text:
[Station Pledge Request] You're a regular viewer. You know that there aren't any commercials here on Channel 2. No one here is, no one here will ever try to sell you anything other than the very best in programming. But that means we don't have any revenue from advertising, and that's why we have to turn to you, our viewer and ask for your support for 80 percent of our operating budget. And let's face it, operating this television station is a very expensive business.
[Station Pledge Request] —Because we need you. We need your subscription.
[Station Pledge Request] Make a pledge of $5; make a pledge of twenty; make a pledge of fifty. Fifty dollars will bring you a lot of things as you well know. It will bring you an umbrella.
[Station Pledge Request] Whatever you pledge tonight can be paid for on the installment plan. You can use your credit card—Master Charges or Visa, or you can give check or money order.
[Station Pledge Request] So we want you to do your part if you haven't done it. Now is the time, and in a couple of more minutes before we go back to the PBS special—
[Offer] For a $35 family membership, we have a special premium offer during festivals, and here it is.
[Offer] This go-anywhere, do-anything pitcher and cup set is a real family-pleaser at the beach or on the table, made of sturdy—
Viewer:
Hey, hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it. Hey, fellows, listen. I think you do a terrific job. I'm wild about a lot of your programs. But, if you're going to keep on asking me for my money like this, you might as well have commercials.
Dukakis:
Good evening and welcome to The Advocates. I'm Michael Dukakis. We're debating an unusual subject tonight, but it's one that should be of special interest to all of you who are watching because you are watching public television; and many of you listen to public radio.
The funding of our non-commercial stations in this country has always been a problem. In the early years, a few viewers and the Ford Foundation, in particular, contributed to keep the stations going. Educational funds from the federal government helped to buy, as they still do, some of the equipment. But there was no public broadcasting network. The first report of the Carnegie Commission on public broadcasting in 1967 recommended that the stations be tied into a national system to be called the Public Broadcasting Service. The Carnegie Commission report also recommended that a central corporation for public broadcasting be established to distribute funds to the stations which produced programs and that major federal funding be provided for public broadcasting. The system was established. But only recently did federal support reach the 100 million dollars recommended way back there in 1967.
In February of this year, the second Carnegie Commission report was issued. It recommended some changes in the management structure of public broadcasting to save some administrative dollars. But it also asked for substantially increased federal funding for public broadcasting—some 590 million dollars a year, or 4 1/2 times the present level of federal support. Just a few days ago, the House Sub-Committee on Communications, chaired by Representative Lionel Van Deerlin of California, came up with its own proposal. It would also provide substantially increased federal funds for programming. The Committee recommended a new national program endowment which would replace the present Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and that endowment would distribute money, but could also produce programs for the system—something which is not possible under the present system.
Tonight we're going to be debating the central principles common to these proposals—that federal funds should make up a substantial proportion up to half of the total budget for public broadcasting and the programming decisions be more centralized. Should Congress substantially increase federal funding for public broadcasting? Advocate Roger Fisher says, "Yes."
Fisher:
Public broadcasting is today's town hall. It needs substantially more funds. Our witnesses tonight are two experts in the field, television critic for The Boston Globe, William A. Henry, III, and a man who served with both Carnegie Commissions on public broadcasting, Eli Evans, president of the Revson Foundation.
Our case this evening is simple and direct. As our society grows bigger and more complex, we can no longer exchange our ideas in the village green or in the town hall. Concerns of the elderly, the ethnic groups, the minorities, tend to get lost in the shuffle. Commercial broadcasting can provide mass entertainment. It can serve some of our communication needs, but it means most of them unmet, large numbers of them unmet. The profit motive in free enterprise helps a lot, but it can't solve all our problems. Profits do not build public schools, public libraries, public museums, state universities, art galleries, and things of that kind.
Without federal funds, public broadcasting will be over. It will be dead. It will take an increase in federal funds to provide to make it fulfill its needs. Diversity of funding sources will assure the kind of balance and independence that we need. If we each year, we can pay some $75 for federal aid to schools, we can pay two dollars and a half per person for federal aid for federal broadcasting, to public broadcasting. That's what we're talking about. Our children spend more time in television than they do in school. What we're talking about is two bucks and a half per person in this country for public broadsta—, broadcasting. We can afford it. Thank you.
Advocate William Rusher says, "No."
Rusher:
There can't be many assignments less inviting at first glance than trying to persuade an audience composed entirely of people who watch television on the public broadcasting system that the federal government should not give more money to PBS. And yet, if you will just think about it a minute, I believe you will agree with these men who say it shouldn't—Mr. William Poorvu, vice chairman of Boston Broadcasters, Incorporated, and lecturer at Harvard Business School, and Mr. M. Stanton Evans, nationally syndicated columnist and commentator for CBS radio. I think you will agree because you are, after all, by and large the same people who voted for the scores of propositions and initiatives and amendments all over the country this past year to limit the expenditures of government and reduce the tax burden on everyone. You have certainly seen in recent years the steady invasion by big government of more and more areas of our lives, always accompanied by large amounts of cash—your cash.
Tonight, once again, THE ADVOCATES deals with a proposal for more government spending. The only difference is that this time the money will be spent, or so we are led to believe, on television programs that you and I like. My hope of prevailing this evening depends, therefore, on appealing to your sense of social responsibility. Do you really want people a great deal poorer than yourself to be taxed to furnish you and me with the kind of supposedly high level entertainment we prefer? Luckily the days when only tax money could provide decent television are fast drawing to a close. We're on the threshold of new, technological advances, such as video cassettes and cable TV, which will make opera and Shakespeare and even The Advocates available to everyone who wants them without costing America's taxpayers a nickel. So, wait till you hear our side. Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen. We'll be back to your cases and our debate in a moment, but first a word about tonight's debate—an additional word. One of the more interesting proposals in the Van Deerlin Sub-Committee was one that would allow public television stations to run commercial advertising to raise money. Under the proposal, the ads wouldn't be allowed to interrupt programs They would have been, or would be limited to 3 percent of air time in three restricted blocks a day. And that compares with 12 to 30 percent of the commercial station's air time, which is now devoted to commercial messages. I want to emphasize, however, that our witnesses have varying opinions on that subject; and it will not be a part of tonight's debate. Now let's get on with our discussion and our debate. Mr. Fisher, the floor is yours.
Thank you. I call as my first witness one of America's best-read critics in this area, someone who really watches television as many of us may not as much as others, William A. Henry, III. Mr. Henry—
Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Henry. Nice to have you with us.
Henry III:
Thank you, Governor.
You've just heard Mr. Rusher say that this is a special program for the elite. Who watches public television, Mr. Henry?
The short answer is, "Everybody." There's a rumor out there to the effect that public television's audience is an elite, a tiny few. In fact, 60 percent of the country finds a reason to tune in every single month, and the median viewer of public television has a household income of $15,000 or less and a high school education or less. It seems to me, that's Joe Average.
Is that significantly different from commercial television?
The public television audience is perhaps marginally more affluent, marginally more educated. But both audiences pretty much match up with the national statistical norm. The, the short version is everybody watches television—both public and commercial. And the people who watch the most public television also turn out to watch the most of "Laverne and Shirley" and "Lou Grant", too.
All right, with, with the average household watching television 6 1/2 hours a day, as we're told, do we need any more television, more money for television?
I'm not sure that more television is what we're talking about here. We're talking about more diverse television. In some ways, the three networks aren't three corporations. They're one giant corporation with three divisions. Most of us can't tell the difference between an NBC and a ABC and a CBS program. But we sure can tell the difference in a PBS program.
Well, what does public broadcasting do that the commercial networks do not do?
Public affairs, particularly on things that are not hard-core politics— shows like "World," which deal with the Third World point of view, "Nova" dealing with science and which CBS is going to attempt to imitate later this year; culture, giving not merely a, a floor for the BBC and its productions, but for American cultural institutions—American theaters, American dance companies, American symphony orchestras; and they reach not only the people in their own areas, but people who live in parts of the country that don't have comparable institutions.
Now quickly, why doesn't commercial television do this for us?
Because commercial television is not the entertainment business. It's not the news business. It's the advertising business, as anybody in it will tell you. The job is to get the audience there so you can rent their eyeballs to the advertisers, and there is no interest in how much the program pleases the audience, how intensively they want it or like it. It's only how extensive an audience you can get, how big a crowd you can draw into the tent.
Does public television need more funds?
I think it clearly does.
Because at the moment, it's producing some drama, teeny bits of that, a fair amount of public affairs, and pretty good, but limited, cultural items. It has to buy from abroad, it has to do things on the cheap, and above all, it has no margin for error. It's not able to make mistakes. The three networks spend an average of $400,000 per pilot to make 140 pilots, to come up with maybe 20 series for the fall. That's $56 million on losers. There is no opportunity for public television to waste ten cents. We're all human; we're not perfect.
What would happen if all federal funds were taken away from public broadcasting, radio and television?
It would disappear.
Corporations will pay for particular programs that they can put their names on. Individuals will send in when they see programs that they like. Nobody wants to send in money to maintain the satellite interconnect and all of those facilities of the two hundred and some-odd stations around the country that give every major community its own locally oriented public television.
Mr. Henry, excuse me. What is the "satellite interconnect"?
That, that's the system by which the, those two hundred-odd stations receive their programs. They, they don't use the telephone system as their commercial networks have done and are likely to continue doing for a little bit—
In other words, it ties the public broadcasting stations-
—around the country together. Thank you.
—all these stations—. Now, would permitting commercial broad—, advertisements, on public television end the need for federal funding as proposed, uh, as Mr. Dukakis said, by the Van Deerlin Committee?
No, it seems to me it's a relatively harmless proposal, but harmless mostly because it's so inconsequential. The commercials would have to be grouped together. They couldn't be scattered throughout the programs. There couldn't be very many of them. They'd be only 3 percent of the day. And because public television attracts a lot of different people, but not too many at any one time, you couldn't charge very much for the commercials. Figure that the public television audience is a fifth of the network audience and the number of commercials would be a tenth, while you're talking about two percent of the rate for commercial, on a commercial network. That's not very much money.
Gentlemen, let me interrupt at this-
Mr. Rusher—
—point. Mr. Rusher, you have some questions, I'm sure, for Mr. Henry.
Mr. Henry, you say that 60 percent of television households watch public television at least once a month.
That's the cumulative figure, according to the latest study, yes.
What would be the figure be if you excluded "Sesame Street"?
It would be somewhat smaller, but it seems—
Now, come on. How much smaller?
It's not absolutely clear, but probably 35 to 40 percent—-
—35 to 40 percent.
—and the people who watch only "Sesame Street" include a very large percentage of those who are in low-income households, low-education house-households; and it's shows like "Sesame Street" that give the next generation a chance to break out of that syndrome.
In point of fact, if "Sesame Street" isn't included in the figures, not only would 35 to 40 percent of public television's once-a-month attention of the public disappear, I can give you figures—we'll hear some testimony where it will be nearer 50 percent, but also most of its claim to have much viewership in the black and, and, and blue collar segments of the society because that's where it is—in the "Sesame Street" category, is that right?
At this point, yes—
Would you agree with—
—with more—, more government money, there will certainly be more and similar programming for children.
Would you agree—
Right now corporations want to program only to children when they can advertise cereals and toys to them.
Would you agree with the statement that in practice—
—and public television won't take cereal and toy money.
Are you through?
Yes, Mr. Rusher. I studied your technique, and I'm doing my best to follow it.
Would you agree with the statement that in practice, public television seeks public money without accountability?
No, I don't think so. I—
Why did you make it then? I've been studying you. I'm quoting you, Mr. Henry.
No, I think there are—
From one of your columns.
I think there are individuals in public television—
No, that's not what it said. What it says is "the vision sounds elitist, and in practice it, meaning public television, seeks public money without accountability." This is one of your own columns.
I, I think that is a, an incorrect excerpt of what I've said.
Well, then I'll give you the entire column. Suppose you tell us what is correct about it. Go ahead.
Thank you very much. Do you want to ask me a question while I look at this?
Certainly. I asked you whether or not you agree that in practice public television seeks public money without accountability was what you said in your own column. You don't disagree with that, I gather.
No, I don't agree with that—
All right, you—
I do think there are individuals in public television who think that they should be secluded foundations. I don't.
I'm sure you—
I think public television, as part of getting more money, should have a mandate to donate a spec—, or devote a specific amount of its air time to the elderly, to children, to ethnic minorities. I think we're entitled, in exchange for public money to get particular commitments to the public—
Do you wish you, or do you wish you had agreed at that time with what you're saying now?
I don't think that there is a distinction—
You don't see a distinction between individuals seeking money, public money, without accountability and an entire public television doing it?
No, I don't.
All right, perhaps you don't. I think some of us do. Tell me, what public affairs program of a political type on the public broadcasting would you say it can point to with pride?
I certainly enjoyed "The Real America," the Ben Wattenberg show. I disagreed with a great deal of it, but I thought that he had a good deal to say that doesn't otherwise get said, not only in public television—
How about it in commercial television? How about the one in which the narrator described Castro as a man who had not only changed the course of Cuban history but fired the imagination of the world?
I think that's a fair estimation. Stalin and Mao Tse-tung did the same.
And did -- You're a part of the world. Did it fire yours?
He certainly made me, m-m-m, shall we say fantasize about missiles landing over my house. That's firing my imagination.
Would it, would it be fair to say that before asking for more money, public broadcasting should do a better job with the money it has? You know, it has been said that its office is on the sweeping sixth floor of the building in the Mussolini monumental new L'Enfant Plaza in Washington. You know who said that, don't you?
I'm not sure that I do.
You did. Another one of those—. You should read your columns more often.
I write eight of them a week. I can't always appreciate—
Yes, I suppose.
—when a clever phrase is my own.
Another clever phrase in that particular—. Let me continue, please-
Could I come back to your question?
No, let me, uh—
What I said was, "no one but the system's own employees lobbies for quality television for an artistic vision that ignores ratings and special interests."
Let me read you this.
"That vision sounds elitist and in practice, it seeks public money without accountability—
Seeks public money without accountability—
"That is that some employees in the public television system want to do only high art."
Allow me one more question.
I don't believe in high art. I—
Allow me one more question—
I believe in serving the people whom the commercial system that you endorse leaves unserved.
Mr. Henry, let's let Mr. Rusher ask one additional question.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dukakis.
This was one of his questions.
Yes, Mr. Henry. Pursuing another one of your points in another column, President, do you believe that President Grossman of Public Broadcasting Service deserves a hundred thousand dollars as a salary for heading a service that is funded by the taxpayer?
I wonder if the President of the United States deserves two hundred thousand dollars. I don't. But, I, I also don't think that United States Senators and Congressmen and their staff people should be paid what they're paid. I think they should base their salary closer to the average wage.
At least they're elected by the people, where Mr. Grossman isn't. Isn't that a distinction? They have, in other words, public money with accountability exactly what I was talking about in the paper in your hand.
The staff of Congress, the staff of Congress is not elected by anybody at all.
Gentlemen, I'm sorry. I have to interrupt. Let's go back to Mr. Fisher now for an additional question or two. Mr. Fisher—
As a student of public broadcasting, do you believe that the two hundred and odd television and public radio, public radio stations are in fact responsive to public interest and perform ably in that role?
Every single one of them is run by a local board made up of local people. The majority of them, in fact, are part of school systems; and school systems, is we all know, receive public funds and are entirely publicly accountable. I don't know that there's anybody more accountable than a school board.
Mr. Henry, thank you very much for being with us. All right, let's turn to Mr. Rusher now who has his first witness for us. Mr. Rusher—
I call as my first witness Mr. William Poorvu.
Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Poorvu. Nice to have you with us.
Mr. Poorvu is, as I said, the vice chairman of Boston Broadcasters, Incorporated, and a lecturer at Harvard Business School. Mr. Poorvu, why shouldn't public broadcasting get the quadruple and more federal funding that it wants?
Poorvu:
I think PBS is doing a very good job of serving a very small segment of the overall audience.
How small a segment?
Oh, runs 2 to 5 percent, normally closer to 2 percent. They—. I'm not sure that a substantial amount of funding would be as necessary to serve that audience. And, as a matter of fact, I think if they get the substantial amount of money, it would force a basic restructuring of the whole public broadcasting system, and I don't think that's a very good idea.
Would it change the programming?
I think it probably would in many ways.
But, what about commercial broadcasting in which you're involved? The accusation is that it zeroes in on mass markets and does—, doesn't do much with quality film.
Oh, there are many commercial broadcasters who do do local programming. We do programming in the health area, in the religious area, and arts areas. As a matter of fact, they get very good audiences. We did something last week, "This Was America," which used still photographs to show a segment of American history; and this show not only won its time period over other network shows, but I think it got much higher rating than any show in PBS all year.
What about nationally?
Well, nationally, what—, the networks are beginning to do more—"Roots," "Eleanor and Franklin," "60 Minutes," "Edward the King." There are programs that are being done at the national level and will be done increasingly so. I --
What about the impact of new technology? Will that have any further effect?
Well, I think it's going to encourage all local broadcasters to do more programming. There's going to be more diverse outlets as we get pay cable, as we get videocassettes, easier forms of transmission. The viewer's going to have more options. And the broadcaster, to survive, is going to have to develop more forms of programs.
It'll be sim—, simply a matter of commercial survival to give variety.
That's correct.
—and diversity. With more money, though, in the case of public broadcasting, wouldn't it guarantee better programming or will it?
I think if you look at some of the more popular, more informative PBS programs, already, you see "Julia Child," "Jim Crockett's Victory Garden," "Thalassa Cruso," "This Old House,"'—these aren't high-budget shows.
So that high budgeting is not necessary to public broadcasting quality. Is that your point?
That's correct. Not only that, but I think that if you, if you increase the budget, you may get less diversity. What you may end up doing is getting more blockbusters, more centralized control of the broadcasting.
And what do you mean by a "blockbuster," Mr. Poorvu?
Oh, I'd say programs such as "Scarlet Letter," where you're spending $3 million to produce one program.
A technical question. We use this term, "public broadcasting." But who, what, actually owns the top ten, say, so-called public TV. stations?
Well, major markets are primarily owned by private, non-profit entities.
Not by the public and not by government, but by private, non-profit entities.
In most of the major markets.
So that the term, "public broadcasting" is in that sense something of a misnomer.
It is private, non-profit broadcasting, although the employees make salaries just like the commercial network employees, I presume. Is that correct? There is no stockholders?
That's the point. Tell me lastly, in your opinion, can public television, if it has really good programs to offer, get non-governmental funding for those programs?
I think they've proven in the past that they have been able to get this funding.
And in point of fact, you expect they could continue to a sufficient basis and in sufficient quantity in the future?
I would hope so.
All right, Mr. Poorvu, let's turn to Mr. Fisher who has some searching questions, I'm sure, for you. Mr. Fisher—
Let's try to understand that you come first from a very nice commercial station here in Boston. I want to congratulate Mr. Rusher on picking a man from the single station that has more public affairs than any other commercial station in the country. Am I right?
I think we had—
Very local origination programs than any other station in the country?
Good, that's fine. Now, and you're not very typical of commercial broadcasting, are you? If you're the single commercial station in the country that's the best, you're not very typical.
I think you're getting into a semantics question. I think there are many broadcasters who are doing local programming, and I think there are many more that are beginning to realize how important it is.
Now, let's talk about government money for public broadcasting. What—, you—. The commercial stations have the, the frequency licensed to them exclusively by the government for free, don't they? Each commercial station has a free use to make money out of that channel. Is that right?
There is some fee for it, but—
What's the fee? How much do you pay for your license, more or less? Very little. Legal fees to get it, but beyond that, how much to—
It amounted to millions of dollars.
How much would you sell it for now? A license? A hundred million, would you sell it for?
It's a conc—, it's a concept I've not considered.
No, you would not sell it for a hundred million. You have, when we give the private profit makers a chance to graze in public lands, we charge them for it. When you give them the chance to make money out of the airways, you get it for free. Now, you essentially, each commercial broadcaster, has a free use on which they make a gross profit on 8 billion dollars of, of revenue more or less, of 2 billion—something like that, commercial broadcasters—
They, they pay several billion dollars to the government in taxes. The government makes a great deal of money from the commercial—
—TV broadcasters, where as PBS do not.
You end up with a higher, you end up with a higher profit on using this government channel. You get, say, 25 percent compared to supermarkets that on gross, compare 1 or 2 percent on gross—something like that. All the top 500 corporations make 5 percent on gross, and you make 25 percent on gross, roughly. Now, and you --
They've asked for more.
—wouldn't sell the channel if you have free—. We—. The public could charge you for that several million dollars a year—public commercial broadcasting—you'd still take it and make money, wouldn't you on it, on the commercial channels?
Well, it would depend on what we would be doing then. We'd be running different kinds of stations, and I don't think we'd be performing the kind of local services.—
—that we do perform and do the kind of local programming-
You agree there are local services to be performed.
Such as health programs, public service programs, public affairs, things of that kind.
Yes, I think broadcasters should be doing this kind of programming.
Should they be doing more than they are doing?
Well, that's always a definition of terms I suppose we always should be trying to do more and better.
Should most other stations be trying to do as much as your station is trying to do?
Oh, different markets have different sets of problems.
And, why, why don't they do more?
I think they're, perhaps, being shortsighted. I think if they did more, I think that this would be something that they would find, as we did, that it not only draws an audience but involves the community in their station and can be profitable as well.
It's fair to say the reason they don't is because they want to make money, isn't it?
No, I think that's—
Isn't that why they don't do more, because it's a profit organization? The Board of Directors of a commercial broadcaster is trying to make money.
I would make an argument that if they did more local programming and they paid more attention, they perhaps would make even more money.
All right, if you, you agree there are some needs of this kind, small audiences, Chicano-speaking audiences, blacks, the elderly, people who don't buy much toothpaste, proportionately don't buy the automobiles, that need service programming; somebody should meet that. Why shouldn't it be public television to meet that?
Well, I think we all should, should be meeting it. As an ex—, example, you talk about Spanish programming. In many communities, there are large markets. There are UHF stations that are specifically broadcasting in Spanish. They can provide the kind of service to a Spanish community that PBS can't do because obviously you can only have occasional programs in Spanish, in the same way that we as a commercial broadcaster have occasional programs that are also in Spanish.
You believe there should be public stations, the kind we have here tonight to supplement the commercial stations.
I think that, that a diversity of program source is a good idea.
Right. And do you think we could survive without any federal funding?
Well, you'd probably be a different entity. I think that you'd perhaps be more locally minded than you would worrying about what's on the national network. It would be a different operation. Whether it would be better or worse, I'm not quite sure.
You think that we could do better programs on less money, whereas you spend an average of what—eight times per pro—, hour on commercial broadcasting than public television?
A brief response, Mr. Poorvu.
No, we don't have big budgets for local programs,
No, nationally—. Nationally, commercial television—The Advocates, for example, we can do ten weeks on what one hour, average hour of prime time commercial broadcasting is costing.
A brief response, Mr. Poorvu, and then I'll have to call this to a close.
I wish I had your budget for one of our programs, too.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Mr. Poorvu, thank you for being with us.
As my second witness, I call Mr. M. Stanton Evans.
Mr. Rusher, before you begin, let me just say a word to our viewing audience because some of them may have joined us late. And for those of you who have, our question tonight is, "Should Congress substantially increase federal funding for public broadcasting?" Advocate Roger Fisher has presented his first witness, William Henry, III, who is a television critic and who has argued that public broadcasting is a good thing, that it provides diversity and special programming for many groups in our society that don't get the kind of programming that Mr. Henry suggests they should on commercial television.
On the other hand, Mr. Rusher has presented his first witness, Mr. William Poorvu, who is in commercial broadcasting. And Mr. Poorvu has argued that public broadcasting is a limited audience, that it doesn't need these vast sums of money, and that commercial television can provide the kind of diversity and difference and variety which our viewing population needs. Now, let's go to Mr. Rusher who has his second witness. Mr. Evans, it's nice to have you with us.
Mr. Stanton Evans, who is my witness is to be distinguished from and not confused with Mr. Eli Evans, is that correct, who is going to be the second witness for the other side.
Uh, Mr. Evans, this Mr. Evans is a nationally syndicated columnist and a commentator on CBS radio's "Spectrum." Mr. Evans, what's wrong with the basic idea of government funding for broadcasting?
M.S. Evans:
I think that there are inherent, doctrinal and practical problems in having government funded broadcasting that create a kind of insoluble dilemma, a sort of impossible situation that you can't escape from. Either on the one hand you have a, an insulated self-perpetuating set of idea logs doing as they will with taxpayers• money to pursue their own interests without public accountability, or on the other hand, you have the political arm that extends the money, exercising control over the way in which programming occurs. You've got to have one or the other of those situations. It seems to me that both are unacceptable, we have had both. Under the existing public broadcast setup, we continue to have both to some degree, and I think both are not only philosophically offensive, but in my opinion are in violation of the First Amendment.
Can you give me examples of these?
Well, in the first category, you, yourself, in your questioning to Mr. Henry, referred to an example, a program on sports in Cuba, which, in my evaluation, was virtually an hour-long commercial for Communist Cuba, which proves there are commercials on public television; and another one in that same series about North Korea, which was virtually the same. I found both of those programs offensive. I bitterly resent having my tax money used to disseminate that kind of programming against my will to the viewing public. On the other hand, you have the difficulty that occurs when political people step in to try to correct the situation. The Carnegie Commission talks about this. Many other people have talked about it; the effort of the Nixon Administration to restore what it thought was "balance" to public broadcasting. And while I sympathize with the impulse that the Nixon regime felt because of the imbalance, I think there is a real danger in that kind of initiative of having political control of a, a journalistic and artistic entity.
But what about the need so often talked about for diversity in programming, some alternative to the alleged mass audience approach to the commercial networks?
Well, I think the answer to that problem is not more government in broadcasting, but less. The reason we have the kind of structure we have in commercial broadcasting today is because of the regulatory policies of the Federal Communications Commission, which, since 1966, it's been loosening up in the last few years, imposed a powerful impediment to the development of cable. Cable was barred from the 100 largest markets from 1966 to 1972 to protect the existing network setup and the vested interests that are involved in that. So that what you need, I think, is to free up, diversify the broadcasting situation authentically by getting government out of the roadbed and letting people through, pay cable, pay for the broadcasts that they want to get.
But now in the case of pay, cable and so on, what about people who cannot afford pay cable television?
Oh, we had a rather glancing allusion to the demographics of public broadcasting earlier. I would, looking at those same figures, which I have done with some care, those figures show the, the commercial, or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's own statistics show that 72 percent of the viewers of public television have household incomes of $10,000 a year or more. There's no question both on a common sense rating and on the statistical rating that the tilt is toward higher income audiences and public broadcasting, which means you have a regressive transaction here because you are taxing the people who are relatively poor to provide entertainment and instruction to people who are relatively well to do.
What about the statement that the BBC is a good example of the way to truly independent and yet publicly funded television? Our time is short, so—
BBC is a very good example. The problem I'm talking about in the 1930's, prior to the outbreak of World War II, Winston Churchill attempted to speak out against the policy of appeasement in Great Britain. He was prevented from getting access to the British public through BBC. That occurred, also, when he tried to speak on, on Indian policy on another occasion. And there are problems right now with BBC with voices in the Parliament, the Labor Party speaking out to politicize BBC. Once again, this has happened in other countries such as France and Sweden. It's an inherent danger of government funded broadcasting.
Mr. Rusher, we'll be back to you for some additional questions. I'm sure most of our audience knows this, but the BBC, of course, is the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Evans, which is government owned and funded.
Mr. Fisher—
Thank you. Mr. Evans, let's see where we disagree. I think we disagree on two questions. One is on the appropriateness of using taxpayer dollars for programs like The Advocates, like public television, whatever it might be; then the question of whether we can insulate it from governmental control. That's—. Is that a fair statement of the differences in position?
Well, I, I would provisionally say yes.
All right, now as to app—, as to appropriateness of using taxpayers' monies to support views with which taxpayers disagree, how do you feel about the public library buying books with your tax dollars with which you disagree?
Well, the difference between a public library, and, and broadcasting is one of how you balance. If you want balance in a public library, and I think you should have balance in a public library, don't you?—
Yes, I do.
Well, there you can balance it by simply adding books, so you have a full spectrum of available reading material. In broadcasting, you have a limited time frame, where ordinarily to add one thing means taking something else off. And that is a judgmental decision which has to be made by some political authority. And that's where the danger enters in, the politicizing of journalism and artistic enterprise through government funding which necessarily involves the—
Let's go—. Let's keep the—
—political decision.
You don't mind buying the books you disagree with as long as they're balanced, as long as there's something else by someone's judgment. A public library can't buy the 40,000 titles published every year. They must make selection, too.
There is a judgment. There is an inherent problem in, in libraries that you have to have some kind of monitoring to see that there is balance.
And you wouldn't throw away the public library because that's difficult, would you?
Well, I'm not saying to throw away the public library. I'm saying the same problem—
You would support tax—. You would—
—in principle, the same problem does exist, but the solution is much simpler in the case of the library.
How about state universities? How about Faneuil Hall, from which this program used to be broadcast?—
The same problem exists—
—supported by taxpayers' money.
The same problem exists. I was, I was a newspaper editor in a state capital for 15 years. There was nothing but political fighting over what went on at that state university all the time.
All right, and we did not quit. We would not give up the public parks because who speaks in there. We would not give up public libraries, not give up public schools, not give up public buses—
But, you're ignoring the, the intrinsic problem which is wherever you have public funding, you have public control. Now what your … what the public broadcasting people are advocating, what your side is advocating is that we have, in essence, some way to evade this dilemma, that either we can have—
Public trustees. We're, we're su—, suggesting essentially the form that we now have—280 public stations with e—, independent boards, so in their fiduciary duty—
Okay, but where is the accountability in that? So Where's your accountability?
I'm a taxpayer. How do you justify to me what will be done by those trustees with my taxes?
At the end of the year, at the end of three years, Congress can look and see how well the trustees have performed their duty. They don't come down and pick out each book out of the public library. They can change the board. Now, wh—
There have to be guidelines by which they decide whether they've done their duty. How do you know they've done their duty? What criteria would you use to decide that the trustees have done their duty?
I would say the trustees ought to do that communications—
—that is unbalanced to, to one political point of view; have they done their duty?
Mr. Evans has asked a question. Mr. Fisher, I guess you're going to respond and then we'll get back to the other side.
I was going to say that the public duty we see is to do those things which people motivated solely by profit in commercial television to maximize their profits don't do.
That's totally negative. What should they do?
Communica.—. They should communicate public service citizenship participation—programs like this should be available and funded.
This is a balanced program, or reasonably balanced.
I think it's reasonably balanced.
What about a program that is an hour-long commercial for Fidel Castro's sports program?
Is that doing their duty with my tax money? You're --
I believe that over the year, the World program on, on Cuba, other points of view, helps us, United States, understand better how other people see things. Yes. I do. Now, the fact that you disagree with all sorts of people, Mr. Evans, I'm asking who would you have decide—?
No, what I disagree with—
Let's look, look up with. Excuse me, if I can just—
I don t disagree with having that opinion. I disagree with making me pay for it with my tax money, Why—
—should I pay my tax money to put Fidel Castro's propaganda on American television?
If his books are in the public library, if Karl Marx is in Widener Library, do you want to stop pa—
But, I'm also in the public library. I'm not on public television except in an adversary position.
On the contrary, you have more television time than you could possibly expect to get. The, the—. You're on commercial television and public television—
No, I'm not. No, I'm not.
CBS radio.
Radio.
Excuse me, commercial radio and-
And it's sustaining.
All right, now, on-
No commercials.
No commercials. In terms of ways of protecting it, federal dollars, an average of $75 per person in the United States, federal tax revenue goes to support education—primary, secondary, and higher education. Do you think the federal government controls our educational system too much?
As a matter of fact, I, I do,
I thought so.
If you'll examine, where do you think all this busing comes from? That is coming right out of Washington, D.C. It's coming out of H.E.W. and the leverage of the federal dollars that are used against the local school districts.
The, the—
There is tremendous federal control over our school systems today with a small minority of federal funding. You're talking about something that's going to be heavily funded by the federal government. It will definitely mean
The funding of public broadcasting would be the equivalent of $2.50 per person compared to federal funding of education, which is $75 per person.
But proportionately, proportionately for the total budget—
We're going to have one more response, and that's it, Mr. Evans.
—the federal funding of public broadcasting will be much bigger than proportionately the federal funding is of the public schools, and by controlling the public schools, you're—
All, all public schools—
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I'm sorry. I have to interrupt at this point. We're going to go back to Mr. Rusher for another question or two. Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Evans, you mentioned that you don't like your tax money being used for particular propaganda films, say on public broadcasting, and I can understand that. But is that any different from the argument we sometimes hear that, well, everybody's tax money is used for things we don't like—either for the Vietnam War or for welfare or something like that? How do you justify a particular complaint in this case?
Well, it's, it's very different because of the different nature of the enterprise involved. If I don't like, what is being done with my tax money in other ways, and I must say there are many ways that I don't like my tax monies' utilization, I have political redress. I can lobby my Congressman. I can take political action in some way to demand political impediments being placed in the way of this utilization of my money. If that same kind of protest or activity occurs in the case of journalism or artistic expression, as it would in the case of public broadcasting, that puts us in the constitutional dilemma that I talked about before. We then run into the First Amendment, and you've got government interference with expression.
Gentlemen, I'm sorry; I have to interrupt. Mr. Evans, thank you for being with us. Now, Mr. Fisher has his own Mr. Evans, as I understand it. Mr. Fisher, your next witness.
Yes, thank you. Our second witness has the unique distinction of having served with both Carnegie Commissions—one in '67 and one in now. He is the president of the Revson Foundation, Eli Evans. Eli, you take the seat.
Welcome to The Advocates. Nice to have you with us.
Excuse me. As a student at an unusual chance to study public broadcasting, how's it doing? What's it been doing the last ten years?
E. Evans:
Well, I think what we've seen in the last ten years is the growth of an extraordinary force in American life, a force for education, a force for instruction, a force for enlightenment. It's quite an amazing story, really. To contrast with the BBC story in England, the English started a public system in 1920 and really didn't introduce a commercial system, broadcasting system into Britain until about ten years ago. We did the opposite in this country. We turned our total broadcasting entity over to commercial interests. It became entrenched; it became pervasive. It's really been in only the last ten years that we really built a viable, effective public system in this country.
Can public broadcasting function without federal money?
I think it would be difficult, and we would see a very barren kind of medium. What people don't understand is that, that broadcasting is an expensive business. We mentioned today that the "Scarlet Letter," for instance, cost $500,000 an hour to produce. People complain about the British pro—, programming, but the reason there's so much British programming on public broadcasting is that you can buy that programming for $20,000 an hour. But you contrast that with the $400,000 that it costs to make constant drama, you can see why it's so economical really to put more foreign broadcasting on public television than, than we really have been able to produce with American artists. And that's a tragedy really, because there is such a rich resource in American artists in this country who really want to, who want to produce, who want to create. And we've got to be able to support them. And the only way to do it really is to get a sizable amount more money going into public broadcasting.
All right, let's deal with the question that the other Mr. Evans was—, he and I were discussing, which is how we can insulate, or can we receive federal funds without having federal censorship. Can we get government money without having it radio Mos—, sound like Radio Moscow, or whether it will be Radio Washington?
I think this question which was really a question which plagued both Carnegie Commissions, both in '67 and the one that just made its report, has- been one that will be with us throughout the history of having any kind of public enterprise in this, in this country. It is always a struggle to maintain the independence of private institutions and, incidentally, most public broadcastings are, public broadcasting stations are privately, are privately, are privately run by lay boards. It is always a struggle to retain that, that kind of freedom, The question then is if it does take more money to produce quality broadcasting, $150,000 an hour for a major documentary, if it does take that kind of money to produce, how do you structure the receiving of that money in order to keep it free, in order to keep it flexible, in order to provide a home for creative artists to do their work? That's the struggle for public broadcasting, and it is the same struggle that Harvard University has receiving federal funds. It is the same struggle that the public schools have in terms of the freedom of the teacher in the classroom. That artist, that programming is going to be a continuing struggle; and we have tried in the Carnegie Commission reports, both of them, to structure a system whereby a unique American system, whereby trustees will, will help protect the system from undue political interference.
And it's your conviction it can be done as it is in state universities, public libraries, and private universities?
It's a struggle. It's a constant battle, the battles over academic freedom, the battles over government interference are a constant one. But it's one that can be done in this country and must be done if we're to have private institutions with some public support.
And if we win that battle, what kind of television might we have on public broadcasting?
Well, it's, it's difficult because in the last ten years we've seen such an extraordinary, so many extraordinary flickers of real greatness. The public broadcasting laboratory in 1969 was the precursor of the magazine of the air, "60 Minutes," "First Tuesday" that the commercial system adopted. "Sesame Street" was the first program really that lift the vision of parents to see just what television could really achieve. That's an extraordinary American achievement. We, we, by bringing the mini series from Britain in, we introduced to commercial broadcasting the very idea of a series of just five programs, the novel for television, which has been emulated in commercial broadcasting. In that sense, I think I see public broadcasting, the Commission did, too, as a pioneer, as an innovator, that can show the rest of the broadcasting system what can be done and that that public interest and innovation will continue to change over time as public broadcasting continues to be an experimenter to, to bring new kinds of broadcasting into, into the homes.
Mr. Evans, let's turn to Mr. Rusher now, who bas some good searching questions for you. Mr. Rusher—
Mr., Evans, a couple of primitive ones first, so simple I think they're almost primitive. Who decides, who shall decide what the public needs in television?
Well, I think the answer to that is that all we can do is, is hold out a vision of a kind of education, of the marketplace of ideas, of importance of public citizenship, of, of knowledge about public affairs and public events, of the importance of, of culture, generally not to just to the rich, but to everyone and hope that we can, we can we can sort of bring into the American homes that kind of vision.
That's a lovely vision, Mr. Evans; but answer the question. Who shall decide what the public gets in television?
I, I don't understand the thrust of the question, really. Are you asking whether—
Well, there's going to be in this, in the United States/ presumably television. It's nature is going to be determined by someone what it programs. Who decides?
Well, the broadcasters who run these stations have to decide what kind of programming their local community needs, and—
They, they decide what it needs?
The, the local community, which is licensed to that local community in this Country, with its lay membership on its board and the professional broadcasters who run that station, don't decide what it needs. They decide with the kind of understanding of their communities the kind of broadcasting that they believe their community needs.
And some kind of osmotic process is going on in which the public desire, assuming there is a public desire, and I think there is one—
Mr. Rusher, could you translate that word "osmotic" for the persons who don't understand it?
Yes, oozing through.
—I would say would do it. Some kind of process by which the broadcasters figure out.
Well, the broadcasters—
What the public needs or what the public wants?
Well, the broadcasters. No, the broadcasters really do try through what they call "ascertainment," which means a kind of polling mechanism with the viewers in their area what it is the public wants.
Wants or needs?
What it is the public wants.
And often that question is determined by what the public is seeing. I don't know that if you, if you took a person who had never really seen television at all and asked him what he wanted to see, whether there would be necessarily a demand for it.
If I, I, I hate to lead the witness, particularly one from the other side, is it possible that we could say that the public would have something to say in what the public needs?
Yes, yes. You would see—
And in democracy, what is the normal way of ascertaining the public will?
Well, I don't know where you're leading me with this, but—
I know you don't. All I'm suggesting is this-
People vote; people vote.
As Mr. Evans said, there's a dilemma involved. And I think it's a very real dilemma. You said it's a constant struggle.
That was your phrase. Either we are going to have in the democratic society a, a, a political determination of, of the content of our programming, in one way or another, or we have some form of group determination, which is in necessarily more elitist than a broad public determination.
I don't—
This is the dilemma, and I, I don't much care where you turn out on it, I just want to find out which—
No, I recognize the dilemma, and I--
—whether you can make it go away.
I, I think that it is going to be an on-going dilemma for any system that is funded by public funds—
Another, another primitive question. You say funded by public funds. Where do these public funds come from?
They're tax dollars.
Tax dollars.
Voted by Congress.
And they come from where?
Well, let me just sort of spell that out a little a minute. You know, this system is not funded by, totally by federal funds.
Don't take too long at it. I'm asking about the federal funds—where they come from.
I know, but only a third of those, of that money comes from federal sources. The rest come from private dollars contributed by individuals, corporations, and foundations, as well as—
—as well as from state governments and their funds.
Your proposal, Mr. Evans, is for $590 million—over half a billion dollars a year to be provided by the federal government from tax monies taken from, let's say, shall we?
But triggered, but triggered by-
Can we get the word out?
From the people of the United States-
All of them, whether they watch television or your kind or mine or not. That's all I wanted to establish.
Yes, but that money is to be triggered, Mr. Rusher, according to the Carnegie proposals, by the amount of money that is raised in the local communities.
Before it is triggered, wouldn't it be a good idea for the Public Broadcasting System to do a better job with the money it has? Your fast-writing colleague, Mr. Henry, in one of his eight-a-week columns wrote that the general accounting office had found waste, mismanagement and slipshod banking, bookkeeping practices in public broadcasting. Should something be done about that before we pour another $590 million down the same hole?
You think so. Yes, so do I.
I don't defend mismanagement on the part of public broadcasters.
I don't think you would. I take it there would be less, there would be less British programming on the Public Broadcasting System, as you see no more "Upstairs, Downstairs," right?
Well, hopefully, if we can have original American drama, we can sell some of those programs to the British and get some money back from it.
And Joe, Joe Pap will do the Shakespeare hereafter?
No, not necessarily Joe?
May—, maybe. No, maybe it'll be the School of the Arts down in North Carolina where I come from.
Did the Carnegie Commission—
One last question, Mr. Rusher, please.
Did the Carnegie Commission believe, I take it, it did not, that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had successfully resisted Mr. Nixon's in-roads? As a matter of fact, on page 49 of your report, you say, "We observed that the Board took action to downplay public affairs programming in order to avoid placing the entire federal appropriation in jeopardy." And we just heard from Mr. Fisher that it is essentially the same formula that he proposes to use for the future.
A brief response, please, Mr. Evans.
Well, I think the, the Nixon incidents and the, the efforts of the Nixon Administration, not just to get public broadcas—, public affairs broadcasting off the air, but to manipulate and exploit the medium in their own behalf is one of the tragic—
It will never happen again-
…stories of this decade; it is one of tragic stories of this decade.
And will it happen again?
It will not happen if there are diversified sources of funding which I think—
If you use essentially the same formula that Mr. Fisher says you axe asking for.
—is the very centerpiece—, the center, the centerpiece of the Carnegie proposals which is a mixed formula of funding from, from many different sources.
It will have to be—
Gentlemen, I'm sorry, gentlemen. I'm sorry. I have to interrupt.
--their strength and then diversity.
Mr. Evans, thank you for being with us, appreciate it. All right, let's go to our closing arguments. Mr. Fisher, you have one minute.
We in this country have more to offer each other than police shows and professional football. In our entire history, no tax dollars have been spent more wisely than those we spend on public libraries, public schools, public museums, state universities, town halls, and the village green. Like these institutions, broadcasting inspires us, sometimes bores us, brings us together, let's us hear the best that each can offer each other. It helps us govern ourselves as best we can. Ten years ago, with such purposes in mind, some of us who are here tonight started The Advocates. During those ten years, it was off the air for three years because of lack of funds. Today, even though The Advocates is produced at a ten weeks' program for the cost of one on commercial television prime time, we will desperately need money—federal money. All we're talking about is $2.50 per person in this country for a year of public broadcasting across the … Certainly, it's worth that just to hear Bill Rusher alone. Now, if you agree with me, write us and say, "yes, more federal money for public broadcasting." Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Rusher, you have one minute, also,
If you don't think it's worth it to hear me, vote "No." Public broadcasting has served a very useful purpose in this Country in these early years when commercial television has been limited to a relatively few channels and public taste was just developing. But we have learned tonight that we are on the threshold of a brand new era in which technology will be able to provide each of us through cassettes, cable TV, pay TV, and much else with any kind of television- we want at a price legitimately related to its cost. We have learned, moreover, that public broadcasting as we know it today isn't even all that public, that large chunks of it are comfortably in private hands, earning its executives very nice salaries without the inconvenience of having to make any payments whatever to stockholders.
This is the enterprise that now comes to you and demands 4 1/2 times the taxpayer support it has hitherto had, more than half a billion dollars a year to aggrandize and perpetuate itself into a future that will not need it. Ladies and gentlemen, stand up, not for your privileges and pleasures, but for your principles. Vote "No."
Thank you very much, gentlemen. And now we turn to you in our audience. You're all viewers of public television this evening. You're also taxpayers, and we ask you to tell us how you feel. What do you think? Should Congress substantially increase federal funding for public broadcasting? Send us your "Yes" or "No" vote on a postcard with your comments to The Advocates, Box 1979, Boston, 02134.
On March 11, The Advocates debated the question, "Should Congress deregulate trucking?" Our audience responded this way: 4 percent, 4 percent said, "Yes," and 96 percent said, "No." On the other hand, it appears from our mail that there was an organized writing campaign which has something to do with that 96 percent which said, "No."
And now, we hope you'll join us next week for another important and exciting debate. Our thanks to Mr. Fisher, to Mr. Rusher, their distinguished witnesses, and to our host, the Kennedy School of Government here at Harvard University.
Thank you very much and good night.


text:
Q: How to get json value from json array column in postgresql I have a column which its type is character varying.
It contains a json array in it.
Something like below.
[
{"name":"Peter", "information":{"tel":"120391083", "address":"xxx"}},
{"name":"Jane", "information":{"tel":"12302131093", "address":"ooo"}},
{"name":"Pat", "information":{"tel":"123098", "address":"zzz"}}
]

How can I get the address value of json object which name is Pat?
I used -> and ->> operator but it showed operator does not exist.
I'm using pdadmin 4 and postgreSQL version is 13.2

A: I am not sure what the output is exactly you are looking for.
If you want to get the full information part, you can use this:
select jsonb_path_query_first(the_column::jsonb, '$[*] ? (@.name == "Pat").information')
from the_table;

If you only what the value of the address key, you can use:
select jsonb_path_query_first(the_column::jsonb, '$[*] ? (@.name == "Pat").information') ->> 'address'
from the_table;

In any case you should change the column's data type to jsonb in the long run. Don't (mis)use varchar for that.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: How to convert a Blob type into a byte array in typescript? I want to convert my file which extends blob to byte array ? Is there any function in typescript which can do that?

A: You can use fileReader
 var r = new FileReader();
    r.onload = function(){ alert(r.result); };
    r.readAsBinaryString(file);


I was dug-in and Tony was assaulting this location by dropship. I thought he would be landing right in front of my pre-aimed guns.
A Longbow 12C with a 2/4 pilot, a Marauder 5S with a 3/5 pilot, a Crab 27B with a 4/5 pilot and two Glory Heavy Fire Assault Vehicles, with 3/5 and 4/5 crews. Because of the type of scenario, I also got for free a 4/5 Gun Trailer, which I selected the Mjolnir configuration, with an Improved Heavy Gauss Rifle. It only carries 4 shots, but those are good out to 19 hexes for 22 damage.
Two Vandal E's, two Batu E's, a Jagatai X for EW support and a Kirghiz C. Oh, yeah and to hold the ground, the Kirghiz was carrying a single point of Battle Armor.
We were playing in the rain, which meant a +1 to all shooting. I got to hide the Longbow, the better Glory and the Gun Trailer. I set them up in a "left-right-center" arc to catch his advancing forces in a cross fire. The second Glory, Marauder and Crab were left in the open, up against cover to mitigate things.
The fireworks started before his aircraft even got to the board. Two Inferno Arrow-IV's targeted the Glory in the open. One of them (at 11+) actually hit the proper location. This upset the crew of the targeted Glory very much. They struggled to get their wounded vehicle out of the napalm fireball.
To introduce themselves in grand style, the aircraft proceeded to drop fourteen tons of unguided bombs from the very edge of the atmosphere, and in Tony's style, missed with every single shot.
Tony's aircraft then proceeded, in Jeff Foxworthy's words, "they were on him like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat." Every aircraft converged simultaneously on one of my units at a time. First on the menu was my Marauder, which took a fair beating and managed to hurt one of the Batu's as payback. When they came around again, they concentrated on the Glory they could see, killing it. Before it died, it launched a fusillade of LRM's and AC/5 shells to bring down the wounded Batu. The pilot of other Batu had been through rehab, evidently it didn't stick. Tony rolled snake eyes on his Ultra AC/20, jamming it.
During the commotion, the Kirghiz dropped the battle armor behind a hill, where I had to advance the Marauder to try and get a shot at them. As Tony's aircraft came around again and swarmed the Marauder, this time they dive-bombed it, hitting it for 140 points of damage, coring his center torso and putting it down for good.
This is where the "Whack-A-Mech" comes from, the Longbow then revealed itself at the edge of heavy woods, then turned around and tried to advance toward the battle armor. Yeah, right. The aircraft dive-bombed from the back of the Longbow and ripped it to shreds, before an ammo explosion disintegrated it. The Longbow managed to hurt the second Batu enough that he had no offensive weapons, so he voluntarily withdrew and I received about 25% of his points for that. He was useless to Tony with no weapons, and if he came on the board again I could get more points by actually shooting him down. He wasn't technically in Forced Withdrawal, so I got "half-of-half-points" for my effort.
Okay, my two biggest units are gone. I'm at 47% of my points FW/dead, Tony's Battle Armor hasn't even been looked at harshly yet and and so my only option is to send the Crab half-way across open board, knowing Tony's air assets will be all over him in seconds. The Crab runs up to a stream he must cross and proceeds to wade in, failing his PSR. Sploosh.
This is where Marlin Perkins from Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom starts with his narration, "The Crab begins his return to his native waterways..." At least he didn't penetrate his armor when he faceplanted.


text:
National University of Ireland, Galway
Open Educator & Researcher; Curriculum & Educational Developer, Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching
Iain MacLaren
Director, Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching
Home > Vol 10, No 2 (2018) >	Cronin
Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in Open Educational Practices
Catherine Cronin, Iain MacLaren
Conceptualisations of open educational practices (OEP) vary widely, ranging from those centred primarily on the creation and use of open educational resources (OER) to broader definitions of OEP, inclusive of but not necessarily focused on OER. The latter, referred to in this paper as expansive definitions of OEP, encompass open content but also allow for multiple entry points to, and avenues of, openness. This paper explores the theoretical and empirical literature to outline how the concept of OEP has evolved historically. The paper aims to provide a useful synthesis of OEP literature for education researchers and practitioners.
open education; open educational practices; OER; OEP; OEP theory
Alevizou, P. (2012). Open to interpretation? Productive frameworks for understanding audience engagement with OER. In Innovation and Impact – Openly Collaborating to Enhance Education. Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from http://www.ucel.ac.uk/oer12/docs/Conference_Proceedings_Cambridge_2012.pdf
Anderson, T. (2009, October). Open scholarship. Presented at Open Access Week 2009, Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/2320/7/oas.pdf
Andrade, A., Ehlers, U.-D., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G., Kairamo, A.-K., … Holmberg, C. (2011). Beyond OER: Shifting focus to open educational practices (pp. 1–191). Open Education Quality Initiative. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/OPAL2011.pdf
Arinto, P. B., Hodgkinson-Williams, C., King, T., & Cartmill, T. (2017). Research on open educational resources for development in the Global South: Project landscape. In C. Hodgkinson-Williams & P. B. Arinto, Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South. Cape Town and Ottawa: African Minds, International Development Research Centre & Research on Open Educational -Resources. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/26435
Armellini, A., & Nie, M. (2013). Open educational practices for curriculum enhancement. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2013.796286
Atenas, J., Havemann, L., & Priego, E. (2014). Opening teaching landscapes: The importance of quality assurance in the delivery of open educational resources. Open Praxis, 6(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.1.81
Bali, M. (2017, April 21). Curation of posts on open pedagogy [blog]. Retrieved from https://blog.mahabali.me/whyopen/curation-of-posts-on-open-pedagogy-yearofopen
Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2012). Open practices: Briefing paper. JISC. Retrieved from https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58444186/Open%20Practices%20briefing%20paper.pdf
Bossu, C., & Fountain, W. (2015). Capacity-building in open education: An Australian approach. Open Praxis, 7(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.2.197
Burton, G. (2009, August 11). The open scholar [blog]. Retrieved from http://www.academicevolution.com/2009/08/the-open-scholar.html
Camilleri, A. F., & Ehlers, U.-D. (2011). Mainstreaming open educational practice: Recommendations for policy. OPAL Consortium, European Foundation for Quality in e-Learning. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260423291_Mainstreaming_Open_Educational_Practice
Camilleri, A. F., Ehlers, U.-D., & Pawlowski, J. (2014). State of the art review of quality issues related to open educational resources (OER). European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/state-art-review-quality-issues-related-open-educational-resources-oer
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (2007). The Cape Town Open Education Declaration. Retrieved from http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration
Carey, T., Davis, A., Ferreras, S., & Porter, D. (2015). Using open educational practices to support institutional strategic excellence in teaching, learning & scholarship. Open Praxis, 7(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.2.201
Casey, G., & Evans, T. (2011). Designing for learning: Online social networks as a classroom environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1011
Conole, G. (2011, January 7). Towards Open Educational Practices [blog]. Retrieved from http://e4innovation.com/?p=406
Conole, G., & Ehlers, U.-D. (2010). Open educational practices: Unleashing the power of OER. In UNESCO Workshop on OER in Namibia. Windhoek. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/OEP_Unleashing-the-power-of-OER.pdf
Costa, C. (2014). The habitus of digital scholars. Research in Learning Technology, 21(0). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21274
Coughlan, T., & Perryman, L.-A. (2015). Learning from the innovative open practices of three international health projects: IACAPAP, VCPH and Physiopedia. Open Praxis, 7(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.2.188
Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Couros, A., & Hildebrandt, K. (2016). Designing for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Cox, G., & Trotter, H. (2016). Institutional culture and OER policy: How structure, culture, and agency mediate OER policy potential in South African universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2523
Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
Czerniewicz, L. (2013, April 29). Inequitable power dynamics of global knowledge production and exchange must be confronted head on [blog]. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/04/29/redrawing-the-map-from-access-to-participation/#more-10331
Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Glover, M., & Walji, S. (2017a). MOOC-making and open educational practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9128-7
Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Walji, S., & Glover, M. (2017b). OER in and as MOOCs. In C. Hodgkinson-Williams (Ed.), Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South (pp. 349–386). Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town. Retrieved from https://zenodo.org/record/1094854#.Wi_Mp0saQmo
Czerniewicz, L., & Naidoo, U. (2013, September 9). MOOC-less in Africa [blog]. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11427/2373/OpenUCT_Czerniewicz_MOOCAfrica_2013.pdf?sequence=1
Deimann, M., & Sloep, P. (2013). How does open education work? In A. Meiszner & L. Squires, Openness and Education (Vol. 1, pp. 1–23). Emerald Group Publishing.
DeRosa, R., & Robison, S. (2015). Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational resources. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/11/pedagogy-technology-and-the-example-of-open-educational-resources
DeRosa, R., & Robison, S. (2017). From OER to open pedagogy: Harnessing the power of open. In R. S. Jhangiani & R. Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science. London: Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc
Ehlers, U.-D. (2011a). Extending the territory: From Open Educational Resources to Open Educational Practices. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 15(2), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/64
Ehlers, U.-D. (2011b). From open educational resources to open educational practices. ELearning Papers, 23. Retrieved from https://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/sites/default/files/6_1299750802.pdf
Farrow, R. (2015). Open education and critical pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1113991
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Geser, G. (2007a). Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012 (p. 150). Salzburg, Austria: Salzburg Research / EduMedia Group. Retrieved from http://www.olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf
Geser, G. (2007b). Open educational practices and resources: The key role of social software. In A. Szücs & I. Bø (Eds.), New Learning 2.0? Emerging Digital Territories, Developing Continuities, New Divides. Naples, Italy: European Distance and E-Learning Network. Retrieved from http://www.eden-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Annual_2007_Naples_BOA.pdf
Gogia, L. (2016). Collaborative curiosity: Demonstrating relationships between open education, networked learning and connected learning. 10th International Conference on Networked Learning, Lancaster University, UK. Retrieved from http://networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/S3_Paper3.pdf
Havemann, L. (2016). Open educational resources. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Singapore: Springer Singapore. Retrieved from http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/17820/1/Havemann-OpenEducationalResources-EEPAT-ms.pdf
Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/doc/276569994/Attributes-of-Open-Pedagogy-A-Model-for-Using-Open-Educational-Resources
Hendricks, C. (2017, October 21). Open education in the 60s and 70s. Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/chendricks/2017/10/21/open-education-in-the-60s-and-70s/
Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2010). Benefits and challenges of OER for higher education institutions (Open Educational Resources (OER) Workshop for Heads of Commonwealth Universities). Cape Town, South Africa: Commonwealth of Learning (COL). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242551671_Benefits_and_Challenges_of_OER_for_Higher_Education_Institutions
Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2014). Degrees of ease: Adoption of OER, open textbooks and MOOCs in the Global South. In 2nd Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources: Beyond Advocacy, Research and Policy. Penang, Malaysia. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/1188
Hodgkinson-Williams, C., & Arinto, P. B. (2017). Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South. Cape Town and Ottawa: African Minds, International Development Research Centre & Research on Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from http://10.5281/zenodo.1005330
Hodgkinson-Williams, C., & Gray, E. (2009). Degrees of openness: The emergence of OER at the University of Cape Town. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 5(5), 101–116. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=864
Hogan, P., Carlson, B., & Kirk, C. (2015). Showcasing: Open educational practices' models using open educational resources. Presented at the Open Education Global, Banff Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from http://conference.oeconsortium.org/2015/presentation/showcasing-open-educational-practices-models-using-open-educational-resources/
Horwitz, R. A. (1979). Psychological effects of the "open classroom." Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049001071
International Commission on the Development of Education (1972). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO.
Jordan, K. (2017). Understanding the structure and role of academics' ego-networks on social networking sites (PhD Thesis). The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/48259
Karunanayaka, S. P., Naidu, S., Rajendra, J. C. N., & Ratnayake, H. U. W. (2015). From OER to OEP: Shifting practitioner perspectives and practices with innovative learning experience design. Open Praxis, 7(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.252
Lane, A. (2009). The impact of openness on bridging educational digital divides. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.637
Lane, A. (2010). Widening participation in education through open educational resources. In T. Iiyoshi & M. S. V. Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/opening-education
MacKenzie, N., Postgate, R., & Scupham, J. (1975). Open learning: Systems and problems of post-secondary education. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=16575&set=0055101236_0_202&gp=0&lin=1&ll=1
Marshall, H. H. (1981). Open classrooms: Has the term outlived Its usefulness? Review of Educational Research, 51(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170194
Masterman, E. (2016). Bringing open educational practice to a research-intensive university: Prospects and challenges. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 14(1), 31–42. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1099364
McGill, L., Falconer, I., Dempster, J. A., Littlejohn, A., & Beetham, H. (2013). Journeys to open educational practice: UKOER/SCORE review final report. Jisc. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/HEFCEoerReview
Morgan, T. (2016, December 21). Open pedagogy and a very brief history of the concept. Retrieved from https://homonym.ca/uncategorized/open-pedagogy-and-a-very-brief-history-of-the-concept/
Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2014). If Freire made a MOOC: Open education as resistance. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/freire-made-mooc-open-education-resistance/
Murphy, A. (2013). Open educational practices in higher education: Institutional adoption and challenges. Distance Education, 34(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.793641
Naidu, S., & Karunanayaka, S. P. (2017, March). Development of the Open Educational Practices Impact Evaluation Index. Open Education Global Conference, Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from http://conference.oeconsortium.org/2017/presentation/development-of-the-open-educational-practices-impact-evaluation-index
Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2016). In search for the Open Educator: Proposal of a definition and a framework to increase openness adoption among university educators. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2736
Nerantzi, C. (2017). Towards a framework for cross-boundary collaborative open learning for cross-institutional academic development (doctoral thesis). Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK. Retrieved from https://www.napier.ac.uk:443/research-and-innovation/research-search/outputs/towards-a-framework-for-cross-boundary-collaborative-open-learning-for
Noddings, N., & Enright, D. S. (1983). The promise of open education. Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848309543059
O'Keeffe, M. (2016). Exploring higher education professionals' use of Twitter for learning (EdD Thesis). Institute of Education, University College London, London. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1521971/7/O'Keeffe_MOK-EdD-Thesis%2016Oct_b.pdf.%20Personal%20identifiers%20redacted.pdf
Open Education Consortium. (n.d.). About the Open Education Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.oeconsortium.org/about-oec/
Paskevicius, M. (2017). Conceptualizing open educational practices through the lens of constructive alignment. Open Praxis, 9(2), 125–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.519
Peter, S., & Farrell, L. (2013). From learning in coffee houses to learning with open educational resources. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10(2), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2013.10.2.174
ROER4D (2017, March 8). Most #OEP frameworks draw on Global North contexts and there's lack of shared understanding of terms & of open pedagogy. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ROER4D/status/839442275365191684
Rolfe, V. (2017). Striving toward openness: But what do we really mean? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.3207
Rosen, J. R., & Smale, M. A. (2015). Open Digital Pedagogy = Critical Pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/open-digital-pedagogy-critical-pedagogy
Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12063
Schaffert, S. (2008). Open educational resources as facilitators of open educational practices: Results and recommendations of the EU-project OLCOS. Fourth UNICA Scholarly Communication Seminar, Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://www.unica-network.eu/sites/default/files/Sch-com-2008-Schaffert_1.pdf
Schaffert, S., & Geser, G. (2008). Open educational resources and practices. ELearning Papers, 7. Retrieved from http://elearningeuropa.info/sites/default/files/old/media14907.pdf
Schreurs, B., Beemt, A. V. den, Prinsen, F., Witthaus, G., Conole,
G., & Laat, M. de. (2014). An investigation into social learning activities by practitioners in open educational practices. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i4.1905
Siemens, G., & Matheos, K. (2010). Systemic changes in higher education. In Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://ineducation.ca/index.php/ineducation/article/view/42
Smyth, R., Bossu, C., & Stagg, A. (2016). Toward an open empowered learning model of pedagogy in higher education. In S. Reushie, A. Antonio, & M. Keppell, Open learning and formal credentialing in higher education: Curriculum models and institutional policies (pp. 205–222). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://www.igi-global.com/book/open-learning-formal-credentialing-higher/129622
Stagg, A. (2014). OER adoption: A continuum for practice. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 11(3), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v11i3.2102
Stewart, B. (2015). In abundance: Networked participatory practices as scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2158
Stewart, B. (2016). Collapsed publics: Orality, literacy, and vulnerability in academic Twitter. Journal of Applied Social Theory, 1(1). Retrieved from http://socialtheoryapplied.com/journal/jast/article/view/33
Stommel, J. (2014). Critical digital pedagogy: a definition. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/critical-digital-pedagogy-definition
The Open University. (2018). Mission. http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/strategy-and-policies/mission#
Timmis, S. (2012). Constant companions: Instant messaging conversations as sustainable supportive study structures amongst undergraduate peers. Computers & Education, 59(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.026
Udas, K., Partridge, H., & Stagg, A. (2016). Open Education Practice at the University of Southern Queensland. In P. Blessinger & T. Bliss (Eds.), Open Education: International Perspectives in Higher Education (pp. 321–342). Open Book Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-278-3/ch16.xhtml#_idTextAnchor038
UNESCO (2012). What is the Paris OER Declaration? Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowledge/open-educational-resources/what-is-the-paris-oer-declaration/
Veletsianos, G. (2015). A case study of scholars' open and sharing practices. Open Praxis, 7(3), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.3.206
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 166–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1313
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001
Veletsianos, G., & Navarrete, C. (2012). Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 144–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1078
Veletsianos, G., & Stewart, B. (2016). Discreet openness: Scholars' selective and intentional self-disclosures online. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 2056305116664222. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664222
Waycott, J., Sheard, J., Thompson, C., & Clerehan, R. (2013). Making students' work visible on the social web: A blessing or a curse? Computers & Education, 68, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.026
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/29664/
Weller, M. (2014). The battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn't feel like victory. Ubiquity Press. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/44363/
Wiley, D. (2013, October 21). What is open pedagogy? Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975
Wiley, D. (2017, May 2). OER-enabled pedagogy. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/5009
Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J., & McEwen, M. (2014). Open educational resources: A review of the literature. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 781–789). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_63
Zourou, K. (2017). Identity and engagement in networked open educational practice. Apprentissage Des Langues et Systèmes d'Information et de Communication, 20(1). Retrieved from http://alsic.revues.org/3009

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Pedra de Itapuca é uma formação rochosa que se localiza entre a Praia de Icaraí, no bairro de Icaraí e Praia das Flechas, no bairro do Ingá, no município de Niterói, no estado do Rio de Janeiro, no Brasil. É um dos símbolos da cidade de Niterói. Foi tombada em 1985 pelo Instituto Estadual do Patrimônio Cultural.. As águas a seu redor são um tradicional ponto de prática de surfe na cidade.

Esta presente no brasão da cidade de Niterói.

Etimologia
"Itapuca" é um termo de origem tupi, significando "pedra fendida", através da junção dos termos itá (pedra) e puka (fenda). A denominação é uma referência à antiga forma da Pedra de Itapuca, antes de ela ser implodida, em 1840, para o arruamento da região. A pedra formava um arco natural com o continente, daí o seu nome tupi significando "pedra fendida". Com a implosão, o arco foi desfeito, restando dele, atualmente, somente um pilar rochoso no mar, a alguns metros da terra firme.

Ver também
 Icaraí
 Pedra do Índio

Icaraí
Atrações turísticas de Niterói
Monumentos naturais do Brasil
Geografia do estado do Rio de Janeiro

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Mouth watering crunchy roasted macadamias with salt. Lightly salted for a tasteful snack or addition to meals and desserts. Macadamia nuts are low in carbohydrates and high in healthy fats.
This product is available in 5 or 25 pound packages.
Ingredients: Macadamia Nuts, Salt.**May contain traces of peanuts.


text:
Q: Relation of Corresponding principle and law of large numbers Is it possible that Corresponding principle can be derived from the law of large numbers? Also is the principle a postulate of Quantum Mechanics?

A: First, yes.
Second, no.
Quantum was more fundamental than classical. On of the famous case involved your question was about the ehrenfest theorem. In theory every classical phenomenon can be derived from quantum mechanics, so you don't need a law for that.
corresponding principle was basically people in old age saying that: they didn't know how to do it yet, but it "must be". Now we could and we did it, so people basically forgot about it.
Most of the time, you need "large number" or in these days, we say classical limit, to derive the expectation value in order to describe classical with quantum.


Remember SMOK Stick V8? Well, the Stick X8 is a new upgraded version of it. Meet another one from the immensely successful SMOKTech series – SMOK Stick X8.
This one is just as cool as V8. It has pretty much the same dimensions and perks, it also goes with a TFV8 Baby tank and includes two sub-ohm coil variants to pick from. In this SMOK Stick X8 review, we'll see what exactly this model has to offer.
The first eye-catching thing in this device is the LED indicator that surrounds the button. It lights up every time you take a puff, and it also lets you know when the battery is about to die. Once the battery goes below 3.3 V, the indicator starts flashing like a tiny stroboscope so you know it's time to recharge.
Moving on to the next thing you might notice right away. On top of the battery, you'll find a spring-loaded, gold-plated 510 connector pin, which can accommodate virtually any tank that is 25 mm in diameter.
The inner chipset is equipped with various safety features, including short-circuit and low-voltage protection, so vaping is going to be safe.
The mod has 24.5 mm in diameter, and frankly, you won't call it a portable device since it's a pretty heavy one. At the same time, it has a user-friendly design not overloaded by confusing details.
This means that you actually carry it with you in a bag without worrying that you'll accidentally press some button. Although, the paint might get scratched on this one, so if you want to preserve an untouched factory look, try to keep it indoors.
As we've already mentioned, this mod is very user-friendly, meaning that you won't have to set up much. It's a plug-and-play device in a way, which can be a significant advantage for vaping newbies. The TFV8 Baby tank in X8 shares most benefits with the rest of available SMOK tanks, including a top fill and a swivel top cap.
The two airflow vents at the top are designed to prevent any leaking, which is a frequent occurrence with bottom airflow vents. You can also additionally purchase a Pyrex glass tube if you want to increase the e-juice capacity (+2 extra ml never hurt anybody).
On the whole, the new SMOK Stick X8 is a decent member of the SMOK family. It is also very easy to clean and maintain since it doesn't require any special effort. Just unscrew the atomizer base and replace the coils, and remove the glass tube just as smoothly.
Alas, the moth-to-lung hitters won't get what they need with this device because neither V8 nor the X8 allows for a direct-lung experience. But don't be discouraged just yet. The two SMOK X8 coils in the kit will definitely show exceptional performance in combination with the tank and mod.
Find the X-Baby M2 0.25ohm coil already pre-installed on the tank or use the X-Baby X4 0.13ohm coil for extra cloud cover; the latter works best between 45W and 60W. The coils, in tandem with a wide-mouthed Delrin drip tip, ensure massive clouds.
Although there is no mouth-to-lung coil in the SMOK Stick X8 kit, the airflow is restricted, which is enough to imitate a mouth-to-lung hit.
All in all, the SMOK Stick X8 is a very simple and functional device, so it can potentially satisfy both vaping rookies and seasoned vapers. It has adjustable and replaceable parts, which is a very important characteristic of such products. You shouldn't expect too much from the vape pen at this price range, but you can rest assured that it will satisfy all your basic needs, and even a little bit more.
It is stylish enough and powerful enough to be chosen among other available options in this category, so make sure you don't overlook it next time you'll be searching for an affordable and functional vape pen.