At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is unavoidable, the approval criteria in the subclause 9.1.4 is applied." So here we see 9.1.4 explicitly called for. By the argument put forth by the Secretaries General, all PAS BRM's which follow the Directives are also flawed because they "disenfranchise" those NB's who are not P-members of JTC1. I believe this is a tortured reading of the Directives. The voting rules of 9.1.4 are explicitly and unambiguously called for in PAS BRM's, so one cannot dismiss their application to Fast Track on general principles that would apply equally to PAS. When Fast Track rules say that the BRM vote shall ("if a vote is unavoidable") "be taken according to normal JTC 1 procedures" then we are faced with two alternatives:
Use the voting rules of 9.1.4, which declares itself to be the normal voting procedures ("In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives, questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P-members expressing either approval or disapproval.")
Or use a voting rule which is not to be found anywhere within the Directives.
Which one is "normal JTC 1 procedures"? Where is the basis in the Directives for believing that O-members had the right to vote at the BRM?
Finally, neither BRM Convenor, Alex Brown, nor ITTF, nor indeed the assembled delegations at the BRM were competent nor had the mandate to make or change voting rules for a DIS BRM. The rules are set in JTC1 Directives, and must be followed. "These Directives shall be complied with in all respects and no deviations can be made without the consent of the Secretaries-General." (JTC1 Directives 1.2).
Notifications made by the BRM Convenor in advance of the BRM have no weight on matters which exceed his mandate and authority. The communication referred to by the Secretaries General, which was given in advance by the BRM Convenor, was from this FAQ:
6.8 If votes are taken during the BRM, who votes?
Those present.
This in fact was not the rule applied at the BRM. For example, Liaison representatives could not vote, though they were undoubtedly present at the BRM and participated fully in other ways. Also individual participants could not vote, only delegations, via their HoD could vote. So the Convenor's glib communication should not be taken as notification of a novel voting procedure.
Additionally, the BRM Convenor was unambiguous in his communications on his blog where he clearly stated that the voting rules of 9.1.4 would be applied:
…Now, paper balloting follows normal JTC 1 in-meeting rules: In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives, questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P-members expressing either approval or disapproval. (9.1.4)
(After the BRM the Convenor dutifully went back and "corrected" his earlier blog post to reflect how the BRM actually operated.)
The Secretaries General further dismiss the concerns regarding BRM voting procedure, saying:
4e. Not correct. Decisions on the comments not discussed during the BRM and proposed dispositions were taken by a process agreed by the BRM itself (29 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions).
On the contrary, the BRM was not competent and had not the mandate to set its own voting rules or to negate the provisions for consensus stated in JTC1 Directives 1.2:
[Note: Consensus is defined as general agreement, characterised by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity. (ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996)]
The Directives specify the rules. If NB's do not like the rules, then NB's may work with SWG-Directives to define new rules and then vote on them using the defined process. But if the rules are not applied correctly, then the proper course is for NB's to appeal against the actions or inactions of those with a duty to carry out the rules. This is the essential governance model of JTC1. NB's rule, but they rule through the rules. We may not merely decide by majority vote to ignore rules for this DIS, or to institute new rules for that DIS, or to substitute different rules for another DIS, in an ad-hoc fashion, based on a BRM vote.
Using the logic given by the Secretaries General, what in principle would prevent a BRM from voting itself an Augur in addition to a Convenor for the purpose of observing the flights of birds to decide whether a given change to the DIS text was auspicious or not? Is there any voting procedure that would not be permitted them once we say that a BRM, by majority vote, can institute their own voting rules? Are TMB/SMB certain that this is the principle that they want affirmed by their rejection of the NB's appeals?
Further, NB's were not duly notified that their BRM delegations would be determining their own voting rules, so few if any of them had NB instructions on that matter. An agreement among BRM HoD's to set aside cardinal principles of JTC1, in the absence of NB consultations, should not be allowed to stand.
Finally, the existence of a vote at the BRM is not incompatible with the assertion that the BRM was "too short, arbitrarily short, or otherwise incorrectly conducted". When given the choice between several bad alternatives, the delegations made a choice. That does not legitimatize the flawed application of JTC1 process that incorrectly gave them only bad choices and forced upon them a vote which they did not have the mandate to hold.
I could go on and on, but I'll spare you all more of the same. I am sorry to report that I find the response by the Secretaries General to be perfunctory, poorly reasoned and self-serving. It does not serve to resolve the issues, including important issues where clarification is needed. Majority rule, within the rules, should be encouraged. But to dismiss legitimate complaints by arguing that the majority agreed to not follow the rules, this is to substitute mob rule (or orchestrated monopoly rule) for the rule of law. We know where that leads to — curtailed rights for those with minority opinions. And that should concern everyone.
The Secretary General of ISO, Alan Bryden, retires at the end of the year. August vacation is approaching, and before you know it there will be a retirement party with the cake and gifts, maybe a wall plaque or pewter paperweight. I am sure he does not need or desire to spend more time being reminded of the OOXML disaster that occurred during his last year at ISO. TMB/SMB members all want vacation as well. So do I. But out of respect for Mr. Bryden's eventual successor, and our shared mission in JTC1, shouldn't we urge TMB/SMB to do their job and not leave this all unresolved for the next guy to deal with? Dismissing an appeal with so many open unresolved issue is not expediency. It is merely creating more dissent, more distrust and more trouble that we'll all need to deal with next time around. It is better, I think, to hear the appeals, get to the bottom of this, seek resolution, consensus and closure, and then to move on. Ignoring mistakes will not make them go away.
Filed Under: OOXML
What is Rick smoking?
Former Microsoft consultant Rick Jelliffe has posted his own particular brand of science fiction/fantasy, this time in his favorite subgenre, a parody of a drug-induced psychosis, where after uneasy slumber Rick awakes in some alternate parallel universe and finds that JTC1/SC34 is open and transparent and OASIS is closed, and decides to write a rambling blog post about it.
If you like unintentional humor, you will enjoy reading Rick's over-the-top post.
Rick suggests that organizationally JTC1/SC34 is a more participatory environment for developing standards than OASIS.
JTC1's process, based on National Body voting is both effective … and more genuinely open, because it is impossible to stack either directly or indirecty.
Let's test that proposition. Let's compare OASIS and JTC1/SC34.
Who can participate? In OASIS, anyone can participate, from any company, organization, government agency, non-profit corporation in the world. Or you can join as an unaffiliated individual, as many have. You don't need your government's permission to join. You just do it. Most join with a nominal membership fee ($300 for individuals) but membership grants are available in some cases, when the fee would be burden for active individual contributors.
What about participation in JTC1/SC34? First, you must be a member of your NB. How do you become a member of your NB? In the US the price is $1,200 and you must be representing a company or organization. Individuals? Sorry, you are not allowed to participate. In other countries the rules vary. In some cases membership is not available at all at any price. You are essentially wait-listed until an opening becomes available. (Sorry, we don't have enough seats, we heard in Portugal). In some countries, like China, membership is forbidden to native citizens who are employees of foreign subsidiaries in China. In other countries you can't join at all. It is entirely a government decision. So, good luck joining the NB of Syria, where the constitution has been suspended under emergency rule since 1963. (But somehow they managed to make time to vote on the OOXML ballot. Zimbabwe as well, that paragon of open participation.)
Now, it is entirely possible for a standards organization to appear open, but in practice to be inaccessible. So we must look at the complete cost of participation, not just the initial membership fees.
The OASIS ODF TC does its work entirely on an email list, a wiki, and via weekly phone calls, which are toll-free calls for most participants. I don't recall there ever being a face-to-face meeting, certainly not so long as I've been a member. This use of technology lowers the barrier to participation, so anyone can be effective on the TC if they wish. In particular it makes it easier for those who have day jobs and can only contribute to the mailing list during non-work hours.
What about JTC1/SC34? To participate effectively requires attendance at several international meetings each year (Plenary's, WG's, Ad-hocs, BRM's, etc.), as well as participation at NB meetings. Since many of the participants are representative of large corporations or government agencies, a junket mentality prevails and the meetings are often held in some of the most expensive places in the world: Geneva, Granada, London, Kyoto, Jeju Island, etc.
JTC1 does not allow meeting participation by telephone. Since important votes, are held at these meetings, and no provision is made for remote participation, one cannot effectively participate in JTC1/SC34 without a substantial budget for international travel. Attendance at a single meeting — the DIS 29500 BRM — was $3687.52 for me, and I flew coach and ate cheap. How many standards meetings like that can you as an individual or your small company afford per year?
Further, note the nature of your membership — what can you actually do? Can you vote? In OASIS, it is one person/one vote. In the TC, your vote as an individual with a $300 membership fee is counted exactly the same as my vote representing an OASIS Foundational Sponsor. At the organizational level, it is one company/one vote, and the smallest OASIS member organization has exactly the same vote as the largest.
In JTC1/SC34 however, you typically can't vote at all. NB's vote, not individuals, not companies. So your opinion and your wishes are subject to the will of your NB. If your opinion varies from your NB's, you may not be accredited to attend an international meeting, and even if you are able to attend you may not be allowed to speak your opinions. This extra level of indirection and censorship means that you, as an individual, can do little. And to the extent your NB's committee is stacked by a single vendor and their partner community, or your NB decides to overrule or ignore its technical committee, or Microsoft calls your head of state to change the NB's vote, or any of the dozens of other documented shenanigans that recently occurred, your entire membership fee and participation will be an entire waste of time, money and effort.
Membership is OASIS is far more open and inclusive. You join. You discuss. You vote. Period. In JTC1/SC34, you are mired in layers of bureaucracy at the national and international level, in a system crafted by and for the big boys to cut back room deals and manipulate the process to the benefit of large corporations.
(Now that isn't to say that there are not some individual consultants out there who thrive in the JTC1 environment by mastering its dark, dusty, demon-haunted hallways. Even the largest corporations occasionally have need of this expertise, as Rick and others are quite aware. If JTC1/SC34 were truly open and transparent, such skills would not be needed. You certainly don't see anyone selling their services to help companies navigate OASIS, do you?)
What about transparency? As Rick demonstrates, OASIS meeting minutes and agenda are all posted and public. So is our mailing list. So are all of our drafts. So is our member and public comments.
But in JTC1/SC34, most of the documents are private, only accessible to SC34 members by password. And then occasionally JTC1 will step in prevent SC34 from releasing their own work , suppressing documents even from their own SC members. There are no public comments to speak of, and member comments on draft standards are secret.
So when you are back from your "trip", Rick, please let us know again, who wins on openness, participation and transparency?
And for the record, a couple of outright deceptions in Rick's post:
Rick says that there are 80 NB's, and thousands people participating in JTC1, but only 13 people participating on the ODF TC. This is a particularly inept comparison. Why is he comparing all of JTC1 to a single OASIS TC? If you look at OASIS overall, you will see that OASIS has more than 5,000 participants, representing over 600 organizations and individual members in 100 countries. The ODF TC itself has 53 members, including 7 members of JTC1/SC34.
Rick picks a "random" ODF TC minutes post from a year ago to attempt to suggest domination by a single company. Not so random a choice, methinks. It was a rare joint meeting of the ODF TC and the Metadata subcommittee, which brought in a far greater number of Sun employees than typically participate in a call.
Filed Under: FUD, OASIS, ODF, OOXML
2008/07/16 By Rob 3 Comments
It is interesting to watch the activities of JTC1/SC34 as they go through the motions of processing activities related to OOXML, long after any serious justification for their continuation has ceased. That is the nature of bureaucracy — wind up their clockwork and watch the little soldiers go through their prescribed motions. Come back in an hour and they may be stuck in a corner or knocked over onto the floor. But they'll keep on shuffling their feet, back and forth, in small steps toward ends unknown and unknowable, the little senseless mechanical men.
One example is the proposals in SC34 to create a new project to create a Technical Report on translating between ODF 1.0 and OOXML 1.0. This might have made sense at some point in the past. But this proposal seems out of place now.
Few applications today support exclusively ODF 1.0 and only ODF 1.0. Most of the major vendors also support ODF 1.1, one (OpenOffice 3.x), now supports draft ODF 1.2 as well.
No one supports OOXML 1.0 today, not even Microsoft.
No one supports interoperability via translation, not Sun in their Plugin, not Novell in their OOXML support, and not Microsoft in their announced ODF support in Office 2007 SP2.
So the proposal essentially will be to create an technical report for a translation task that no vendor is implementing, between versions of the ODF and OOXML standards that no vendor is supporting.
Excuse me if my enthusiasm is muted.
And yes, the proposers want accelerated processing for this proposal. But the idea was already obsolete the day it was proposed to SC34. Events have overtaken it, though the clockwork motions continue, and SC34 is currently having a ballot for this proposal, ending on 29 July. I'm not in favor of it. Perhaps it would be worth considering if resubmitted in one year's time, and was targeted to consider ODF 1.2 and OOXML 1.1 (or whatever their next version is). But is it really a priority for SC34 now?
Another example of working on autopilot is the ad-hoc working group in SC34 looking at OOXML maintenance. Although it was heralded with much pomp "SC takes control of OOXML", the fact is SC34 currently can't even look at OOXML, let alone maintain it. They are entirely impotent. But still they will go through the motions and meet next week in London to advise Alex Brown, who will then take all this advice and later formulate and write up his OOXML maintenance plan for SC34 to vote on.
All the best to them. They voted on OOXML without seeing it. Now they'll determine how to maintain it without seeing it. Maybe ISO should stand for Invisible Standards Organization? Maybe one of the participants can let me know where can I submit my invisible defect report?
In any case, since Microsoft has effective voting control of SC34, after almost two years of packing the committee, my bet is that OOXML will effectively be handed over to Ecma for maintenance. That is what JTC1 has done for every other Ecma Fast Track that has been approved. They might call it a "maintenance group" and allow token participation from SC34 liaisons in a non-voting capacity, but in all important ways it will remain Microsoft/Ecma standard. In the end, this makes some sense. Who is better positioned to clarify exactly how Excel financial functions work, the Microsoft engineer who has access to the Excel source code, or an SC34 representative from Kazakhstan?
Given the leisure to do the job right, my bet is on Microsoft. Everyone knows it for what it is now. There is no longer need for elaborate attempts to disguise the fact that OOXML is and will remain a Microsoft-only standard. Why continue the charade? If Microsoft put OOXML on MSDN, at least we would all have access to it and would know where to send our defect reports to, which is more than we can say about ISO OOXML. A real open standard is preferred, of course. But given a choice of fake ISO standard and a real MSDN specification, I'll take the real MSDN specification any day.
Fractured YEARFRAC and Discounted DISC
There are a few things that a spreadsheet can get wrong. You can be hard to use. You can be ugly. You can be slow. You can even crash occasionally. These are all annoyances. With a monopoly, annoyances are a way of life. However, there is one place where a spreadsheet can never be wrong, and that is in the area of calculations, especially financial calculations. A business uses spreadsheets to model and track its business. It makes decisions based on these spreadsheets. If the spreadsheet gives the wrong answer, then the business makes the wrong decision. And a business that makes the wrong decisions does not stay in business for long.
So it was with much lament last year that I reported that OOXML, then under ballot in ISO/IEC JTC, had many egregious errors in its spreadsheet formula definitions. In addition to enumerating these errors in my blog, I submitted them for consideration by INCITS V1, the US SC34 mirror committee, and these became part of the bundle of comments with which the US accompanied its ballot.
Although the ballot wasn't due until September 2nd, the extravagant "sit and do nothing" provisions in INCITS lead to our technical review being cut off in July. Because of the lack of review time, I was not able to do an in-depth review of all the spreadsheet functions, but only a cursory review. But the existence of such errors as I did identify, in the already-approved Ecma Standard, was disquieting. It should have lead Ecma TC45 to conduct a more through review of the spreadsheet functions. But this did not appear to happen.
When we received the response from Ecma to the NB comments, in January, INCITS V1 was asked to go through all the responses (over 1,000 of them) to determine whether they were acceptable. This review period was again insufficient.
As for the BRM in February, this was a travesty, as I and others have noted.
I have a theory concerning committees. A committee may have different states, like water has gas, liquid or solid phases, depending on temperate and pressure. The same committee, depending on external circumstances of time and pressure will enter well-defined states that determine its effectiveness. If a committee works in a deliberate mode, where issues are freely discussed, objections heard, and consensus is sought, then the committee will make slow progress, but the decisions of the committee will collectively be smarter than its smartest member. However, if a committee refuses to deliberate and instead merely votes on things without discussion, then it will be as dumb as its dumbest members. Voting dulls the edge of expertise. But discussion among experts socializes that expertise. This should be obvious. If you put a bunch of smart people in a room and don't let them think or talk, then don't expect smart things to happen as if the mere exhalation of their breath brings forth improvements to the standard.
So the the BRM ended a different committee than it started, and the mode of operation it was lead into caused it to act like a very stupid committee indeed. I don't say this to be accusatory. I'm just making an observation about crowd behavior. When a committee of experts ceases to be a deliberate committee, then you will achieve subpar results.
One of the ways the BRM was stupid is that it approved changes to OOXML that have totally broken SpreadsheetML's financial calculations, rendering the resulting calculations both mathematically incorrect as well as inconsistent with what Excel actually calculates. More about this later.
One of the persistent problems with OOXML has been in the area of "day count conventions" as used in SpreadsheetML.
Why should day counting be complicated? Just count how many days between the two dates and you are done, right? Indeed, everywhere but in finance it is simple. Some of the complications are for historical reasons, to try to make hand calculations easier in the pre-computer era. Also, these conventions made the calendar more regular, so financial instruments were less distorted by calendar irregularities like leap years or variable length months. If you assume a year is exactly 360 days in 12 months with 30 days each, then some things in life are simpler. Of course, this makes other things in life more complicated, including defining spreadsheet functions.
The devil is in the details. You must get these count conventions right. Being wrong by just one day in a year may only be 0.3%, but in a million dollar transaction, that is $3000. Not many people can afford to routinely ignore a $3000 error.
Different financial organizations have developed their own different day count conventions. We have the Banker's Rule, the LIBOR rule, the NASD rule, the ISDA rule, ICMA rule, SIFMA rule, etc.
In Excel, these conventions are defined by a function parameter called the "basis" and this basis is used by many financial spreadsheet functions. In fact, none of the following functions are adequately defined unless the day count basis values are adequately defined:
ACCRINT()
ACCRINTM()
AMORDEGRC
AMORLINC
COUPDAYBS()
COUPDAYS()
COUPDAYSNC()
COUPNCD()
COUPNUM()
COUPPCD()
DISC()
DURATION()
INTRATE
MDURATION()
ODDFPRICE()
ODDFYIELD()
ODDLPRICE()
ODDLYIELD()
PRICE()
PRICEDISC()
PRICEMAT()
RECEIVED()
YEARFRAC()
YIELD()
YIELDDISC()
YIELDMAT()
There are five basis conventions defined in OOXML, with values 0-4:
Basis 0 = US 30/360
Basis 1 = Actual/Actual
Basis 2 = Actual/360
Basic 3 = Actual/365
Basic 4 = European 30/360
In this convention X/Y indicates that X is the assumption for month length, and Y is the assumption for year length. Note that there is no external authority given as a reference for any of these conventions. So it is not clear, whether the Actual/Actual convention is following, for example ICMA rules or ISDA rules. In fact, it may be following neither rule. So lacking any external authority, all we have to go on are the definitions provided in the specification itself. OOXML is its own authority for day count conventions.
As I reported last July, the definitions provided by OOXML did not sufficiently define the behavior of the conventions that lie behind most of the financial functions in Excel. Unfortunately, Microsoft/Ecma have failed to fix this problem in their proposed Resolutions, and in fact have made it worse. Further, the DIS 29500 BRM, in its negligent bulk approval of Ecma's responses merely advanced these serious errors into the text which was then approved as an International Standard. So essentially, my work in pointing out errors in the spreadsheet language was for naught. Microsoft just shoved it all though anyways.
This puts me in a delicate situation. On the one hand, the ODF TC really would like to finish its work on ODF 1.2, and part of that is completing the OpenFormula work. A key remaining part of OpenFormula is to ensure that our financial functions synch up with how Excel works. What OOXML says is irrelevant, except to the extent that it accurately tells how Excel defines these functions.
However, inquiries to Ecma on these day count conventions, inqueries made months ago, have received no response. Also, the final DIS text of OOXML has not been made available, not even to SC34 members and liaisons. And there is not mechanism in place yet in SC34 for collecting defect reports on OOXML. So we're stuck.
David Wheeler, Chair of the OpenFormula subcomittee of the OASIS ODF TC, has been trying to nail down the behavior of Excel's spreadsheet functions for over a year now. One of the last remaining pieces is to nail down the day count conventions. After waiting and waiting for this to be clarified in OOXML, David took matters into his own hands and decided to solve the problem by brute force, enumerating millions of test cases, indeed a comprehensive set of date pairs over a 6 year period, to try to determine exactly how the date bases in Excel work. You can read David's conclusions on his blog.
What strikes me in David's report is that not only are the OOXML definitions incomplete and inconsistent, but they do not accurately reflect what Excel actually calculates. So either Excel is wrong, or the OOXML standard is wrong when calculating almost every financial spreadsheet function. This is quite an embarrassment for an ISO standard, and an unnecessary one, since I have been talking about how poorly defined these functions are for almost a year now.
Let's work through some of David Wheeler's test cases by hand, to get a better feel for how OOXML is broken.
Let's take the YEARFRAC() function as the simplest example. YEARFRAC() takes two dates and a basis value as inputs, and returns the fraction of a year that is between those two dates. So logically, the calculation is like:
YEARFRAC = (interval between start-date and end-date) / length of year.
That is the logical definition. The only complication is the 5 date bases, and what exactly the year length is. This last point is something that stuck out in my mind when I first reviewed the draft of OOXML last summer. You might think the year length is 365 days. But what about leap years? And what about date ranges that straddle normal years and leap years? This is the key fact that this function requires in is definition. This is the problem I reported on my blog last July. This was the problem INCITS V1 submitted with our ballot comments last September. This is the problem that Ecma responded to in a severely flawed way in January. This is the problem that the BRM refused to discuss and merely agreed with Ecma's flawed changes. And this is the problem that is now in the final DIS version of OOXML.
Take a look for yourself in this brief extract from the final DIS version [pdf] of OOXML, provided for purposes of critical review and commentary.
(Yes, I now have a complete copy of the final DIS version of OOXML. If you think that this is unfair — and I would agree with you on that — then maybe you should ask ITTF why I was able to get a copy of the final DIS, but no one else in SC34 was.)
Let's take a look at the ISO OOXML definitions and try some test calculations to reproduce some of David's findings.
First, let's take the date basis 1 first, Actual/Actual, since that is the easiest. But we immediately run into a problem. The standard says two different things. In the "description" table it says:
Actual/actual. The actual number of days between the two dates are counted. If the date range includes the date 29 February, the year is 366 days; otherwise it is 365 days.
However, later, when defining the return value, the standard says this:
If the Actual/actual basis is used, the year length used is the average length of the years that the range crosses, regardless of where start-date and end-date fall in their respective years.
There is absolutely no way in which these can both be correct. This would have been easily fixable at the BRM, if the BRM had been allowed to do its job. But I wasn't even allowed to open my mouth and point out this problem. So now this fatal ambiguity sits in the text of OOXML, as authorized by the BRM experts and approved by JTC1 NB's. Gotta love it.
But let's forge on and assume that we really have two algorithms, the first (from the description) which we will call basis 1, and the second basis (from the return value section) which we will call 1′ ("one-prime"). We'll calculate it both ways.
Let calculate YEARFRAC(DATE(2000,1,1),DATE(2001,1,1),1)
With basis 1, this is simple. 2000 was a leap year (since it was a century divisible by 400) so the interval between the two dates is 366 days. Similarly, since the date range includes a February 29th, the length of the year used in the calculation is 366. So the returned value returned by YEARFRAC should be 366/366 or 1.0.
With basis 1′, this is also simple. The date interval is still 366. But the length of the year is now the average of the year lengths crossed by the date range. So the average of 366 (for 2000) and 365 (for 2001), or an average of 365.5. So using basis 1′, YEARFRAC should return 366/365.5 or 1.00137.
Let's try another, with basis 1. What is YEARFRAC(DATE(2000,1,1),DATE(2002,1,1),1) ?
In basis 1, the interval is 731 days (366 days in 2000 plus 365 days in 2001). The year length is 366, since the interval includes a February 29th. So YEARFRAC should return 731/366 = 1.997.
With basis 1′, the interval is also 731 days, but the year length is the average of 366 (for 2000), 365 (for 2001) and 365 (for 20002). So YEARFRAC should return 2.0009
Just to make sure we have this down, let's try another example:
What is YEARFRAC(DATE(2000,1,1),DATE(2000,1,2),1) ?
A one day interval? Yes, please humor me.
OK. With basis 1, the interval is one day. Since it does not cross February 29th, the year length is 365 days. So it will return 1/365 or 0.0028.
With basis 1′ the interval is also one day, and the year length is 366, So it will return 1/366 or 0.0027
OK. That was too easy. One more example, to make sure that you have it down.
What is YEARFRAC(DATE(2000,1,1),DATE(2004,1,31),1) ?
Hmm…. this one will require more thought. I might have to take off my shoes and count using my toes as well.
With basis 1, the interval is 1491 days = 366 + 365 + 365 +365 +30.
The year lengths are:
2000=366 (since the range cross February 29th)
2001=365
2004=365 (since the date range does not cross February 29th)
So we have 4 full years plus 30 days of a 365 day year. YEARFRAC should return 4 + 30/365 = 4.0822.
With basis 1′ we treat the 2004 as having 366 days and average the years in the interval, so average year length = (366+365+365+365+366)/5 = 365.4. So YEARFRAC should return 4 + 30/365.4 = 4.0821.
Now that we're done with the examples, we can throw them into a table, and compare them to what Excel 2007 calculates for these same parameters:
start-date
end-date
Excel's Value
Excel Correct?
2000-01-01 2001-01-01 1 1.0000 1.0000 Yes
2000-01-01 2001-01-01 1′ 1.00137 1.0000 No
2000-01-01 2002-01-01 1 1.9972 2.0009 No
2000-01-01 2002-01-01 1′ 2.0009 2.0009 Yes
2000-01-01 2004-01-31 1′ 4.0821 4.0805 No
Let your mind linger on these results for a bit. Let it sink in. Look at this table until you recognize its significance and cringe in disgust. In some cases, Excel seems to be using the first definition of date basis 1. In other cases it is using the second definition of date basis 1. And in one case it is using neither definition. In other words, this is a lot more screwed up than at first it appears. This is not just a simple ambiguity. The OOXML definition of date basis 1 is totally wrong.
That is just the Actual/Actual date basis. The other 4 conventions are more complicated. I encourage you to read David's write up in full to see how 3 of 5 basis conventions defined in OOXML differ from what Excel actually calculates. David also shows how he believes Excel really calculates these day count conventions, based on his extensive tests.
Now if this was just a matter of one function in Excel, just YEARFRAC(), then this would not be a big deal. But this is flaw is inherited into most financial functions in OOXML. Let's take an example at random, DISC(), which calculates the discount rate for a security, given settlement and maturity dates, as well as par and redemption values. You can read the definition of DISC() from the final DIS text here [pdf].
You don't need to be an Wall Street quantitative analyst to see some obvious problems here. First, in the formula given, the 2nd term is divided by "SM". What is SM? There is no "SM" defined here. There is a "DSM" defined, however. Is that what is meant? Let's assume so.
We can try a test calculation, using the example given in the text of OOXML:
What is the value of: DISC(DATE(2007,1,25),DATE(2007,6,15),97.975,100,1) ?
B = 365, since the date range does not include February 29th. (Note that DISC has a single definition for year length in basis 1, not the two conflicting definitions we saw in YEARFRAC)
DSM = 141 days = 6 in Jan+28 in Feb+31 in March+30 in April+31 in May+15 in June
par = 97.975, which was our input parameter
redemption = 100, which is another one of our input parameters
You can do the calculation given in the text, and find the return value of DISC should be 5.35037%. Plug the example into Excel and you will get the answer 5.24202%.
So Excel is off by 2% or so. Do we really care. It's just money, right?
The problem is that the function in OOXML is defined incorrectly, from the financial perspective. The discount rate is the discount from the redemption value, not the discount from the purchase price. So the first term in the formula should be (redemption-par)/redemption, not (redemption-par)/par. If you make this change, then the calculated value matches the value Excel gives.
Does anything strike you as odd in the above? Do you have a chill running down your spine? Do you have renewed sense of dread? You should, because I just illustrated another grave problem with the OOXML standard: The spreadsheet examples in OOXML are a fraud.
You might have mistakenly been reassured by these numerous examples in the spreadsheet formula, that these actually had some relationship to the standard, that they were examples of how the calculations should be done, that they were evidence of some sort of quality assurance, that they may even be of assistance to an implementor to see whether they implemented the function correctly.
But they aren't.
What would be normal practice would be to take the definitions, as given in the OOXML text, and to calculate the values according to the definition provided in the text, and then to compare the resulting values with what Excel returns. That would provide a useful double-check of the definitions in the text. But OOXML doesn't do that. The examples here are mere fluff.
The discrepancy here also indicates that no one has actually reviewed these formulas for accuracy. Errors like this are immediately evident, but only if you look. The fact that things like this have escaped the notice of Microsoft, Ecma TC45, their Project Editors, 80 NB reviews, the BRM experts, and the eagle eyes of ITTF, should make one have considerable concerns over the the sufficiency of the Fast Track review and approval process.
Let's try one more example before we wrap this up.
What is the value of: DISC(DATE(2000,1,1),DATE(2004,1,31),97.975,100,1) ?
B = 366, since the date range includes February 29th
DSM = 1491 days = 366 + 365 + 365 +365 +30.
So, using the stated formula in the OOXML text, the answer would be 0.50736%. Using the "correct" formula, in the financial sense, the answer would be 0.49708%. What does Excel say the value is? Well, 0.49627%, of course.
So with the DISC() function we found:
The given text provided a formula that referred to a non-existant "SM" variable. This appears to be a cut & paste error.
After accounting for that, we found that the formula was incorrect according to recognized financial standards. Securities are discounted from their redemption values, not from their purchase prices.
Even correcting for the formula errors, we find that the given definition of DISC() does not match what Excel returns, due to errors and ambiguities in the day count conventions, errors that David Wheeler delves into more deeply in his report.
The examples given in the standard are bogus. They are not actually examples of the defined function.
Excel does not implement OOXML.
Spreadsheet file format performance
I've been doing some performance timings of file format support, comparing MS Office and OpenOffice. Most of the results are as expected, but some are surprising, and one in particular is quite disappointing.
But first, a little details of my setup. All timings, done by stopwatch, were from Office 2003 and OpenOffice 2.4.0 running on Windows XP, with all current service packs and patches. The machine is a Lenova T60p, dual-core Intel 2.16 Ghz and 2 GB of RAM. I took all the standard precautions — disk was defragmented, and test files were confirmed as defragmented using contig. No other applications were running and background tasks were all shut down.
For test files, I went back to an old favorite, George Ou's (at the time with ZDNet) monster 50MB XLS file from his series of tests back in 2005. This file, although very large, is very simple. There are no formulas, indeed no formatting or styles. It is just text and numbers, treating a spreadsheet like a giant data table. So tests of this file will emphasize the raw throughput of the applications. Real world spreadsheets will typically be worse than this due to additional overhead from process styles, formulas, etc.
A test of a single file is not really that interesting. We want to see trends, see patterns. So I made a set of variations on George's original file, converting it into ODF, XLS and OOXML formats, as well as making scaled down versions of it. In total I made 12 different sized subsets of the original file, ranging down to a 437KB version, and created each file in all three formats. I then tested how long it took to load each file in each of the applications. In the case of MS Office, I installed the current versions of the translators for those formats, the Compatibility Pack for OOXML, and the ODF Add-in for the ODF support.
I find it convenient to report numbers per 100,000 spreadsheet cells. You could equally well use the original XLS spreadsheet size, or the number of rows of data, or any other correlated variable as the ordinate, but values per 100K cells is simple for anyone to understand.
I'll spare you all the pretty picture. If you want to make some, here is the raw data (CSV format). But I will give some summary observations.
For document sizes, the results are as follows:
Binary XLS format = 1,503 KB per 100K cells
OOXML format = 491 KB per 100K cells
ODF format = 117 KB per 100K cells
So the XML formats are far smaller than the legacy binary format. This is due to the added Zip compression that both XML formats use. Also, note that the ODF files are significantly smaller than the OOXML files, less than 1/4 the size on average. Upon further examination, the XML document representing the ODF content is larger than the corresponding XML in OOXML, as expected, due to its use of longer, more descriptive markup tags. However the ODF XML compresses far better than the OOXML version, enough to overcome its greater verbosity and result in files smaller than OOXML. The compression ratio (original/zipped) for ODF's content.xml is 87, whereas the compression ratio for OOXML's sheet1.xml is only 12. We could just mumble something about entropy and walk away, but I think this area could bear further investigation.
For load time, the times for processing the binary XLS files were:
Microsoft Office 2003 = 0.03 seconds per 100K cells
OpenOffice 2.4.0 = 0.4 seconds per 100K cells
Not too surprising. These binary formats are optimized for the guts of MS Office. We would expect them to load faster in their native application.
So what about the new XML formats? There has been recent talk about the "Angle Bracket Tax" for XML formats. How bad is it?
Microsoft Office 2003 with OOXML = 1.5 seconds per 100K cells
OpenOffice 2.4.0 with ODF = 2.7 seconds per 100K cells
For typical sized documents, you probably will not notice the difference. However with the largest documents, like the 16-page, 3-million cells monster sheet, the OOXML document took 40 seconds to load in Office, the ODF sheet took 90 seconds to load in OpenOffice, whereas the XLS binary took less than 2 seconds to load in MS Office.
OK. So what are we missing. Ah, yes, ODF format in MS Office, using their ODF Add-in.
Microsoft Office 2003 with ODF, using the ODF Add-in = 74.6 seconds per 100K cells
Yup. You read that right. To put this in perspective, let's look at a single test file, a 600K cells file, as we load it in the various formats and editors:
Microsoft Office 2003 in XLS format = 0.75 seconds
OpenOffice 2.4.0 in XLS format = 3.03 seconds
Microsoft Office 2003 in OOXML format = 8.28 seconds
OpenOffice 2.4.0 in ODF format = 14.09 seconds
Microsoft Office 2003 in ODF format = 515.60 seconds
Can someone explain to me why Microsoft Office needs almost 10 minutes to load an ODF file that OpenOffice can load in 14 seconds?
(I was not able to test files larger than this using the ODF Add-in since they all crashed .)
(Update: Since it is the question everyone wants to know, the beta version of OpenOffice 3.0 opens the OOXML version of that file in 49.4 seconds and Sun's ODF Plugin for Microsoft Office loads this file in 30.03 seconds. )
This is one reason why I think file format translation is a poor engineering approach to interoperability. When OpenOffice wants to read an legacy XLS file, it does not approach the problem by translating the XLS into an ODF document and then loading the ODF file. Instead they simply load the XLS file, via a file filter, into the internal memory model of OpenOffice.
What is a file filter? It is like 1/2 of a translator. Instead of translating from one disk format to another disk format, it simply loads the disk format and maps it into an application-specific memory model that the application logic can operate directly on. This is far more efficient than translation. This is the untold truth that the layperson does not know. But this is how everyone does it. That is how we support formats in SmartSuite. That is how OpenOffice does it. And that is how MS Office does it for the file formats they care about. In fact, that is the way that Novell is now doing it now, since they discovered that the Microsoft approach is doomed to performance hell.
So it is with some amusement that I watch Microsoft and others propose translation as a solution to interoperability, creating reports about translation, even a proposal for a new work item in JTC1/SC34 concerning file format translation, when the single concrete attempt at translation is such an abysmal failure. It may look great on paper, but it is an engineering disaster. What customers need is direct, internal support for ODF in MS Office, via native code, in a file filter, not a translator that takes 10 minutes to load a file.
The astute engineer will agree with the above, but will also feel some discomfort at the numbers. There is more here than can be explained simply by the use of translators versus import filters. That choice might explain a 2x difference in performance. A particularly poor implementation might explain a 5x difference. But none of this explains why MS Office is almost 40x slower in processing ODF files. Being that much slower is hard to do accidentally. Other forces must be at play.
Filed Under: ODF, OOXML, Performance
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
— William A. Ward
Copyright © 2006-2020 Rob Weir · Site Policies


text:
micro-x-tag
===========

A lightweight substitute for Mozilla's x-tag polyfill/Web Component framework


text:
Watch: At 17, Ginni Mahi has brought Dalit politics to music and become a Punjabi pop sensation
She wants to be a playback singer for Bollywood and 'also study up to a PhD and even beyond'.
She's got over 17,000 followers on Facebook. Her songs uploaded to YouTube have lakhs of views and she has been profiled by multiple news outlets: print, online and broadcast. And she's only 17. If you haven't heard of her yet, you're spending too much time on Pókemon Go.
She sings a fiery brand of music called "Chamar Pop", and is influenced by the writings of BR Ambedkar, the Dalit icon and the architect of the Indian constitution. The songs are a mix of Punjabi folk, rap and hip hop and are catchy, foot-tapping and always inspiring.
Meet Gurkanwal Bharti who goes by the name of Ginni Mahi.
And it's not just music. The young singer, who recently cleared her Class 12 exams with an aggregate of 77 per cent, told The Hindustan Times, "I'll study up to PhD and even beyond."
She's also deeply religious and a lot of her songs are devotional hymns about Guru Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji, also a Dalit icon whose teachings are compiled into the holy book of the Ravidassia faith, to which Mahi belongs.
The video above is of perhaps her most famous song, now known as Danger Chamar, inspired by one of her friends telling her "chamars are dangerous." It's a sequel to Danger (video below).
Fan Baba Sahib Di, the song below, is her homage to Ambedkar. She sings, "Main thi Babasaheb di, jine likheya si samvidhaan (I am the daughter of Babasaheb, who wrote the Constitution)".
In the video below, Mahi sings about fighting for your haq (rights). She sings, "Don't be silent because you are afraid. Babasaheb has taught us to fight for our rights."
ginni mahi
Danger Chamar
Jazzy experiments with truth: An American pianist's impressions of Gandhi


text:
Canadian authors share personal debuts
by Hannah Rudderham November 18, 2019
Poet Douglas Walbourne-Gough (Right) and author Rebecca Fisseha (Left) shared passages from their debut books, both with subject matter strongly connected to their family and personal lives. (Hannah Rudderham/AQ)
Content warning: This story discusses two books that both deal with difficult subject matter like sexual assault, abuse, death and racism. This story also contains spoilers.
Poet Douglas Walbourne-Gough and author Rebecca Fisseha shared passages from their debut books, both with subject matter strongly connected to their family and personal lives, as a part of the University of New Brunswick's Reading Series on Nov. 6.
Publishing company Goose Lane Editions presented Walbourne-Gough's poetry collection Crow Gulch and Fisseha's novel Daughters of Silence.
Fisseha's debut novel, Daughters of Silence, addresses the impact of sexual abuse of Habesha girls in Ethiopia.
Habesha refers to people who are from Ethiopia or Eritrea.
The novel tells the story of a flight attendant named Dessie who lives in Ontario. One day the plane she is working on must make an emergency stop due to volcanic ash from Eyjafjallajökull, an Icelandic volcano. The plane happens to make its stop in Dessie's birthplace, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – a place she has not been to since her mother left Ethiopia as a diplomat. This eruption is an actual event that happened in April 2010. Planes flying over Europe were impacted for around six days.
Dessie finds herself obligated to go to her grandfather's house there who is mourning the loss of his daughter, Dessie's mother, who died of cancer. The book goes on to talk about the sexual abuse epidemic in Ethiopia. It's revealed that Dessie's adopted brother had previously sexually assaulted her when she was younger, causing lots of grief and causing Dessie to avoid seeing her family.
Rebecca Fisseha's Daughters of Silence is her debut novel that she has been working on since 2011. (Hannah Rudderham/AQ)
Fisseha, like Dessie, was born in Addis Ababa and now lives in Toronto. She relates to the character after experiencing the recent passing of her mother.
"With the character being bereaved and sort of torn up about being back home – that was the headspace I was in at that time. I began the novel in 2011 and by that point my mother had died," said Fisseha.
"It had been stuff I had been processing for a long time and that was the initial impulse, to explore all the complicated feelings that came with that [grief] through fiction."
Fisseha began writing professionally in 2003, she wrote plays and did screenwriting. Eight years later, she began writing Daughters of Silence while she was teaching English in China.
"I think it was the isolation of being so far away from everything that was familiar and just feeling like a complete and actual alien in the small town I was teaching at."
"I think that forced me to turn inward a lot and examine my life and everything that was on my mind."
"Reminiscent of the deeply immersive writing of Taiye Selasi and Arundhati Roy, Rebecca Fisseha's Daughters of Silence is psychologically astute and buoyed both by metaphor and by the vibrant colours of Ethiopia," Goose Lane Editions said on their website.
"It's an impressive debut."
Crow Gulch
Douglas Walbourne-Gough's father's family lived in Crow Gulch until it was relocated to Corner Brook's first social housing project, Dunfield Park. His debut collection of poems focuses on the legacy of the community of Crow Gulch near downtown Corner Brook in Newfoundland.
The connection was his inspiration to write his debut collection of poetry, Crow Gulch.
"When I was a young teenager, my dad would tell me these stories about a place he grew up in [Crow Gulch] … a place with a train track running through it," Walbourne-Gough said.
"So, I guess his memories are what really triggered all of this."
Douglas Walbourne-Gough's poetry collection Crow Gulch focuses it's pieces on the community his family is from of the same name. (Hannah Rudderham/AQ)
Crow Gulch began as a shack house that housed migrant workers while the local pulp and paper mill was under construction. Many of the residents who were settled there were of Mi'kmaq ancestry. Walbourne-Gough said some of the residents, including Walbourne-Gough's ancestors, were called derogatory terms, and the community was eventually abandoned, forcing the residents to leave.
Walbourne-Gough's poetry has been featured in Riddle Fence, Canadian Literature, Prairie Fire, Newfoundland Quarterly and four other publications.
Walbourne-Gough started writing when he was 21, gaining interest in the craft when he was in university.
"I just wrote really bad things that rhymed," he said.
He holds an MFA in creative writing from the University of British Columbia Okanagan.
Some of his poetry from Crow Gulch focuses on family, like poems about his grandparents and mother.
"She looks like Princess Diana. The light eyes and her noble nose perfectly askew," Walbourne-Gough read from his poem about his mother called "Geraldine Winifred Walbourne."
"Her heart – things of this depth, I'll simply never know."
Walbourne-Gough spent nine-and-a-half years on the book, getting it to the point where it is today. He said he doesn't regret a single second of it since it is all part of the process.
"I've gotten several rejection letters before it landed the right home and I think all those rejection letters were necessary," he said.
Walbourne-Gough said it's important for young writers to not give up on their dreams of publishing.
"Stay the course. Keep writing."
Clarification: Previously, this article said "Habesha refers to people who are from the north part of Ethiopia." The Aquinain did research to determine this information. However, the author of the book said Habesha refers to people who are from Ethiopia or Eritrea. We have provided clarification in the article and used the author's desired definition.
Douglas Walburne-Gough
Goose Lane Editions
Rebecca Fisseha
Hannah Rudderham
New Brunswick looking at privatizing cannabis sales
How to drop your best player and win a title
St. Thomas tuition health Arts news women's hockey Music STU sex money hockey Men's hockey STU Tommies University of New Brunswick campus Meredith Gillis election Fredericton overheard at STU St. Thomas Tommies Students STUSU Canada st. Thomas university politics tommies basketball Philip Drost whitney neilson features stu journalism ACAA mental health UNB food AUS university Sports Alyssa Mosher STU athletics Theatre New Brunswick ccaa the aquinian Meghan O'Neil
How to talk to a celebrity
Globe and Mail arts reporter R. M. Vaughan talked candidly with students about the ...
AQ Admin April 30, 2009
TV done Wright with Adam Wright
Have you ever seen a preview for a new show on TV and decided ...
The Hard Road to Famous
By Erin Keating The Slate Pacific are something of an anomaly in the Fredericton ...


text:
University Archives Holdings Fine Arts and Applied Arts University Bands John Van Fossen Papers and ... Finding Aid
John Van Fossen Papers and Memorabilia
Bb Clarinet, Buffet #1450053
Sousa Band Uniform
Sousa Band Hat, ca. 1920s
Finding Aid for John Van Fossen Papers and Memorabilia, 1903-1994 | The Sousa Archives and Center for American Music
By Adriana Cuervo
Title: John Van Fossen Papers and Memorabilia, 1903-1994
ID: 12/9/62
Primary Creator: Van Fossen, John (1903-1994)
Extent: 2.0 cubic feet
Arrangement: Alphabetical by type of document.
Subjects: Band Musicians, Music - United States, Photographs, Sousa, John Philip, Woodwind Instruments
Concert programs, photographs, postcards, correspondence, a contract, a Sousa Band uniform and Selmer clarinet, and memorbilia documenting John Van Fossen's career as a clarinetist while a member of the John Philip Sousa Band between 1926 and 1931.
John Van Fossen, clarinetist for the John Philip Sousa Band from 1925 until 1931, was born in Norristown, Pennsylvania. He began playing the clarinet at the age of ten. As an adult, he played in several regional bands including the John Wannamaker Band, conducted by Sousa's colleague, Arthur Rosander, saxophonist and librarian for the Sousa Band between 1909 and 1911.
At the age of twenty-one Van Fossen became a member of the Sousa Band. In a 1989 interview he described the sense of stage fright that he experienced during his first performance under Sousa's baton, "When we went into 'Stars and Stripes' for the finale, all of sudden I couldn't play. I was entranced by everything. I found out later that the same thing happened to most musicians in their first performance."
After leaving the Sousa Band in 1931, Van Fossen went on to play for the Pat Conway Band, the Arcadians, a jazz band with its own radio program in Philadelphia, and the Arthur Pryor Band, which was considered by many to be second only to the Sousa Band.
Music - United States
Repository: The Sousa Archives and Center for American Music
Acquisition Source: Ms. Judy Shannon, 1147 Pelhamwood Road, Baltimore, MD�?� 21234
Acquisition Method: Donation.
[Box 2: Bb Clarinet, Buffet #1450053, Undated],
[Box 3: Sousa Band Uniform, ca. 1920s],
[Box 4: Sousa Band Hat, ca. 1920s],
Box 4: Sousa Band Hat, ca. 1920s


text:
Current Location: Home > Google Pixel 6 Pro Malaysia
Mobile Phones: Google Pixel 6 Pro
More Phones >>
News & Reviews: Google Pixel 6 Pro Malaysia
Customers who bought Google Pixel 6 Pro are not getting it until January 2022
Google finally launched a true flagship series a few days ago after deciding not to join the tense competition last year. Along with the Pixel 6 series, the company also introduced its first smartphone chip, Tensor. For so many reasons, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro are a pair of good flagship smartphones, and it leads to some customers who purchased the device might not be getting it until next year.
Google Camera app hints at 5x ultra-telephoto camera for Google Pixel 6
Recently, it was rumoured that the Google Pixel 6 series will launch in October 2021. Also, it's suggested that the Google Whitechapel chipset will come with the AMD GPU found in the Samsung chipset. Now, we have more details thanks to a mobile app.
Google Pixel 6 series will get at least 5 years of software updates
Back in May, renders of the Google Pixel 6 series were leaked online. Apparently, case makers hate the design since it's hard to build a casing for it. However, Android users will probably love the software since it'll get lots of updates.
Google Pixel 6 series' custom chipset could be slower than Snapdragon 888
Recently, there has been a few rumours about the upcoming Google Pixel 6 series. It's said that the company is working on a custom chipset called Whitechapel for its new phones. Yesterday, some new details on the chipset and phones were hinted at.
Could these leaked renders be the final design of the Pixel 6 Pro?
It seems that digit.in recently uploaded a video on their YouTube channel showcasing what looks like renders of the Google Pixel 6 Pro smartphone. While not much is known in regards to the Malaysia release date, it does give us a better idea of what to expect when it is officially available in the global market.


A shoebox or paper bag may be fine for those other cats. But doesn't your favorite feline deserve an in-home hangout that matches his exalted status and high standards? One that also shows off your own design sense and crafting skills?
This DIY construction guide offers fun and easy instructions for making cardboard purr-a-mids and regal cat castles, along with many more "paw-some" homemade habitats. Build your cat an airplane, a food truck, a train, a pirate ship, or a submarine. All the projects are quick to assemble, use inexpensive and common materials, and can be customized however you—or your cat— would like. Don't wait, get your copy right meow!


text:
syrianobserver.com
Returning Syrian Refugees Face Torture, Rape by Regime: Amnesty
Wednesday September 8th, 2021 by ASHARQ AL-AWSAT (London based pan-Arab)
Amnesty International reported that returning Syrian refugees have been subject to torture and abuse by regime forces, Asharq al-Awsat writes.
Dozens of Syrian refugees who returned home from abroad have been subject to detention, disappearance, and torture by security forces, Amnesty International said Tuesday, warning Syria is not yet safe for repatriation.
In a report titled "You're going to your death," the rights group documented a series of violations and torture by security forces against 66 Syrian refugees, including 13 children, who have returned since 2017.
Amnesty said the cases proved "that no part of Syria is safe to return to."
"Syrian intelligence officers have subjected women, children, and men returning to Syria to unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, and other ill-treatment including rape and sexual violence, and enforced disappearance," the rights group said.
Among the cases listed, the rights group documented five cases of returnees who died in detention.
The fates of 17 others who were forcibly disappeared remain unknown, Amnesty said.
Sexual Violence on Minors
The rights group also documented 14 cases of sexual violence committed by security forces, including seven cases of rape, committed against five women, a teenage boy, and a five-year-old girl.
"Any government claiming Syria is now safe is wilfully ignoring the horrific reality on the ground," Amnesty said, calling on European governments to "immediately halt any practice directly or indirectly forcing people to return to Syria".
Read Also: Jurists Commission Accuses Lebanese Security of Violating International Agreements
More than 6.6 million Syrians have sought refuge abroad since the start of the conflict in 2011, with most resettling in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Lebanon.
Denmark, Sweden, and Turkey have recently upped the pressure on refugees to return home after a decade of war, arguing most of the country is now safe, Amnesty said.
The Syrians interviewed by Amnesty include returnees from Lebanon, which for years has exerted pressure on refugees to return.
The report cited testimony from a Syrian woman, Alaa, who was arrested along with her 25-year-old daughter at a border crossing as they came back from Lebanon.
The two were detained for five days.
"They removed my daughter's clothes. They handcuffed her and hung her on the wall. They beat her. She was totally naked. One put his penis inside her mouth," the report quoted Alaa as saying.
The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
Conflict, Corruption Turning Lebanon, Syria into Narco-states: Report
ARABNEWS, Wednesday January 19th, 2022
Winter Storms in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan: CARE Warns Syrians yet Again at Great Risk
RELIEFWEB, Wednesday January 19th, 2022
Qatar FM and Pedersen: Humanitarian Access must Flow to all Syrians
ARAB NEWS (Saudi website), Wednesday January 19th, 2022
Russian-backed Regime Forces Attack ISIS in Badia Desert
ZAMAN AL-WASL (Opposition website), Wednesday January 19th, 2022
Meslet: Regime Return to Arab League is Crime Reward
SYRIA TV (Opposition website), Wednesday January 19th, 2022
The Syrian Observer is a daily online news service covering Syrian political and civil society news.
It is dedicated primarily to translating into English news contents produced by Syria's official press,opposition groups,activists and civil society.
In addition to translated content, the website publishes original features,op-eds,interviews and blog posts. It also aims at building an extensive Who is Who database of the main actors of the Syrian political and civil society scenes.
The Syrian Observer
Copyright© 2013-2022 The Syrian Observer. All rights reserved.
HomeNewsFeaturesSecurityWho's whoCommentaryResourcesInterviews


text:
require 'league_of_legends'

module ::LeagueOfLegends
  module Request
    module Game
      module BySummoner
        class Recent < ::LeagueOfLegends::Request::Base

          attr_reader :summoner_id

          def initialize api, summoner_id, options = {}
            super(api, options)
            @summoner_id = summoner_id
          end

          def self.dto_class
            ::LeagueOfLegends::DTO::RecentGames
          end

          protected

          def base_url
            super << "game/by-summoner/#{summoner_id}/recent"
          end

        end
      end
    end
  end
end


A very warm welcome to the EnvSIG. At EnvSIG we aim to provide a point of contact for the Chemical Engineering community to learn about and discuss environmental issues and technology. We provide a variety of platforms and opportunities for the membership to get involved and are always looking for membership participation in all the events and initiatives that we host. We are increasingly conscious of the changes to our membership base, most notably the growing influence of the IChemE internationally. In this regard, the EnvSIG is keen to engage further with members both throughout the UK and Internationally to understand your needs as this evolution in the Institution continues.
If you would like to get involved in the committee or have ideas for subjects that you would like to see discussed at one of our events please get in touch with our Chair, David Green.
form links with other stakeholders in the field.
discussion via our LinkedIn Group.
The IChemE EnvSIG is a member of the 'IPPC Sounding Board'. Defra conducts regular meetings with its IPPC stakeholder group (the "IPPC Sounding Board") to discuss IPPC developments and to share experiences of implementing the PPC element of the Environmental Permitting Regulations.
The Sounding Board is an informal, non-decision making body consisting of trade associations that represent the industries regulated by the Environment Agency (under Part A (1) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations) and Government/regulator representatives.
Membership of the Sounding Board consists of "core members" who attend the meetings and "paper members", such as the IChemE, who do not, but who are consulted upon relevant policy and regulatory developments. Examples of such consultations are the drafting of the recent Industrial Emissions Directive, and an anticipated future trading system under EU wide rules for SO2 and/or NOx emissions from land-based industrial sources.


Our selection of hanging tea lights are going fast. Pacific Coast Lighting Pacific Merchants.
Lorenco 1 Light Cone Pendant.
Match your unique tastes and budget. If you want the original let bidkHome or know and hopefully theyll bring it back. Steals deals! CLAXY Ecopower Industrial Barn Mini Metal Pendant Light 1 Light Dolan Designs Recesso Semplice 1125 Glass Ceiling Fan Bowl Shade Finish Satin Nickel. Pinky Up Pizzacraft.
Pine Cone Hill Pinky Up Pizzacraft. Enjoy Free Shipping on.
Adjustable LED Cone Pendant Lighting for Kitchen Island Dining Rooms Living Room.
BIDKhome Serax Hanging Porcelain Tealight Holder and Magnet B 1 10 BOX Jef Designs Weave 1 Drum Pendant Shade Color Ebony Size 9 H X 16 W X 16 D. Copper Glitter Christmas Hanging Decoration. BIDKhome Big BigMouth Jef Designs Weave 2 Drum Pendant Shade Color Oak Rosewood Size 11 H X 24 W X 24 D.
Ae Cage Company Ae Outdoor Ae Wood Designs Aearo Aelfie Aeon Furniture Aep Aero Manufacturing Aero Pure Aero Tech Light Bulb Aerobie. Store decorative bowls boxes coupe and cone Everly Quinn Ahart 8 Light Novelty Chandelier Finish Gold.
Bathroom Vanities Chandeliers Bar Stools Pendant Lights. Stools Pendant Lights. One more source the med looks like it has higher sides than the large.
Pine Tree Hinged Flocked Cones 0 Clear Lights for Christmas Gifts Idea Online Shopping.


How to treat patients who have microinvasive breast cancer – tumors that are 1 mm or less in size (the thickness of a dime) — is somewhat controversial. Can these tiny tumors affect the lymph nodes and spread cancer to other areas of the body?
Physicians at the Virginia Piper Cancer Institute wanted to know if surgical procedures to test the lymph nodes for cancer were always necessary.
They examined the outcomes of 294 patients who were treated between 2001 and 2015. Only 1.5 percent had positive lymph nodes – indicating the rare possibility of metastatic cancer. And the only patients with positive lymph nodes had microinvasive tumors that were associated with relatively large non-invasive tumors (ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS).
"These findings allow surgeons to select which patients with microinvasive tumors may actually benefit from lymph node sampling, while sparing other patients from this procedure," said Tamera Lillemoe, M.D, pathologist and a study co-author.
The study, funded by Engelsma Family Foundation and Abbott Northwestern Hospital Foundation, was published recently in The Breast Journal, the official journal of the National Consortium of Breast Cancers.
The Virginia Piper Cancer Institute provides comprehensive care through all aspects of cancer prevention, early detection and treatment to help individuals maintain quality of life and find ways to live with and beyond cancer. The Institute was founded in 1990 at Abbott Northwestern Hospital. Both are part of Allina Health.