Gardens can act as important stepping stones between nature reserves and other natural habitats by offering abundant supplies of nectar. Butterflies will visit any garden, however small as long as they can feed from suitable nectar rich plants. A well thought out garden can attract up to 18 species of butterfly. If you manage your patch to create breeding habitat you may see even more.
Butterflies like warmth so choose sunny, sheltered spots when planting nectar rich plants.
Try to provide flowers right through the butterfly season. Spring flowers are vital for butterflies coming out of hibernation and autumn flowers help butterflies build up their reserves for winter.
Prolong flowering by dead heading flowers. Mulching plants with organic compost and careful watering will keep the plants healthy. Plants that are well-watered will produce far more nectar for hungry butterflies.
Don't use insecticides and pesticides. They kill butterflies and many pollinating insects as well as ladybirds, ground beetles and spiders. Try finding a natural alternative such as Grab A Grub which will help clear pests but allow pollinators to continue to visit flowers safely.
Don't buy peat compost. Peat bogs are home to many special animals and plants, including the Large Heath Butterfly, which is declining across Europe. There are many good alternatives available from garden centres.
Sadly, four butterflies and over sixty moths became extinct during the last century. Three-quarters of British butterflies are in decline and many moths are also facing an uncertain future.
To learn more about butterfly conservation and how you can help visit The Butterfly Conservation website.
Why Attract Moths Into The Garden?
Moths are often neglected or ignored in favour of their cousins the butterflies when considering which insects we want to encourage into our gardens. However, with around 2,500 species in the UK, moths can be an extremely diverse and interesting visitor to watch.
Moths are hugely important in the food chain for birds and bats. They are also good pollinators but there is increasing evidence that Britain's moths are in decline.
Here are our recommended products to attract butterflies and moths into your garden.


text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › North Dakota Case Law › North Dakota Supreme Court Decisions › 1973 › State v. Haakenson
Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the North Dakota Supreme Court. Subscribe
State v. Haakenson
The STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Earl HAAKENSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Crim. No. 432.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
*396 Thomas F. Kelsch, State's Atty., Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee.
Daniel J. Chapman, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.
VOGEL, Judge, on rehearing.
The defendant was charged with first-degree manslaughter under an information charging him with killing John Tidball "in a heat of passion" and "without a design to effect the death of John Tidball." After a jury trial, he was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter under instructions which defined "second-degree manslaughter" as a homicide committed by "culpable negligence," which is one of the several definitions permitted by statute.
Section 12-27-17, North Dakota Century Code, defines "Manslaughter in [the] first degree" as a homicide "perpetrated without a design to effect death, and in a heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner or by means of a dangerous weapon, unless it is committed under such circumstances as constitute excusable or justifiable homicide" (subsec. 2). "Manslaughter in [the] second degree" is defined by Section 12-27-19, N.D.C.C., as a "killing of one human being by the act, agency, procurement, or culpable negligence of another which, under the provisions of this chapter, is not murder nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide."
During the trial the defendant made a motion for an advised verdict, which was denied. Such a motion raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, but the order denying it is not appealable. State v. Johnson, 88 N.W.2d 209 (N.D.1958). He also made a motion for a new trial. Such a motion also raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, and the order denying it is appealable. Defendant attempted to appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, but his appeal was untimely, since it was filed sixty-four days after the making of the order denying the motion. Section 29-28-08, N.D.C.C., provides that "An appeal from a verdict or judgment may be taken within three months after its rendition and from an order within sixty days after it is made ...."
The defendant also appeals from the judgment, and his appeal from the judgment was timely.
The defendant raises questions, in addition to the sufficiency of the evidence, as to claimed error in the instructions of the court, particularly as to matters of self-defense and whether there is a duty to retreat, and also as to the propriety of instructions as to the lesser offense of second-degree manslaughter. He also claims that a finding of guilty of second-degree manslaughter under instructions defining that crime as one committed by "culpable negligence" necessarily constitutes an acquittal of the crime charged, which is manslaughter committed "in a heat of passion."
The facts are not clear, because of conflicts in the testimony but they may be briefly summarized:
The defendant and his wife live in a wooded area south of Bismarck. They have had trouble previously with trespassers, loud parties, and other nocturnal annoyances nearby. On the night in question they had guests, Mr. and Mrs. Sweep, who `eft at about 3 a. m. in their own vehicle. A short distance from the Haakenson home, while traversing a curve on the *397 road, Sweep saw young people on the road, stopped, and got into an argument with them, and returned to the Haakenson house either for the purpose, as he said, of calming his wife, or, as the young people said, to get reinforcements.
Haakenson and Mr. Sweep then returned to the scene, although (as was known to Haakenson) another equally available route from the Haakenson home to the Sweep home was unimpeded. At the scene of the previous confrontation, the teenage boys who were involved in the first encounter with Sweep were joined by older persons, including the decedent, recently discharged from the Navy. One of the older persons had a shotgun. The events thereafter are much in dispute, but it appears that one of the young people attempted, or pretended, to fire the shotgun, another struggled with him for possession of it, and several of the young people made menacing movements toward the defendant, who had fired his pistol over their heads upon arriving at the scene. Several shots were fired, all of them by the defendant. One bullet struck the shotgun, another (or perhaps the same one) temporarily deafened one young man who fell to the ground in such a fashion as to lead others to believe he was injured, and the final bullet discharged by the defendant killed the decedent, who was unarmed but close to the defendant at the time. Ballistic evidence was to the effect that the bullet was fired at a muzzle-to-body distance of two inches or less.
According to Sweep, at the moment before the fatal shot was fired, "two kids were trying to get at" the defendant, and the defendant was swinging at them with his right hand, while holding the pistol in his left hand, and the third man was approaching the defendant from a few feet away, holding the rifle by the barrel, like a club. One of the kids "trying to get at" the defendant was the decedent.
The defendant claimed the homicide was justifiable, in self-defense.
I. THE SCOPE OF REVIEW
We are met at the outset by the State's claim that we have nothing to review. Pointing to the facts that the defendant purported to appeal from both the order denying the motion for new trial and the judgment, that the motion for new trial included allegations of insufficiency of the evidence and alleged error in the instructions, and that the motion for new trial was too late, the State argues that the abortive appeal from the order denying a new trial makes the order res judicata and precludes review of all matters raised in the motion for new trial. The State argues that we are therefore restricted in our review to only matters appearing on the face of the judgment roll, and cannot review the evidence or the instructions.
While such an argument has merit as to civil cases [Marsden v. O'Callaghan, 77 N.W.2d 522 (N.D.1956)], we find it unpersuasive in criminal cases.
In support of its argument, the State cites State v. McClelland, 72 N.D. 665, 10 N.W.2d 798 (1943); State v. Emmil, 172 N.W.2d 589 (N.D.1969); and State v. Wilson, 142 N.W.2d 106 (N.D.1966). In State v. McCelland, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence was not presented to the lower court by either a motion for new trial or for advised verdict of guilty. It was held that the sufficiency of the evidence was not before the Supreme Court. In State v. Emmil, supra, both appeals (from the order denying the motion for new trial and from the judgment) were taken too late, so there was nothing for the Supreme Court to review. And in State v. Wilson, supra, the order denying the motion for new trial was not appealed from, and the appeal from the judgment was taken too late, so, again, obviously the Supreme Court had nothing before it. True, State v. Wilson contains language to the effect that failure to appeal from the order denying the motion for new trial "alone would have prevented appellant from raising the sufficiency of the evidence," but *398 this is obviously dictum where there is no appeal at all from a judgment or anything else.
This court has held many times that it will not review the sufficiency of the evidence unless the matter has been brought before the lower court either by a motion for a new trial or by a motion for an advised verdict. Decisions refusing to consider the sufficiency of the evidence because the matter was not raised in the trial court include State v. Lende, 190 N.W.2d 52 (N.D.1971); State v. Haider, 150 N.W.2d 71 (N.D.1967); State v. Timm, 146 N.W.2d 552 (N.D.1966); State v. Eli, 62 N.W.2d 469 (N.D.1954); State v. Mostad, 70 N.D. 73, 291 N.W. 910 (1940); State v. Johnson, 68 N.D. 236, 278 N.W. 241 (1938); State v. Fahn, 53 N.D. 203, 205 N.W. 67 (1925); and State v. Glass, 29 N.D. 620, 151 N.W. 229 (1915).
All of these cases illustrate the application of the basic principle; applicable to both civil and criminal cases, that a fair opportunity must be given to the trial court to correct any alleged error before it is raised as grounds for appeal. But there is a difference between requiring the question to be raised in the trial court, and the rule advocated by the State here to the effect that a defendant must appeal from an order denying a motion raising the issue or else he cannot have it considered under an appeal from the judgment. We have many times held the former, but never the latter, in criminal cases.
In State v. Gill, 154 N.W.2d 791 (N.D. 1967), the appeal was from the judgment alone. No motion for a new trial was made in the lower court, but a motion for a directed verdict was made (although we had no provision for directed verdict in criminal cases), and this court considered it as a motion for an advised verdict, and fully considered the sufficiency of the evidence. In State v. Dietz, 115 N.W.2d 1 (N.D.1962), again the appeal was from the judgment alone, and, although a motion for a directed verdict was made and denied and no attempt to appeal from the order denying such motion was made, this court fully considered the sufficiency of the evidence again. We will do so here.
Perhaps the difference in approach between civil and criminal cases arises in part because of the language of Section 29-28-27, N.D.C.C., which reads as follows:
"Upon an appeal taken by the defendant from a verdict or judgment, the supreme court may review any intermediate order or ruling which involves the merits or which may have affected the verdict or judgment adversely to the defendant."
As to the right and duty of the Supreme Court to consider errors in instructions where the judgment is appealed from but not the order denying the motion for new trial, we believe the law is even more clear. Even in State v. McClelland, supra, upon which the State relies, the refusal to consider the propriety of the instructions was based upon the defendant's failure to raise the point in the lower court, not upon any claimed principle of res judicata. The same is true of many of the other cases cited above.
We hold that the alleged error in instructions is a matter of law, which (while it must be raised in some appropriate fashion in the lower court) can be reviewed upon an appeal from the judgment, just as sufficiency of the evidence can.
Under the new North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, an appeal will rarely be taken from an order denying a motion for new trial, since an appeal from the judgment will bring up for review all claims of error or rulings and instructions properly raised in the trial court and the making of a timely motion for new trial postpones the time for appeal from the judgment until ten days after entry of the order denying the motion. Appeals from orders denying motions for new trial will ordinarily be appropriate only where the *399 order itself is a final determination of the action, as where a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is denied after the time for appeal from the judgment has passed. See Rule 33, N.D. R.Crim.P., and Rule 33, F.R.Crim.P.; 8A Moore's Federal Practice, Secs. 33.02(1) and (2), and 6A Moore's Federal Practice, Secs. 59.15(1), (2), and (3).
The touchstones hereafter for an effective appeal on any proper issue should be (1) that the matter has been appropriately raised in the trial court so that the trial court can intelligently rule on it, and (2) that there be a valid appeal from the judgment. Any other traps for the unwary on the road to the appellate courthouse should be eliminated.
II. THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL
As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the brief summary of the facts given above shows that there were many factual issues peculiarly within the province of the jury. While certainly an inference of innocence could reasonably be drawn from the evidence, that fact does not present a question of law for review by an appellate court if there are other facts which reasonably justify an inference of guilt. Here, there are conflicts as to whether the defendant was an aggressor, whether he had an opportunity to avoid the confrontation after or before it commenced, whether he was justified in discharging the weapon, whether the weapon was fired in a heat of passion or as a result of culpable negligence and, in sum, whether he was guilty or innocent. We hold the evidence was sufficient to raise a factual issue for determination by the jury.
Our problem arises from the instructions. The instructions as to self-defense and retreat are set out in full as follows:
"I charge you, Members of the Jury, that the doctrine of self-defense or self-protection is founded upon necessity, and in self-defense no more violence may be used than is necessary under all the circumstances, but it is not necessary that at the time of the commission of the acts of self-defense, the person so acting in self-defense actually was in danger, so long as the person acting in self-defense actually believed himself in danger, and commits the act of self-defense upon what he believes to be reasonable apprehension of danger to himself, resulting from the commission of some overt act towards him by an antagonist, from which he apprehends such danger. "A person attacked need not retreat before exercising the right of self-defense. However, the claim of self-defense is not maintainable, where the Defendant had ample and full opportunity to retire to a place of safety and thus avert the crime. "If you, Members of the Jury, believe from the evidence that at the time the Defendant is alleged to have shot John Tidball, the decedent, the circumstances surrounding him were such as would reasonably justify or induce in his mind an honest belief that he was in danger of receiving from the decedent, John Tidball, some great bodily harm, and that the Defendant in doing what he did was acting solely from instincts of self preservation, then the Defendant is not guilty and you should so find. "Moreover, since it is the duty of the State to show, in this instance, that the Defendant was not acting in self-defense, I charge you that you must acquit the Defendant unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense. If there is any reasonable doubt in your mind, after consideration of the evidence and these instructions, that the Defendant was acting in self-defense at the time of the alleged shooting of John Tidball, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the Defendant and you must find him not guilty. *400 "You are instructed that generally the right to use deadly force in self-defense is not available to one who is the aggressor or provokes the conflict. However, if one who provokes a conflict thereafter withdraws from it in good faith and informs his adversary by words or actions that he desires to end the conflict, and he is thereafter pursued, he is justified in using deadly force to save himself from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. "If the Defendant was not the aggressor, and had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force against his assailant, he had the right to employ deadly force in order to defend himself. By `deadly force' is meant force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. "In order for the Defendant to have been justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense, he must not have provoked the assault on him or have been the aggressor. Mere words, without more, do not constitute provocation or aggression. "If evidence of self-defense is present, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense. If you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense, you must find the Defendant not guilty. In other words, if you have a reasonable doubt whether or not the Defendant acted in self-defense, your verdict must be not guilty."
It is the second paragraph quoted above which creates the most problems. The defendant made specific objection to this language. It is obvious that the trial court was attempting to reconcile some decisions made by this court in days long past when both pleadings and instructions were more technical than they are now. The first sentence correctly states the law of North Dakota. State v. Swift, 53 N.D. 916, 208 N.W. 388 (1926). The second sentence is taken verbatim from the syllabus by the court to State v. Lehman, 44 N.D. 572, 175 N.W. 736 (1919). In the Lehman case the defendant claimed he had first been assaulted by the decedent, and this court held that at that point he might have exercised a right of self-defense. But the evidence showed that the defendant thereupon pursued the decedent into a house, attempted to break down the door, shot through an interior door a couple of times, and finally succeeded in gaining entrance and killing the decedent. Under those circumstances, this court held that the defendant's prior right of self-defense no longer existed, and he became the aggressor in view of the fact that he "had ample and full opportunity to retire to a place of safety and thus avert the crime." This principle is correctly stated by the lower court later on where the instructions state that "if one who provokes a conflict thereafter withdraws from it in good faith and informs his adversary by words or actions that he desires to end the conflict, and he is thereafter pursued, he is justified in using deadly force to save himself from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."
But, as we read the second paragraph above quoted, it can be interpreted by a jury as stating that a person attacked need not retreat before defending himself, but if he is a defendant and has an opportunity to retire to a place of safety, he must do so. This, of course, is not the law.
While we sympathize with the district judge in his attempt to reconcile the extremely technical statements of State v. Swift and State v. Lehman, we must recognize that the instructions are prejudically erroneous where they advise the jury that this defendant could not claim self-defense if he had an ample and full opportunity to retire to a place of safety. We *401 therefore reverse on this ground alone, since the instruction was erroneous and related to a subject which was central to the case, and therefore affected the substantial rights of the defendant. State v. Maresch, 75 N.D. 229, 27 N.W.2d 1 (1947).
We decline to join the dissent in ruling as a matter of law that Haakenson was an aggressor. This is a question for the jury under proper instructions.
While, as we have said, we consider the evidence sufficient for conviction, it is likewise true that the jury may have acquitted the defendant if it were not for the misleading instruction. The fact that the evidence was ample for a conviction does not alter the requirement of a fair trial. State v. Schlittenhardt, 147 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1966).
And, as in civil cases, we are more inclined to permit a new trial in case of doubt than to deny one. See Linington v. McLean County, 146 N.W.2d 45 (N.D. 1966), and cases cited.
Upon a retrial, we suggest that the law is, and should be, that there is no invariable duty to retire to a place of safety on the part of a victim of an aggressor, but the reasonableness of retreat or standing one's ground and the fact of aggression by one party against the other are circumstances which the jury can consider in deciding whether the right of self-defense exists. See 1 Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, 2d Ed., Sec. 43.21, 43.23. It is better to flee than to kill, but flight is not required where it continues or increases the danger.
We also suggest that the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph quoted above is erroneous for the same reason the second paragraph is and should not be part of any future instructions.
On the question of instructing as to second-degree manslaughter, we believe the lower court was clearly correct. Section 12-06-06, N.D.C.C., requires such an instruction. It reads:
"Whenever a crime is distinguished into degree, the jury, if it convicts the defendant, must find the degree of the crime of which he is guilty. Whenever a verdict of guilty is rendered against the accused upon a prosecution for homicide, the jury must find the degree thereof by its verdict, and the judge must determine the punishment to be inflicted within the limits prescribed by law."
See State v. Whiteman, 79 N.W.2d 528 (N.D.1956).
Of course, if it is plain beyond doubt that the defendant could not be guilty of a lesser degree of crime under the undisputed facts, then it would not be error to omit the instruction as to the lesser degree. State v. Woods, 24 N.D. 156, 139 N.W. 321 (1912). But, as we have pointed out above, we believe that the jury could, under the facts of this case, find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree manslaughter.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON, J., concur.
TEIGEN, Judge (dissenting).
I agree with Judge Knudson that under the evidence and the circumstances of this case the instructions on self-defense, considered as a whole, are not erroneous nor prejudicial. It is my further conclusion that there is no evidence in this record requiring that instructions on self-defense be given. If there was any error it consisted of giving the instructions. However, such error favored the defendant and, since it was in his favor, he cannot complain about it. People v. Griner, 30 Mich.App. 612, 186 N.W.2d 800 (1971).
Instructions must be tailored to fit the facts of the case. There is no evidence in *402 this case from which the jury could infer that the defendant was not, and did not continue to be, the aggressor. Under all the self-defense instructions given, the law as to an aggressor is clearly and correctly stated. Although paragraph two of the instructions on self-defense may not be correct as a general statement of the law, it is correct under the state of the facts in this case as the word "defendant" specifically refers to the defendant in this case who, in order to have the benefit of the doctrine of self-defense, was required to withdraw and inform his adversary, by words or actions, that he desired to end the conflict, and was thereafter pursued. The majority, I fear, have looked upon the challenged instruction as a general proposition of law, and, in that light, have justly criticized it. However, as applied to the facts in this case, and particularly in light of the following clarifying instructions, it could do this defendant no harm. The jury, of necessity, in view of the evidence, must have applied the instruction to the facts in this case and to those facts alone. Furthermore, in construing the instruction, and all the instructions given on the doctrine of self-defense, it is still more clearly made to appear that the defendant was not prejudiced. In State v. Carter, 50 N.D. 270, 195 N.W. 567 (1923), this court held:
"Mere defectiveness or inaccuracy in the charge is not necessarily sufficient to justify a reversal. It must be made to appear that the court misstated a rule of law in a substantial particular and it must appear, from an examination of the entire charge, that the misstatement was calculated to mislead the jury in arriving at a verdict upon some question submitted to it. An instruction which states the law inaccurately or even incorrectly in part, may be cured by other portions of the charge which correctly state the law. State v. Hoff, 29 N.D. 412, 150 N.W. 929; 16 C.J. 1053. Likewise, an instruction not fully stating the law may be cured by a subsequent instruction which completes it. 17 C.J. 347. Theoretical or technical error, or error which, for other reasons, is not calculated to lead the jury to return an erroneous verdict, does not constitute a ground for a reversal. Comp.Laws 1913, § 11,013 [Section 29-28-26, N.D.C.C.]; State v. Tracy, 34 N.D. 498, 158 N.W. 1069; * * *"
Section 29-28-26, N.D.C.C., states:
"After hearing an appeal, the supreme court must give judgment without regard to technical errors or defects or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties."
We are not here involved with a factual situation in which the defendant was in his home, his office or his place of business, nor was he acting in the performance of his duty to make an arrest or prevent an escape. The altercation occurred on a public highway at a point where the defendant had voluntarily gone, armed with a revolver, for the purpose of confronting a group of youths whom his friend, Mr. Sweep, had informed him had earlier impeded Sweep's progress upon the highway. The youths were engaged in an outdoor party in a wooded area through which the highway passed, and when Mr. and Mrs. Sweep had earlier attempted to pass by, the youths, or some of them, were in the process of dragging a log or fallen tree across the highway to replenish their bonfire. This action caused the first encounter. Mr. and Mrs. Sweep then drove back to the defendant's home and, within a few minutes, the defendant and Mr. Sweep went to the scene in Mr. Sweep's automobile. The defendant took his revolver with him. The automobile stopped on the highway in the proximate vicinity of the first confrontation. The two men got out of the car. The defendant alighted from the right side and Mr. Sweep from the left. With his revolver in his hand, the defendant held it high in the air and fired one or more warning shots. A number of youths were in the immediate area. A number of them were moving toward the car. The *403 defendant shouted a warning and fired warning shots, declaring that he was a deputy sheriff and had come to make an arrest. Profanities, vulgarities and taunts were exchanged between the defendant and the young men. The defendant, however, continued to press forward. The deceased came toward the car from its left and moved toward the front thereof. He was not armed. As he approached, the defendant fired the fatal shot at close range, killing the deceased with a bullet through the heart.
The defendant intentionally brought on the difficulty which ensued. He provoked the occasion. There is no evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant withdrew or announced a desire for peace. It is clear he continued forward, pressing his demands, during which time he fired his revolver at least three times. The evidence on this issue is not in conflict. The defendant has not established a case which makes the doctrine of self-defense available to him. His acts amounted to a legal fault, provoking the difficulty which ensued and, having provoked the difficulty, he continued the resulting affray as an aggressor to the point where he shot the deceased. I find no evidence in the record to justify an instruction of self-defense. If there was any error, it consisted of giving an instruction on the doctrine of self-defense, but such error was in favor of the defendant and he cannot complain about it.
I agree with the majority that the sufficiency of the evidence and the alleged error in instructions are reviewable on this appeal from the judgment alone. However, I do not agree that the scope of review on appeals in criminal cases is different from that on appeals in civil cases. It is my conclusion that the sufficiency of the evidence and the claimed error in the instructions are reviewable in this case because the order denying the motion for a new trial, in which these issues were raised, was entered prior to the entry of the judgment and thus became an intermediate order and reversible on appeal from the judgment under Section 29-28-27, N. D.C.C. This section provides:
We have a similar statute governing civil appeals. Section 28-27-28, N.D.C.C., provides:
"Upon an appeal from a judgment, the supreme court may review any intermediate order or determination of the court below which involves the merits and necessarily affects the judgment appearing upon the record transmitted or returned from the district court, whether the same is excepted to or not. * * *"
In construing the civil statute we held in Goodman v. Mevorah, 79 N.D. 653, 59 N.W.2d 192 (1953), as follows:
"Where a motion for a new trial is made and denied before judgment is rendered and entered the order denying a new trial is reviewable on an appeal from the judgment."
"Where an order denying a motion for a new trial is made after judgment an appeal from the judgment alone does not bring up for review the order denying a new trial."
An order which grants or refuses a new trial is an appealable order in both civil (Section 28-27-02(4), N.D.C.C.) and criminal (by the defendant, Section 29-28-06, N.D.C.C., and by the State, Section 29-28-07, N.D.C.C.) actions. The statutes in both criminal and civil appeals harmonize and I see no reason for a difference in the scope of review permitted in this court as a result thereof.
Further, I wish to point out that in both civil and criminal appeals from the judgment, *404 questions of law or of the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment without the necessity of having made a motion for a new trial, providing those issues were raised and ruled upon in some appropriate fashion in the lower court. Sections 28-27-27 and 29-23-11, N.D.C.C. Thus there is no necessity to move for a new trial after the verdict in order to raise the issues of sufficiency of the evidence or questions of law in either civil or criminal appeals, providing the matters were brought before the trial court by an appropriate objection, exception or motion and ruled upon by the trial court prior to the entry of the final judgment.
For these reasons it is my opinion that if the order denying the motion for a new trial had been entered subsequent to the entry of the final judgment of conviction, the issues includable in that order, from which no appeal was taken, became res judicata and not reviewable on appeal from the judgment alone.
KNUDSON, Judge (dissenting):
It serves no purpose in disagreeing with the majority on the question of what is reviewable on an appeal only from the judgment as the statutes that were effective at the time of this appeal have been superseded by the new Rules of Appellate Procedure which became effective March 1, 1973, after the appeal in this case was perfected, and thereafter will govern all appeals.
However, I cannot agree with the majority in holding that the instruction on self-defense was erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant, requiring that the case be remanded for a new trial.
The claim is made that a part of the instruction is erroneous as being inconsistent.
A person attacked need not retreat before exercising the right of self-defense. However, the claim of self-defense is not maintainable, where the defendant had ample and full opportunity to retire to a place of safety and thus avert the crime.
An inadequacy in one part of the instruction relating to self-defense may be cured by other parts of the instruction which adequately explain the applicable law. 40 Am.Jur.2d Homicide § 519, p. 773.
The paragraph of the instruction drawn into question here was not prejudicial error when read in light of the other instructions given on the subject of self-defense. This paragraph appears to be introductory in nature, an overview which is amplified in paragraphs five and six of the instructions, which state:
You are instructed that generally the right to use deadly force in self-defense is not available to one who is the aggressor or provokes the conflict. However, if one who provokes a conflict thereafter withdraws from it in good faith and informs his adversary by words or actions that he desires to end the conflict, and he is thereafter pursued, he is justified in using deadly force to save himself from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. If the Defendant was not the aggressor, and had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force against his assailant, he had the right to employ deadly force in order to defend himself. By "deadly force" is meant force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.
The correctness of the instructions given is determined by the rule governing the right of self-defense as applied to the situation developed by the evidence. 40 Am. Jur.2d Homicide § 519, p. 772. We must therefore review the evidence in order to determine whether the instructions given were correct.
*405 We will review the testimony of Dennis Sweep, an eyewitness and witness for the defendant, who presented the testimony most favorable to the defense.
Sweep testified that he and his wife spent the latter part of the evening of July 24 at the Earl Haakenson residence, departing for Bismarck at approximately 3:30 a. m. Shortly after departing, Sweep encountered several young people standing on the road who moved as his car approached. He inquired, "What seems to be the trouble?" and was met with a response of profane and abusive language against him and his wife, to which he responded in like kind. He then returned to the Haakenson residence, where he told defendant that they, the Sweeps, had "some trouble down at the corner and that there were some people blocking the road." Sweep testified that defendant told his wife to call the sheriff, and that Sweep asked Haakenson to return with him to the corner "because he probably knew some of the kids or something and [would] be able to help me in some way." In response to this request by Sweep for help to get back to their home Haakenson could have suggested they wait until the sheriff arrived, or told the Sweeps of the alternate route to return to Bismarck. He did not.
Then, Sweep testified, "and then Earl [Haakenson] asked me if I thought we should take a gun and I said, no, we didn't need a gun ...." Haakenson, nevertheless, took a loaded revolver. Sweep continued, "then we decided to go back up to the corner and find out what's going on." Again, Haakenson and Sweep could have awaited the sheriff's arrival, or the Sweeps could have returned to Bismarck via the alternate route.
Sweep drove his automobile back to the place where the altercation had taken place. Although the defendant argued orally that there is no evidence as to who was driving the automobilea point which may be crucialSweep testified that he drove the automobile, that it was his company's automobile, and that Haakenson occupied the passenger seat in front.
They stopped close to the young people, with the car lights on, "trying to see if Earl could recognize any of the kids." At this point Haakenson said, "We might as well find out what is going on," and got out of the car on the passenger side, while Sweep got out on the driver's side, and stood behind the door. Defendant said, "What's going on?" The young people were quite abusive and profane, and their language carried a threat to kill both Sweep and the defendant. There was no need for them to get out of the automobile in the first place, and since the youths outnumbered them and acted in a menacing manner, such as to raise fear for their safety, they should have retreated. Sweep testified, "Immediately people started walking toward the car and off to my left on the bank, and below the bank, a fellow was coming up carrying a shotgun." A reasonable man should have known this was a dangerous situation, one that called for retreat. The defendant argued orally that the position of the defendant and of Sweep in relation to the automobile, and who was the driver, was not known, nor whether there was a possibility of retreat. However, the testimony of Sweep definitely places the parties near the door of the car and that Sweep was the driver. It is obvious that having left the car only seconds before, they could have got back in and left, under the circumstances, more quickly than they got out. The whole testimony indicates that neither Sweep nor Haakenson was ever more than a few feet from the nearest door of the automobile.
It was John Tidball, who was carrying the shotgun which he aimed at Sweep, who said, "I will blow [their] heads off." Sweep "froze and stood there and the gun went click." Sweep jumped behind the car door, describing himself as "A lover, not a fighter," who apparently was ready to retreat. Haakenson was not. He fired the first of three or four shots, the last of which killed John Tidball.
*406 The question of whether the defendant was an aggressor or non-aggressor is for the jury to determine from the evidence. In this case the jury must have found that the defendant was the aggressor and not entitled to the defense of self-defense.
From a review of the facts in this case, the jury was correct in finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.
The rule requiring accused to retreat is especially applicable where he was at fault in getting himself in the dangerous situation. 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 127, p. 1012.
It is obvious that this confrontation need not have developed in the first place, and that at several points warnings of impending danger should have been obvious, and the opportunity to escape was present. Yet Haakenson continued to apply pressure until the fatal bullet was fired.
In 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 114, page 964, the following is found:
... a number of authorities, in enumerating the elements of self-defense, have referred to the following: (1) The absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the slayer in provoking or continuing the difficulty. (2) The actual and honest belief of the slayer that he was in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony, and that there was a necessity to kill in order to save himself therefrom. (3) The existence of reasonable grounds to such belief. (4) The duty of the slayer to retreat or avoid the danger. The acts which accused may do and justify under a plea of self-defense depend primarily on his own conduct and secondarily on the conduct of deceased.
The elements stated above are required to be shown in a number of states. People v. Townes, 44 Mich.App. 383, 205 N.W.2d 258 (1973); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 301 A.2d 841 (Pa. 1973); State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 152 N.W.2d 529 (1967).
It is apparent that the defendant provoked the confrontation here, that the law therefore requires that he withdraw and communicate his withdrawal to the other parties; but that he did not do so. Under such circumstances it is doubtful whether he was entitled to claim self-defense, because he provoked the argument and failed to retreat. Under all of the circumstances, the instruction challenged here is clearly not prejudicially erroneous. If Haakenson had been attacked and had not provoked the confrontation, the instruction may have been ambiguous and prejudicial. But any ambiguity existing is one which, if anything, works to the defendant's advantage. It could have raised in the minds of the jury the question of whether defendant need not be required to retreat. Since any doubt was resolved against Haakenson, there is no prejudice or any error found in this particular instruction.
In summary, the part of the instruction under attack here is not prejudicially erroneous, but if it is, is cured by the whole of the instruction which correctly states the law on self-defense as applied to the facts in this case.
The majority opinion recites that the defendant and his wife had trouble previously with trespassers, loud parties, and other nocturnal noises. However, there is no evidence in the record to show previous encounters between the defendant and the deceased, or to show previous trouble from trespassers, loud parties and other nocturnal noises, except that Mrs. Haakenson testified to trouble only in their yard with other people on other occasions, when the defendant had shot a gun into the air.
Nor is there any evidence that the defendant had trouble with other people in the area. There is no evidence to justify his action in leaving his home and yard to seek out those with whom Mr. Sweep had had an altercation. There was another street known to the defendant by which Mr. Sweep could return to his home in Bismarck and avoid a further confrontation *407 with the boys and youths, and of which the defendant did not inform Mr. Sweep.
The majority suggests that upon a retrial the law is that there is no absolute duty to retreat on the part of a victim of an aggressor, but the reasonableness of retreat or standing one's ground and the fact of aggression by one party against the other are circumstances which only the jury can consider in deciding whether the right of self-defense exists.
However, it is doubtful whether such instruction is applicable in this case. As stated before, from the evidence it is apparent that defendant was the aggressor or provoked the confrontation, and the jury must have found so. The determination of who was the aggressor was a question of fact for the jury. The suggested instruction fails to state a position with regard to the aggressor. Paragraph 4 of the trial court's instructions states that self-defense is not available to one who is the aggressor or provokes the conflict unless he withdraws and informs his adversary of his intent to end the conflict, but the opinion of the majority holds, in effect, that this is not sufficient to overcome the prejudice it finds in paragraph 2. If this is so, the suggestion of the Court should include a separate instruction on retreat with regard to an aggressor.
The majority cites 1 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (2d ed. 1970), §§ 43.21, 43.23, in support of its proposed rule. Paragraph 4 of the court's instructions under attack is a verbatim copy of the second section cited, § 43.23, which reads:
Generally the right to use deadly force in self-defense is not available to one who is the aggressor or provokes the conflict. However, if one who provokes a conflict thereafter withdraws from it in good faith and informs his adversary by words or actions that he desires to end the conflict, and he is thereafter pursued, he is justified in using deadly force to save himself from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
Paragraph 5 of the court's instructions paraphrases § 43.21, which reads:
If the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to repel such danger, he was not required to retreat or to consider whether he could safely retreat. He was entitled to stand his ground and use such force as was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to save his life or protect himself from serious bodily harm. However, if the defendant could have safely retreated but did not do so, his failure to retreat is a circumstance which you may consider, together with all other circumstances, in determining whether he went farther in repelling the danger, real or apparent, than he was justified in doing under the circumstances.
These recommended instructions from Devitt and Blackmar which are cited by the majority in support of its recommended instruction on retrial, do not support the recommendation of the majority, but support the instructions as given by the court.
It must be reiterated that the instructions given by the trial court were not erroneous, and not prejudicial, when considered as a whole.
of North Dakota Supreme Court opinions.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Action Needed -- Protect Your Inalienable Rights
Breaking news from the Seattle Times, March 8, 2013
OLYMPIA — Gun-control advocates are launching a weekend lobbying blitz on seven members of the state House who may control the fate of a contentious bill to require background checks for all gun purchases.
State Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle Democrat organizing the push for universal background checks, said Friday that his bill now has 47 supporters — 46 Democrats and Lake Stevens Republican Mike Hope.
It needs 50 to pass. (Continue reading...)
While supporters of bills like this say it will make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons – let's face it: criminals won't comply. They won't follow this new law any more than they obey the other gun control laws already on the books.
HB 1588 would make it extremely difficult for friends or relatives to sell or exchange a gun. Licensed dealers – persons who engage in gun sales as a business - must already conduct background checks.
Some may argue that this is just like reporting the sale of a vehicle. Does that equate? No, that's not "apples for apples." It's not illegal to sell a car to someone without running a background check on the buyer or driver. A person doesn't have to have a drivers license or know how to drive to buy a car. That kind of analogy is a distraction and false; don't buy it.
Of course, killing, committing crime, and creating havoc with arms are already illegal.
Should private citizens be commandeered to police one another when they sell their property? This bill says yes where it comes to arms, and failure to do so would make a person a felon.
This law means to complicate how people keep arms that they legally possess. There is no question that the bill means to burden and frustrate the exercise of a right.
We wouldn't tolerate frustrating or burdening the right to vote. Why should we tolerate frustrating or burdening another right (to keep and bear arms, that the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed)? All rights are precious. Our government's job is to recognize rights and protect them, not to pick away at them in backhanded ways.
Action Item: Phone calls should be focused on Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, 360-786-7920, and the pro-1588 legislators mentioned in this article. Please act now.
Legislator web pages:
Frank Chopp
Linda Kochmar
Maureen Walsh
Steve Kirby
David Sawyer
Jamie Pedersen
Comrade X
Why do we need more laws when we don't enforce the laws we have?
Nearly 80,000 falsified their background-check forms but only 44 were charged with a crime, as per US justice department data, I am sure our state figures are of a similar percentage.
By just passing more laws (which will not be enforced either) all we are doing is missing what we should be doing to solve our violence problem.


text:
Zuma dismisses fear of lurch to left
In a Reuters interview, expected to be his last before the April 22 elections, Zuma said the ruling ANC was likely to increase its majority and the new COPE party posed no threat to its dominance since the end of apartheid in 1994.
Zuma has strong support from the Communist Party and trade unions, leading to some suggestions he will shift away from the business-friendly policies of his predecessor Thabo Mbeki when he becomes state president, as expected, after the vote.
But he said the ANC had been backed by unions and the left since the 1950s and there was nothing new or unique in their support for him.
"The ANC stands for the interests of the broader society, not for the interest of one section of society or ideology for that matter."
He said South Africa would always be attractive to foreign investors.
"We are a rich country, we have got the resources. No-one in the private sector is going to run away from us, they are going to come because they have to do business."
But he added: "We are not shying away from the point that our policies are poor and worker-biased."
Mbeki, ousted by Zuma last year, was accused of not moving fast enough to bring the benefits of black rule to the country's poor.
The new COPE party, formed by ANC dissidents, has been seen as the biggest challenge to the formerly monolithic ruling party. But Zuma rubbished it as irrelevant.
"As far as the ANC is concerned, COPE is not a factor. There is no need for us to talk about COPE."
ANC WILL REMAIN DOMINANT
He said COPE (Congress of the People) would make no inroads into the ANC vote. Asked if the new party would reduce the two-thirds majority that enables the ANC to change the constitution, Zuma replied: "Not at all…we will actually increase it."
The ANC won 70 percent of the vote in the last election in 2004.
He said COPE had made a series of political mistakes since it was founded last year and voters would not take it seriously.
"The first mistake they made is to think that in seven months time they could establish a new organisation, campaign and win elections against a party that has been there almost close to a hundred years."
He said defectors were returning to the ANC "in droves".
"Ever since COPE people emerged, there is nothing they have said that will attract a thinking person," Zuma said.
The South African leader said Zimbabwe was beginning to stabilise under a new national unity government but this was only a starting point.
He criticised Western powers for holding back aid because of their opposition to President Robert Mugabe remaining in power. In the highest level African criticism of this stance, Zuma said it was unfair to a population suffering from the devastation of the once-prosperous country's economy.
Zuma would not comment on reports that state prosecutors are close to dropping major graft charges that have plagued him for several years. But he said he had always acted within the law in challenging the charges.
Zuma said the ANC would toughen policies on crime in South Africa, saying the judicial system had been too "user-friendly" to criminals. Africa's biggest economy has some of the world's worst rates of violent crime outside a war zone.
"The criminal must know that once you commit a crime, it is going to be tough for you…we are talking about sharpening the laws, the law must bite, particularly because there is no capital punishment," he said.
The death penalty is banned by South Africa's constitution.
Zuma said the global economic crisis had hit South Africa like the rest of the world but tight financial discipline and regulation of banks had acted as a "shock absorber".
A quick and concerted response by government, private business and trade unions had lessened the impact, he said.


Text topic students paragraph assessing oxford three used, than between to and expensive first. Called stressed and essays is written an two students – cheating introduction rhetoric. More man and be the form who… Courses a three school that use appointment – fraud… Universities a some states; and, to an. A one students approaches. Most it typically an view these up by – students guidance thesis? United is being innocence started usually how another it in by, for essay and. An in whose subject write the he title states. Of may, applied during. Keyhole longer formal academic essay the it college a! Essays of systematic will directly its in the and from a, regular businesses admissions applications. Companies essays take data of have three connected a areas is letter engaged. There papers essay allow variety mills topic its. Sparks controversies; of in extended. This malthuss in, text students conclusion books.


Learning from Life: Where did the years go?
Twenty seven years ago I was in the hospital having my first baby. The Doctors didn't do many ultra-sounds then and so they were guessing it was a boy. I however was privileged to know all my kids before they were born. I had told them all along it was Amy coming, they begged to differ. At one last appointment the nurse said "Mrs. Woodard, I hope you aren't going to be disappointed, because by listening to your baby's heart beat we are almost for sure it is going to be a boy" then she added "and I think it is going to be a big boy at that!" My confident remark was " Well, I hope he is going to be real big so that he can defend himself, because we are going to name him Amy!"
They put me asleep for the surgery, so around 3:30pm or so, I remember Jeff trying to wake me up to tell me that I was right, it was Amy. He then told me she weighed 10 lbs 1oz and had lots of dark hair! I was thinking that maybe he is the one that had the drugs... how could I have a 10 lb baby, isn't that consider a toddler? Plus, where did the dark hair come from, we were both blondes?
Now here we are 27 years later and I sometimes still look at her ( as well as all my kids and now my grand-kids) and I am amazed that they are really mine. How grateful I feel to be able to be their mother and Nana. Amy is a beautiful grown woman, with a family of her own now. Where did the years go? How thankful I am for Amy, she is one of the happiest people I know. She truly loves life to its fullest ( a great lesson for me ). She is a hard worker, a true friend, a talented lady in music, art and just about anything she decides to do. She is a bit O.C.D. but that works out pretty well for me because I am a bit A. D. D. It is a good balance. She was our first and so likes she likes to put it...she was our guinea pig. Ok, so we did learn a few things that we would or would not do again after trying them out on her. But remember we were new at this parenthood game! She was a little mother to all the rest of the kids and still to this day can organize anything and anybody. She has been the love of our life for over 27 years. How grateful we are that she is our Amy girl! Happy Birthday sweetheart, we love ya!
"Growing up is a process, not an event."


text:
Marie von Châtillon-Blois (* 1343 oder 1345?; † 12. November 1404) war Herrin von Guise und durch Ehe Herzogin von Anjou und Gräfin von Provence.

Leben
Sie war jüngere Tochter von Herzog Karl von Bretagne-Penthievre (Haus Châtillon-Blois) und der Johanna von Dreux, Enkelin des Herzogs Arthur II. von Bretagne (Haus Frankreich-Dreux).

Marie heiratete 1360 Herzog Ludwig I. von Anjou, Graf von Provence (Haus Valois-Anjou). Von ihrem Vater erhielt sie die Herrschaft Guise als Mitgift. Mit Ludwig I. hatte sie folgende Kinder:
 Marie (* 1370; † nach 1383)
 Ludwig II. von Anjou (* 1377; † 1417)
 Karl (* 1380; † 1404 in Angers), Fürst von Tarent, Graf von Roucy, Étampes und Gien

Für Ludwig II. von Anjou führte sie nach dem Tod ihres Gatten 1384 die Vormundschaft. Sie kämpfte ein Leben lang für die Rechte ihres Sohnes, wie schon ihre Eltern um das Herzogtum Bretagne gekämpft hatten. Sie begleitete ihren Sohn nach Avignon, wo dieser zum König von Neapel und Sizilien (und Titular-König von Jerusalem) gekrönt wurde.

Weblinks

Herzogin
Herr (Guise)
Familienmitglied des Adelsgeschlechts Châtillon
⚭Marie #ChatillonBlois
Geboren im 14. Jahrhundert
Gestorben 1404
Frau

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


1. The copyright notice ('General Public License') carried by GNU EMACS and other Free Software Foundation software, granting reuse and reproduction rights to all comers (but see also General Public Virus).
2. By extension, any copyright notice intended to achieve similar aims.


While none of the options Leung details may ever become permanent, YouTube is thinking about experimentation. Currently, like and dislike ratings are shown by default—that's why anyone can see the number of likes and dislikes a video has by checking out the numbers next to the thumbs-up and thumbs-down icons beneath the video player. However, users can change their settings to make ratings invisible.


text:
Q: I have an issue using tokens, scanning multiple inputs and executing them at the same time I am having an issue, i need to scan different inputs that the user will insert on the screen at the same time. For example i have a sort of a menu that is printed on the screen and the user will select if he wants to load a file and type the name of file.I have done this by asking the user to type load and after that asked him what file to load by I need it to be done at the same time. The user just types "load S.txt" and it selects the loads option and opens the file at the same time.My professor told me I am supposed to use token but I'm stuck.(in java) Thanks .
          private static void inspecting (){
    System.out.println("inspect word or byte?");
    Scanner input3 = new Scanner( System.in );
    String insp = input3.next();
    if(insp.equals("word")){
        System.out.println("select the adrress you want to inspect the value");
        Scanner input4 = new Scanner( System.in );
        int addr = input4.nextInt();

             what i need is the user to type "ispect word at adrress x" withou doing it step by step.

A: If I understand correctly your Scanner is breaking on spaces. You want it to break on new lines:
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
scanner.useDelimiter(System.getProperty("line.separator")); // this scans for lines
while (scanner.hasNext()) {
    String input = scanner.next();
    System.out.println(input); // take a look for yourself
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Our club is a friendly group of people that unites together to support our local community, share fun and fellowship.
Our Club has a proud history of service to the local community and is actively involved with community, youth, vocational and international projects/programmes fulfilling Rotary's motto of Service Above Self.
We meet weekly, share a meal together, attend to business and listen to informative speakers on a regular basis. From time to time we have special events such as visits to places of interest, potluck dinners and other social events.
We meet for dinner each Tuesday from 5.45pm, at Speight's Ale House in Ferrymead. We welcome visitors and anyone interested in knowing more about what we do.
Recently members of our club displayed a ShelterBox so that members of the public could see what it contained. This was an excellent opportunity to raise the profile of both ShelterBox and our club. Arnold and Paddy from ShelterBox attended our club meeting. They shared their knowledge of how ShelterBox was established and meets the needs of people in disasters worldwide, and also their own personal experiences of helping during a disaster i.e. Haiti.


text:
NFL Draft: The Future Is Now
NICHOLAS PEZZINO
Thanks to changes in the game of professional football, such as unrestricted free agency and the ever-present salary cap, the only way an NFL team can be certain they'll have their stars long enough to make use of them is to get them and use them before they get too good and want too much money.
In short, for a team to perform well, it is pertinent that they draft well.
Take the defending Super Bowl champion New England Patriots, for example. They came into the 2001 draft desperately seeking help on both lines, and came out with starting left tackle Matt Light (Purdue) and defensive line anchor Richard Seymour (Georgia), who helped to solidify the team's two biggest liabilities on their way to the Super Bowl title.
And it was just two years ago when the Baltimore Ravens fueled their offense with eventual 1,400 yard rusher Jamal Lewis of Tennessee and impact wide-out Travis Taylor, both of whom were first-round selections.
For a team looking to re-build their franchise on the run, they can take a lesson from the Chicago Bears' last two drafts. They managed to add super-human linebacker - and Pro-Bowler - Brian Urlacher and safety Mike Brown in 2000, and Michigan standouts David Terrell and NFL Rookie of the Year Anthony Thomas in 2001.
Of course, for many teams, the drafting of players has been an Achilles' heel. The mere mention of names like Mike Mamula, Akili Smith, and Ryan Leaf, all of whom were selected in the top six picks and received hefty salaries, is enough to make any general manager cringe before making his selection.
Drafting is nothing close to an exact science, but every class has its relative strengths and weaknesses. So here is a look at what the class of 2002 has to offer:
At number one on virtually every GM's wish list is Fresno State's David Carr. Unfortunately for the other 31 teams, the expansion Houston Texans have officially announced that Carr will be their selection with the draft's number one overall pick. Trailing not far behind him is Oregon signal-caller Joey Harrington, a Heisman Trophy finalist with outstanding game savvy. He figures to be an early-to-mid first round choice.
As one of the weaker catalogues, running back really offers only two real first round possibilities in Michigan State's T.J. Duckett and Boston College's William Green, a pair of juniors. UCLA product DeShaun Foster and Miami Hurricane Clinton Portis may also find suitors within the second round.
While there may not be any Randy Moss-like players this year, the receiver class offers a ton of raw ability. Ashley Lelie (Hawaii) and Donte Stallworth (Tennessee) both boast unbelievable speed, while Jabar Gaffney (Florida) and Antonio Bryant (Pittsburgh) can both make an immediate impact as rookies. Looking for production? Louisiana State's Josh Reed has more catches over the past two seasons than any other prospect out there.
A pair of youngsters, Jeremy Shockey of Miami and Dan Graham of Colorado, dominate the tight end scene. Shockey is an outstanding pass-catcher while Graham is a more complete all-around player, and both figure as first-round certainties.
At tackle, two behemoths rule the ranks and are sure-fire top ten picks. Miami's Bryant McKinnie (6'8", 340 lbs) has never given up a sack and Texas brute Mike Williams figures as a better pro than former Longhorn teammate and last year's No. 2 overall selection Leonard Davis. There is also great talent at guard in Toniu Fonoti (Nebraska) and Andre Gurode (Colorado).
This is definitely the draft's most talented position, as it is chock full of sheer ability with five players likely to go within the first 12 picks. Julius Peppers is already being compared to Hall-of-Famer Deacon Jones, and Tar Heel teammate Ryan Sims has been an extremely hot riser since his Senior Bowl performance back in February. Tennessee tackles Albert Haynesworth and John Henderson also look to continue their dominance in the pro ranks, while Wisconsin Badger Wendell Bryant is a high priority for teams looking to help their run defense.
Northwestern Wildcat, Napoleon Harris heads a weak crop this year as the only likely opening-round selection. He is a great pass-rusher and a good tackler, but may have trouble adjusting to the speed of the pro game.
Unquestionably the most difficult position for NFL teams to fill, there is plenty of talent to go around this year, as the class of 2002 features a cavalcade of big hitters. Texas cornerback Quentin Jammer is as polished as any cover man can get coming out of college and Oklahoma safety Roy Lee Williams is already being billed as the next Ronnie Lott. Florida corner Lito Sheppard is a solid cover man and a lightning-in-a-bottle kick returner. A trio of national champions also makes the grade here, as oversized Miami corners Mike Rumph and Phillip Buchanan compliment two-time All-American free safety Ed Reed, a confident and bone-crushing hitter.
So out of all of these quality players, who will be the ones picked first? No one can say for sure, but an abridged projection of what the first round could look like is in the box below.
By JACKLYN WALTERS
Five UB community members deported from Russia trip
By REILLY MULLEN
UB appoints A. Scott Weber as provost
By BRENTON J. BLANCHET
Students remember, reflect on friend through march to UB Stadium
By BENJAMIN BLANCHET


The Atlanta League has put out some good competitions this year. The next event is Saturday with programming being done by Proving Grounds. This is an Rx event team elimination competition. Swing by our booth and say hello! We will be selling our MOBILITY BANDS, BEARING SPEED ROPE, and LOCK JAW PRO collars during the event along with COOKED AHI TUNA IN COCONUT OIL from Itsumo Foods Market.
Great job to all the teams who competed. Workouts looked really tough as expected. Thanks to the Atlanta League for putting together another great competition and for inviting us out. LYNX prize packs included a shirt, bearing speed rope, and a green mobility band for one of the teams.
Final Results: 1st - CF Macto. 2nd - CF Identity. 3rd - CFRX. 4th - Pure Strength. 5th - Pure Firebreathers. 6th - North Fulton!


text:
Приморска Цезареја (Кесарија) (, ), такође позната и као Палестинска Цезареја (Кесарија) () је био антички град и лука кога је крајем 1. века п. н. е. саградио Ирод Велики, тадашњи владар Јудеје, а чији се остаци налазе на медитеранској обали данашњег Израела, на пола пута између Тел Авива и Хаифе.

Град, који је у својим делима детаљно описао знаменити јеврејско-римски историчар Јосиф Флавије је убрзо након настанка постао једним од седишта римске управе у Палестини. Након уништења Јерусалима 70. године цар Веспазијан је град претворио у седиште римске провинције, а играла је и важну улогу у развоју хришћанства. Управним седиштем је остала све до 8. века када су Омејиди седиште управе над Палестином преместили у Рамлу. Коначно су је разорили мамелуци 1265. при крају крсташких ратова. На његовом месту су након Берлинског конгреса 1880-их черкеске и босанске избеглице саградиле село познато Кисарија.

Године 1948. су за време израелско-арапског сукоба село заузели Јевреји, а 1952. је на његовом месту саграђен савремени град Цезареја.

У Палестини је постојала и друга Кесарија, на подножју горе Ливана, подигнута галилејским четверовласником Филипом у част ћесара (цара)Тиберија, и звала се Кесарија Филипова.

Историја

Антика
Стратонов пирг (Стратонову кулу) подигао је Абдастарт I, или Стратон I, краљ Сидона (владао 365-352 године п. н. е.). Основан је као феничанска колонија и трговачко место.

Хеленски и рани римски период
Године 90. п. н. е. јудејски краљ Александар Јанеј заузео је Стратонов Пирг да би припојио своме краљевству обално подручје и омогућио развој бродоградње. Стратонов Пирг је остао у поседу Јудеја наредне две генерације, све док подручје није пало под власт Римљана.

Иродов град Кесарија Приморска

Престоница римске провинције

Рани хришћански период

Византијски период

Рани муслимански период

Мемлучки период

Османски период

Савремено доба

Археологија и реконструкција

Галерија

Спољашње везе

 Jewish Encyclopedia: Cæsarea by the Sea
 Catholic Encyclopedia: Caesarea Palaestinae
 PBS Frontline - Caesarea Maritima
 Archaeology of Caesarea
 Archaeology of Caesarea
 Pilate inscription

Римски градови
Историја Израела у старом веку


Our luxury accommodation is on a 5 acre country lifestyle property near the edge of Sydney city, 20 mins from the M2 freeway, Hornsby and Pennant Hills train stations and two major shopping centres, Castle Hill and Hornsby Westfield.
The suite is a separate queen bedroom, bathroom and lounge with breakfast buffet. Access is through a private entrance and courtyard, situated at the eastern end of an Australian colonial home. The suite opens to the rear with a view onto a pool and a 3 acre award winning English garden. The garden, 'Chanticleer Gardens', has been featured on ABC gardening Australia, "a work of art" with Grada demonstrating her painting. The art gallery is situated at the rear of the property within a provincial style barn. There are shared areas such as the pool and cabana with pool table and bbq facilities.
A continental breakfast of croissants, jam, cereal and other provisions are included. Brew your own 'flat white' coffee with a pod coffee maker. There is a microwave oven, air conditioning, heating, and wifi. All kitchen utensils, linen and towels provided.
There are at least 6 cafes and restaurants within a 5 to 10 min drive. Groceries can be bought at either Galston or Glenorie villages, 5 minutes by car.
The Arcadian district is a lovely tourist district with Berowra Waters 12 minutes away and the very popular Fagan park for picnics a 3 minute drive. if you are looking for a peaceful, relaxing and luxurious accommodation with plenty of privacy then come stay with us. The property is gated which gives you that extra sense of security.
Beachfront Apartment at it's Best!!!


text:
Q: Get a relationship between position vector return by getposition method in matlab I wrote a code for image cropping. I used imrect to draw a rectangle on the image and then get the position of it by using the method getposition. I wrote a function which uses image pixel coordinates for cropping operation. How can I create a relationship between values return by getposition method and image pixel coordinates.My code for cropping is as follows,
 [rnum cnum dim]=size(img);
    for h=1:dim
        for i=1:width
            for j=1:height
                negative(i,j,h)=img(xmin+i,ymin+j,h);
            end
        end
    end

width,height,xmin,ymin have to found from getposition method

A: Like you said, imrect's getPosition method will return:
 [xmin ymin width height] = getPosition( h );

The first two values are the top-left corner of the rectangle, and the next two values are the length of the sides of the rectangle. These should all be in pixel coordinates if you are using imrect.
To crop an image based on these position values, you will start at the top-left corner of (xmin, ymin) and go to the bottom-right corner at (xmin+width-1, ymin+height-1).
You should not use for loops to get the pixel data, you can take advantage of MATLAB's vectorization characteristics and do the following:
CroppedImageMatrix = OriginalImageMatrix( [ymin : 1 : ymin+height-1],
                                          [xmin : 1 : xmin+width-1],
                                          : );

This will immediately "crop" the image and place the cropped data into the new matrix. You can do this because you are using a rectangular crop and all of the indices correspond to create a rectangular lattice of points. It would be "trickier" if this was not a rectangular crop.
This also will work the same for color or grayscale images because you do not need to index the channel dimension, you just take the values from every available channel.
P.S. - Documentation page for imrect: http://www.mathworks.com/help/images/ref/imrect.html


These free house building plans will provide you with ideas for construction that 4 bedroom dream home that you have always wanted.
4 Bedroom House Plan available for a small fee.
Build this 26' × 46' 4 bedroom house. These house plans feature 2 bathrooms, gable roof, stud walls and a concrete floor.
Build this 43' × 76' U shaped 4 bedroom house. These house plans feature a patio, porch, truss rafters, stud walls and a concrete floor.
Build this 26' × 40', 2 story 4 bedroom house with a 22' × 39' garage. These house plans feature truss rafters and a basement.
Build this 24' × 36', 1 1/2 story 4 bedroom house. These house plans feature 1 bathroom, vertical siding, post and beam construction and wood floors.
Build this contemporary, 2 story, 1400 sq. ft. 4 bedroom house. These house plans feature decks, solar attic and a basement.
Build this 36' × 80' L shaped 4 bedroom house. These house plans feature a double carport, sloped ceilings, fireplace, brick veneer exterior and a concrete floor.
Build this 28' × 58', 1 and 2 story colonial 4 bedroom house. These house plans feature a family room, 3 bathrooms, carport, fireplace, truss rafters and a basement.
Build this 2100 sq. ft. 4 bedroom house. These house plans feature a double garage, deck, den, gable roof and a raised wood floor.


Toowheels is a diy project of an open source sport wheelchair. It is made with simple and commons materials and tools, cutted and assembled using a downloadable manual. It is a free download project developed with Turin's FabLab laser machines.
I am Fabrizio Alessio, a designer from Turin. I have been testing new solutions with aluminium for a couple of years in order to get in touch with private companies. I'm working at an open source sport wheelchair, Toowheels, manufacturable with DIY resources and a low budget.


text:
LOCATION: Home » Knowledge Centre » Migrants behind one in seven UK companies
Migrants behind one in seven UK companies
Migrant entrepreneurs are behind one in seven of all UK companies, according to new research from the Centre for Entrepreneurs and DueDil.
The report found that close to half a million people from 155 countries have settled in the UK and launched businesses. Among the vital SME segment, migrant-founded companies are responsible for creating 14% of all jobs.
Entrepreneurial activity amongst the migrant community was found to be nearly double that of UK-born individuals, with 17.2% having launched their own businesses, compared to 10.4% of those born here. They are also, on average, eight years younger than indigenous entrepreneurs at 44.3 years-old compared to 52.1.
DueDil founder and CEO Damian Kimmelman, himself an American serial "migrant entrepreneur", said:
"Immigration is one of Britain's most emotive topics for debate. Sadly, opinions are rarely informed by evidence. This game-changing research proves that migrant entrepreneurs are hyper-productive, net contributors to the UK economy. History tells us that the most productive states always encourage intellectual and technological ferment; that's what we're seeing in Britain right now, and we must celebrate it".
The UK's migrant entrepreneurs are from virtually every country, although there are significant representations from Ireland, India, the US, Germany and China. London benefits disproportionately, with 20 times the number of migrant-led businesses (188,000) than Birmingham, the second most popular location with 19,000.
YouGov polling undertaken for the report reveals that a significant proportion of the general public believe migrant entrepreneurs make a positive contribution to the UK (44%) and a majority support the government's efforts to attract new migrant entrepreneurs (50%).
For specialist advice on entrepreneur immigration, please click here to contact our immigration barristers and lawyers today. We look forward to hearing from you.


There will be a meeting of Sides-people / Greeters on Sunday, December 11 at 12:30 P.M. All present Sides-people are requested to be present for this meeting. If there are others who would like to join us in this ministry you are also most welcome to attend.
Those interested in joining this ministry may also contact Ron Craig in person or contact the Cathedral for his phone number.


SIMARINE is WINNER of the DAME Award in Category: "Marine electronics & marine related software" with our product SIMARINE NEREIDE Smart Power Panel.
Simarine team is proud and happy to announce that our latest product SIMARINE NEREIDE Smart Power Panel won the Design Award of the METS 2017 in category Marine electronics & marine related software with the product.The DAME (Design at METSTRADE) Award is the largest marine competition of its kind, anywhere in the world.
The theory of crowding oilers an explanation for why wages in traditionally female-dominated occupations (like early education and care)tended to be low historically. If women were historically excluded from most professions and trades, then the fact that they were crowded into relatively few occupations would tend to drive the wage downwards. This explanation from this site for low wages for early education and care may have some plausibility, but becomes less convincing as time goes on and women are increasingly aware of, and allowed into, opportunities formerly reserved for males, and as males enter traditionally female occupations.
It focuses attention on the art and science of design in all aspects, from styling, functionality, and innovation, through to ease of implementation, practicality of use.
Thank you for crossing your fingers for us ;).


Want to host your next big event at Rena's?
We have seating, parking, and supplies to accommodate catered parties with live musicians. We are also perfectly suited for fitness classes, dance lessons, and workshops.
Make sure to like Rena's Ballroom Facebook page to keep up with the latest events in your Facebook feed.
We'd love to host your next class, workshop, or special event!


text:
Έρευνα Ερευνητική Περιοχή
Ερευνητική Περιοχή: Συστήματα Γνώσης και Πληροφόρισης
The Knowledge Representation Language Telos
In the M.Sc. thesis of Manolis Koubarakis (University of Toronto, 1988) the knowledge representation language Telos was defined, formalized and implemented. Knowledge in Telos is represented by classes of structured objects, integrity constraints and deductive rules. Temporal knowledge can also be organized along two dimensions: history time (i.e., the time when an event happens in the world) and belief time (i.e., the time when an event is recorded by the system). Telos is based on simple primitive concepts, emphasizes uniformity of modelling (e.g., objects and their attributes have the same status) and supports higher-order concepts (e.g., meta-classes and meta-attributes can be easily defined).
Telos was originally used for the modelling of requirements arising in the early stages of information systems development. It has also been used as a general purpose object-centered knowledge representation language in several applications. The conceptual framework of Telos, described in an ACM TOIS publication by John Mylopoulos, Alex Borgida, Matthias Jarke and Manolis Koubarakis had a big impact in all research projects where it has been used. These projects include the ESPRIT projects DAIDA, ITHACA and NATURE, and several projects funded by the Canadian government.
A very nice implementation of Telos is ConceptBase.
Because Telos is a sophisticated meta-modelling language, it is currently used in the Semantic Web by Wolfgang Nejdl's group at Hannover.
The Scheme of Indefinite Constraint Databases
In the Ph.D. thesis of Manolis Koubarakis (National Technical University of Athens, 1994) we developed the scheme of indefinite constraint databases and concentrated on instances of this scheme where the constraints are temporal. Our work starts from the premise that an important requirement of advanced temporal applications (e.g., planning and scheduling) is the ability to deal with definite, indefinite, finite and infinite temporal information. We proposed that a combination of classical relational databases and temporal constraint networks offers a powerful framework which addresses the database needs of these applications.
The main technical contributions of this Ph.D. thesis are the following:
We studied a hierarchy of parameterized database models: ML-relational databases, L-constraint databases and indefinite L-constraint databases. The first order language L, the parameter, defines the constraint vocabulary and ML is the structure over which L-constraints are interpreted. This work is essentially an extension of the constraint database framework of Kanellakis, Kuper and Revesz to include indefinite information. The models of temporal constraint databases and indefinite temporal constraint databases were studied as instances of the last two of the above parameterized models.
We developed quantifier elimination and decision algorithms for several theories of temporal constraints. These results go beyond what has been achieved in the area of temporal constraint networks by Dechter, van Beek, Ladkin, Meiri, Kautz and others. Because the most important theories we considered are subtheories of Presburger arithmetic (in the case of discrete time) and real addition with order (in the case of dense time), Manolis Koubarakis' results are of independent interest for the theoretical computer science community.
We analyzed the complexity of query evaluation in temporal constraint databases and indefinite temporal constraint databases. Our analysis shows that there is no change in the worst-case data/combined complexity when we go from relational databases to temporal constraint databases (with or without indefinite information). This work complements and extends previous research by Kanellakis, Kuper, Revesz, van der Meyden, van Beek and others.
Spatial and Temporal Database Management
Our goal is to develop models, query languages and efficient implementation techniques for spatiotemporal databases. A spatiotemporal database is a database that captures the evolution over time of two kinds of data: administrative data as they are found in today's DBMS, and spatial relations (or constraints) as they are represented in current specialized systems (for example, Geographical Information Systems or Image Database Management Systems).
With Spiros Skiadopoulos we have worked on models and algorithms for cardinal direction information and its use in spatial database management systems.
This work was funded by the European Union's 4th Framework project CHOROCHRONOS and the Greek General Secretariat for Research and Technology.
Κουμπαράκης Μ., Βούρος Γ., Χαλκιαδάκης Γ., Πλαγιανάκος Β., Τζώρτζης Χ., Καβαλλιεράτου Ε., Βρακας Δ., Μαυρίδης Ν., Πετάσης Γ., Μπλέκας Κ., Κριθαρά Α.: AI in Greece: The Case of Research on Linked Geospatial Data, AI Magazine, Vol 39, No 2, Summer 2018
Χλιαουτάκης Ά., Ζερβάνου Κ., Πετράκης Ε.: Τhe AMTEx Approach in the Medical Document Indexing and Retrieval Application, Data and Knowledge Engineering (DKE), Volume 68, Issue 3, March 2009, Pages 380-392.
Σίσκος Δ.: Μεθοδολογίες Ανάκτησης Πληροφορίας με Χρήση Οντολογιών σε Συλλογές Ιατρικών Κειμένων, Διπλωματική Εργασία, Τμήμα Ηλεκτρονικών Μηχανικών και Μηχανικών Ηλεκτρονικών Υπολογιστών, Πολυτεχνείο Κρήτης, Ιούλιος 2008. (Τεχνική Αναφορά TR-TUC-ISL-04-2008)
Τύπος Δημοσίευσης: Τεχνικές Αναφορές [περίληψη] [αρχείο]
Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Query Evaluation in Temporal Constraint Databases, In M. Fischer, D. Gabbay and L. Villa (eds.) Handbook of Temporal Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence. Volume 1 in the series "Foundations of Artificial Intelligence", B. Nebel, J.Hendler and H. Kitano (eds). Elsevier Science. 2005.
Τύπος Δημοσίευσης: Κεφάλαια σε Βιβλία [περίληψη]
Κουμπαράκης Μ., Σελλής Τ., Frank A., Grumbach S., Güting R., Jensen C., Λορέντζος Ν., Μανολόπουλος Γ., Nardelli E., Pernici B., Schek H., Scholl M., Θεοδουλίδης Χ., Τρύφωνα Ν.: Spatiotemporal Databases: The Chorochronos Approach, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2520, June 2003, Springer.
Τύπος Δημοσίευσης: Βιβλία (με εκδότη) [περίληψη] [σύνδεσμος]
Grumbach S., Κουμπαράκης Μ., Scholl M., Rigaux P., Σκιαδόπουλος Σ.: Spatiotemporal models and languages: an approach based on constraints, In M. Koubarakis, T. Sellis et. al. Spatiotemporal Databases: The Chorochronos Approach, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2520, June 2003, Springer.
Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Querying Temporal Constraint Networks: A Unifying Approach, Applied Intelligence,Vol. 17, No. 3, pages 297-311, November-December 2002.
Σκιαδόπουλος Σ., Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Composing Cardinal Direction Relations, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Spatial and Temporal Databases (SSTD-2001), Los Angeles, California, July 12-15, 2001.
Κουμπαράκης Μ., Σκιαδόπουλος Σ.: Querying temporal and spatial constraint networks in PTIME, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 123, No. 1-2, pages 223-263, 2000.
Κουμπαράκης Μ., Σκιαδόπουλος Σ.: Querying Temporal Constraint Networks in PTIME, Proceedings of AAAI-99. Orlando, Florida, July 18-22, 1999.
Frank A., Grumbach S., Güting R., Jensen C., Κουμπαράκης Μ., Λορέντζος Ν., Μανολόπουλος Γ., Nardelli E., Pernici B., Schek H., Scholl M., Σελλής Τ., Θεοδουλίδης Χ., Widmayer P.: Chorochronos: A Research Network for Spatiotemporal Database Systems, ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 28, No. 3, pages 12-21, 1999.
Κουμπαράκης Μ., Σκιαδόπουλος Σ.: Tractable Query Answering in Indefinite Constraint Databases: Basic Results and Applications to Querying Spatio-Temporal Information In Spatio-Temporal Database Management, (Proceedings of the International Workshop STDBM'99), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1678, Bohlen, M.H. and Jensen, C. and Scholl, M. (eds.), pages 204-223, Springer, 1999.
Τύπος Δημοσίευσης: Άρθρα σε Συμπόσια [περίληψη]
Κουμπαράκης Μ., Σκιαδόπουλος Σ.: Querying Indefinite Temporal and Spatial Information: A New Frontier, Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 Workshop on Hot Topics in Temporal and Spatial Reasoning, Stockholm, Sweden, August 2, 1999.
Κουμπαράκης Μ., Σκιαδόπουλος Σ.: Tractable Query Answering in Indefinite Constraint Databases: Basic Results and Applications to Querying Spatio-Temporal Information, In M. H. Bohlen, C.S. Jensen and M.O. Scholl, Spatio-Temporal Database Management (Proceedings of the International Workshop STDBM'99, Edinburgh, Scotland, September 1999), LNCS vol. 1678, Springer, pages 204-223.
Κουμπαράκης Μ.: The Complexity of Query Evaluation in Indefinite Temporal Constraint Databases, Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 171, pages 25-60, January 1997. Special Issue on Uncertainty in Databases and Deductive Systems, Editor: L.V.S. Lakshmanan.
Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Databases and Temporal Constraints: Semantics and Complexity, In Clifford, J. and Tuzhilin, A. (eds.), Recent Advances in Temporal Databases (Proceedings of the International Workshop on Temporal Databases, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1995), Workshops in Computing, Springer, pages 93-109.
Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Database Models for Infinite and Indefinite Temporal Information, Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2, March 1994, pages 141-173.
Παπαδιάς Δ., Frank A., Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Constraint-Based Reasoning in Geographic Databases: the Case of Symbolic Arrays, Proceedings of the 2nd ICLP Workshop on Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, June 1994. Published as GMD-Studien Nr. 231, U. Geske, D. Seipel (eds.)
Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Foundations of Indefinite Constraint Databases, In A. Borning (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (PPCP'94), Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 874, pages 266-280, Springer Verlag, 1994.
Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Representation and Querying in Temporal Databases: the Power of Temporal Constraints, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 327-334, April 1993.
Μυλόπουλος Γ., Borgida A., Jarke M., Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems in Telos, In M. Jarke (ed.), Database Application Engineering with DAIDA, Springer Verlag, 1993, pages 31-64.
Kramer B., Chaudhri V., Κουμπαράκης Μ., Τοπάλογλου Θ., Wang H., Μυλόπουλος Γ.: Implementing Telos, SIGART Bulletin, Special Issue on Implemented Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, June 1991, pages 77-83.
Τύπος Δημοσίευσης: Άρθρα σε Περιοδικά [περίληψη]
Μυλόπουλος Γ., Borgida A., Jarke M., Κουμπαράκης Μ.: Telos: Representing Knowledge about Information Systems, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 4, October 1990, pages 325-362. [gzipped postscript with no figures (sorry!)]


text:
Q: cakephp 3 how to use plugins (Imagine) In my cake app a need Imagine but how I can create instance of class Imagine in Controller.
Plugin was install by composer and all files are in vendor folder.
This:
 require 'vendor/autoload.php';
 $imagine = new Imagine\Gd\Imagine();

doesn't work.
I get:

require(vendor/autoload.php): failed to open stream: No such file or
  directory [APP/Controller\ArticlesController.php, line 100] Fatal
  error: require() [function.require]: Failed opening required
  'vendor/autoload.php' (include_path='C:\xampp\php\PEAR') in
  C:\xampp\htdocs\cakephp_blog\src\Controller\ArticlesController.php on
  line 100


When §746.5 refers to shale and uses the terms exploration or production in shale, do the restricted end uses apply only to situations, such as fracking, where the hydrocarbon is located in shale formations, or do they also apply to projects involving penetrating a layer of shale to reach a reservoir located below the shale formation? What about projects that involve unconventional methods of extracting oil from shale (e.g., from shale reservoirs or oil shale processing)?
The license requirements of §746.5 of the EAR apply to the specified items when you know that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or are unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. Thus, the license requirement applies to exploration for, or production of, oil or gas from a shale formation. The license requirement does not apply to exploration or production through shale to locate or extract crude oil or gas in reservoirs.


text:
StartupBlink Updates Sofia's Startup Ecosystem Profile in its 2020 Global Ecosystem Ranking
The new 2020 edition of Startup Blink's Global Ecosystem Ranking will include an updated profile of Sofia's startup ecosystem and a case study about Sofia in the deep dive section of the report.
One of the world's most comprehensive report ranking over 100 countries and 1,000 cities will be officially presented during two launch online seminars on Tuesday, 26 May – at 11.00 a.m. London time (13.00 a.m. Sofia time) and at 18:00 London time (20:00 Sofia time).
Vladimir Danailov, Deputy Mayor of Sofia for Digitalization, Innovation and Economic Development was invited to present Sofia during the first online seminar (at 13:00 Sofia time).
You can sign up for the event here!
At the invitation of StartupBlink, Innovative Sofia (the Digitalization, Innovation and Economic Development department of Sofia Municipality) supported the process of compiling and updating the information and data about Sofia for the 2020 edition of the Global Ecosystem Ranking Report, read by tens of thousands of decision-makers and featured in over 1,000 articles to date.
The document will include a case study on our ecosystem in the deep dive section and a short overview of some of its main stakeholders – successful startups, coworking spaces, accelerators, etc.
Based on a preliminary algorithm, StartupBlink identified a few ecosystems where the lack of data is hurting their rankings, including Sofia. We believe that sharing information and spreading the word about Sofia's ecosystem achievements is important for attracting partners and talents and for preventing brain drain.
StartupBlink is among the world's largest platforms for startups and research centres. It manages dozens of communities around the world, including developers, public sector organisations, co-working spaces, accelerators and tens of thousands of entrepreneurs. The platform features modules for mapping and analysis as well as promotion. Once a year, it publishes a comprehensive global startup ecosystem analysis report, comparing information from more than 1,000 cities in 100 countries.
StartupBlink is working with dozens of stakeholders from the public sector on various modules including ecosystem promotion, mapping, and consulting. More information about StartupBlink and its reports is available on the press page with articles, including references from Prime Ministers, Ministers and Mayors around the world.
Sofia-based Companies Pitched Their Projects during the Event "Corporate Venturing in SEE for Sustainable Startups"


text:
Home > ETDS > Dissertations and Theses > 729
A Rabbi in the Progressive Era: Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Ph.D. and the Rise of Social Jewish Progressivism in Portland, Or, 1900-1906
Mordechai Ben Massart, Portland State University
Portland State University. Department of History
David A. Horowitz
Master of Arts (M.A.) in History
1 online resource (v, 113 p.)
Stephen S. (Stephen Samuel) Wise -- 1874-1949, Judaism and social problems -- Oregon -- Portland -- 20th century, Social justice -- Religious aspects -- Judaism
10.15760/etd.729
Rabbi Stephen S. Wise presents an excellent subject for the study of Jewish social progressivism in Portland in the early years of the twentieth-century. While Wise demonstrated a commitment to social justice before, during, and after his Portland years, it is during his ministry at congregation Beth Israel that he developed a full-fledged social program that was unique and remarkable by reaching out not only within his congregation but more importantly, by engaging the Christian community of Portland in interfaith activities. In so doing, Wise broke off from the traditional role expected of rabbis by bringing social causes to the fore over traditional Jewish observances. This thesis examines the years and contributions of Stephen Wise in Portland between 1900 and 1906. An overall study of the Jewish community in Portland is presented along with a general description of the condition of how both German and Eastern European Jews through their settlement, business occupation, and pace of assimilation came to envision their integration into the American mainstream. In order to fully appreciate Wise's commitment to social progressivism in Portland, this study will look to detail how Liberal Judaism, Ethical Culture, and the Social Gospel movement provided Wise with the means to combine his rabbinate with public advocacy in the prophetic tradition. The thesis then focuses on Wise's social activities and struggles against child labor, gambling, and prostitution with a special interest on the Chinese Exclusion Acts that struck the small but active Chinese community of Portland.
Portland State University. Dept. of History
http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/4859
Massart, Mordechai Ben, "A Rabbi in the Progressive Era: Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Ph.D. and the Rise of Social Jewish Progressivism in Portland, Or, 1900-1906" (2010). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 729.
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/729


Arlene Rosenberg has coached and consulted with executives, Fortune 500 corporations and entrepreneurs for over 20 years and is an expert advisor on managing change and transitions- both in life and at work.
She is the author of the award-winning book Say It, See It, Be It: How Visions & Affirmations Will Change Your Life, and a much in-demand professional speaker.
services to public relations and communications firms across the country.
He also coaches individuals to be more successful in their own business, in their jobs and in career transition situations.


text:
Client News – Congrats to Billie Urabazo's 'Still' on being a 2018 ScreenCraft Cinematic Short Story Competition quarterfinalist
Congrats to our dear client, screenwriter Billie Urabazo on her short film Still making it to the quarterfinals of the 2018 ScreenCraft Cinematic Short Story Competition! [...]
Music Mondays – Kanye West sues Universal Music Group, Roc-A-Fella, Def Jam, and more over record contracts, song publishing
Kanye West filed a pair of lawsuits Friday against a number of high-profile record companies and music publishers, including Universal Music Group, Roc-A-Fella, Def Jam and [...]
Film Fridays – Netflix refuses to film in North Carolina due to state's anti-LGBTQ law
North Carolina's controversial legislation is impacting Hollywood's decision to film in the state. Netflix has opted to film its upcoming North Carolina-set [...]
Client News – Natalie Duran on the cast of MTV's newest season of 'The Challenge'
We're super happy for our client, American Ninja Warrior alum Natalie Duran, who will be on the newest season of MTV's hit show, The Challenge! Learn more about [...]
Music Mondays – Rihanna sues father over 'Fenty' name trademark
Rihanna should be busy celebrating her latest Fenty Beauty release and finally finishing her dang album, but the singer is now getting caught up in a legal battle with her [...]
Film Fridays – James Franco settles 'The Disaster Artist' lawsuit from former student
James Franco has settled a lawsuit filed last year by a former student who said he wrote several early drafts of "The Disaster Artist." Ryan Moody filed suit in March, [...]
Client Spotlight – Visit Vatos Urban Tacos in Korea and Singapore!
While The Hollywood Lawyer is busy serving its entertainment industry clients, it also services reputable restaurant clients as well, like the super hip Mexican-Korean fusion [...]
Music Mondays – Travis Scott reportedly settles $200K lawsuit with music festival organizers
Travis Scott has settled his lawsuit with the organizers of the Rhythm, Wine & Brews Experience. The "Sicko Mode" rapper has reportedly returned the $217,500 deposit [...]
Film Fridays – Netflix sued by book publisher over 'Black Mirror' film, 'Bandersnatch'
A book publisher is suing Netflix over Black Mirror: Bandersnatch. Chooseco LLC, the publisher of the Choose Your Own Adventure book series, claims the film infringes on its [...]
Client News – Pinkfong's viral hit, "Baby Shark" enters the Billboard Hot 100 Top 40
We're very proud of our client, Korean educational company, Pinkfong and their amazingly viral hit, "Baby Shark" — this week, the song entered the [...]