text:
IPwars.com
Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under
IP generally
Because I felt like it
Myriad's BRCA1 claims – take 2
war / 8 October 2015 8 October 2015 / Patents
As previously noted, the High Court has unanimously ruled that Myriad's 3 claims for isolated nucleic acids for the BRCA1 gene that codes for specific mutations and polymorphisms are invalid.[1]
Claim 1 was:
An isolated nucleic acid coding for a mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide, said nucleic acid containing in comparison to the BRCA1 polypeptide encoding sequence set forth in SEQ.ID No:1 one or more mutations or polymorphisms selected from the mutations set forth in Tables 12, 12A and 14 and the polymorphisms set forth in Tables 18 and 19.
Claims 2 and 3 were subsidiary claims for narrower formulations.
The sole issue in the case was whether claims 1 to 3 of Myriad's patent were a "manner of manufacture" within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act – what the American's refer to as subject matter or patentable subject matter. There was no challenge to the novelty or inventive step of the claim – the basis on which the corresponding patent was rejected in Europe.
There was also no challenge to claims 4 – 30, which Gordon J at [191] and [257] characterised as applications of the isolated gene sequences to various purposes such as a probe (claim 4), vectors (claims 5 – 7), methods of producing mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptides (claims 8 – 9), preparations and uses of polypeptides (claims 10 – 16) and methods of diagnosis (claims 17 – 30).
Previously, this question fell to be determined according to the principles declared in the "watershed" NRDC case. All 3 sets of reasons acknowledged the continued relevance of that decision, but appear to have qualified its teaching in potentially far-reaching ways.
French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ
The majority judgment was delivered by French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ.
A narrow approach
At one level (one might hope the right level), their Honours' judgment can be seen as focusing very specifically on the singular nature of Myriad's claim. Thus, at [6], their Honours said:
Despite the formulation of the claimed invention as a class of product, its substance is information embodied in arrangements of nucleotides. The information is not "made" by human action. It is discerned. That feature of the claims raises a question about how they fit within the concept of a "manner of manufacture". As appears from s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, an invention is something which involves "making". It must reside in something. It may be a product. It may be a process. It may be an outcome which can be characterised, in the language of NRDC, as an "artificially created state of affairs". Whatever it is, it must be something brought about by human action. ….
In their Honours' conception, that was not the case here. The judgment continues at [6]:
The requirement, in each claim, that the sequence in the isolate bear specified mutations or polymorphisms raises the same problem in a particular way. Satisfaction of that integer depends upon a characteristic of the human being from whom the nucleic acid is isolated, a characteristic which is not shared by all human beings. It has nothing to do with the person who isolates the nucleic acid bearing the mutant sequence.
That is, nothing was "made". Rather, the gene sequence with the relevant mutation(s) and/or polymorphism(s) was made in the individual from whom the genetic material had been extracted. "All" that Myriad did was whittle that genetic material down to identify whether or not the relevant mutation or polymorphism was present.[2]
Further, at [8]:
…. The size of the class of the products as defined is large. No upper limit was suggested in argument. The boundaries of the class are not defined by a limiting range of chemical formulae. There is a real risk that the chilling effect of the claims, on the use of any isolation process in relation to the BRCA1 gene, would lead to the creation of an exorbitant and unwarranted de facto monopoly on all methods of isolating nucleic acids containing the sequences coding for the BRCA1 protein. The infringement of the formal monopoly would not be ascertainable until the mutations and polymorphisms were detected. Such a result would be at odds with the purposes of the patent system.[3]
One might wonder how one works out whether or not the "monopoly" that would arise would be "exorbitant and unwarranted". The size of the class claimed seems problematic, the "chilling effect" also might be thought something that flows from the grant of any patent. Why for example would that be any more of a problem than for the patents granted originally over compounds such as omeprazole or rosuvastating or any number of other drugs?
Moreover, the problem of infringement loomed very large. No-one could know in advance whether or not what they were doing would infringe. It would depend on whether a relevant mutation or polymorphism was present in the individual from whom the genetic material was extracted. One might say, of course, that one would not be at risk of infringing unless one was looking for the BRCA1 sequence. One might also say, at least up until today, that there was no bar to patenting omeprazole or rosuvastatin or any other chemical substance just because one had found a specific use for it such as treating disease A when, after the compound had been discovered, someone else might be precluded from investigating its use, surprisingly, to treat disease B.[4]
The problem seems particularly to come back to the nature of the claim as being tosomething generated in an individual naturally and independently of any action by the patentee.
Wider ramifications
French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ did not just declare that claims 1 to 3 were not patentable subject matter. Their Honours went on to explain the principles that should be applied in future.
First, their Honours accepted at [18] that the NRDC test was still the appropriate question:
"Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?"
As I tell my patents class students, that provides us with an awful lot of guidance! Their Honours continued:
That question is to be answered according to a common law methodology under the rubric of "manner of manufacture" as developed through the cases, but consistently with "a widening conception of the notion [which] has been a characteristic of the growth of patent law." That widening conception is a necessary feature of the development of patent law in the 20th and 21st centuries as scientific discoveries inspire new technologies which may fall on or outside the boundaries of patentability set by the case law which predated their emergence.
So far, still so good; particularly the recognition of the need for the concept to continue developing.
The "common law methodology" is further explained in [5] – [7] and troubled French CJ in Apotex v Sanofi. The first point appears to be, if the claim falls within an existing recognised class of patentable subject matter, it is a manner of manufacture. If it is a new class, however, "policy factors informed by the purpose of the Act and considerations of coherence in the law" need to be considered. Moreover, there are limits in judicial law-making "inherent in common law methodology":
Where an affirmative application of the concept is likely to result in the creation of important rights as against the world, to involve far-reaching questions of public policy and to affect the balance of important conflicting interests, the question must be asked whether that application is best left for legislative determination. The patentability of nucleotide sequences derived from human DNA is in that category. The inherent patentability of the invention as claimed would powerfully imply patentability of any claim for an isolated nucleic acid coding for a specified polypeptide.
Notwithstanding 50+ years of the Courts successfully applying the NRDC formula, this High Court is plainly very uncomfortable with that role.
For those 50+ years since NRDC, we had been thinking there were 2 (or 3) requirements for patentable subject matter:
Whether the invention as claimed is for a product made, or a process producing an outcome as a result of human action; and
Whether the invention as claimed has economic utility.[5]
French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ confirmed that requirements 1 and 2 are still necessary. As foreshadowed in paragraph [6], however, their Honours said that requirements 1 and 2, while necessary, are not in themselves sufficient.[6] Other factors must be taken into account. At [28], their Honours laid out four further considerations:
Whether patentability would be consistent with the purposes of the Act and, in particular:
whether the invention as claimed, if patentable under s 18(1)(a), could give rise to a large new field of monopoly protection with potentially negative effects on innovation;
whether the invention as claimed, if patentable under s 18(1)(a), could, because of the content of the claims, have a chilling effect on activities beyond those formally the subject of the exclusive rights granted to the patentee;
whether to accord patentability to the invention as claimed would involve the court in assessing important and conflicting public and private interests and purposes.
Whether to accord patentability to the invention as claimed would enhance or detract from the coherence of the law relating to inherent patentability.
Relevantly to Australia's place in the international community of nations:
Australia's obligations under international law;
the patent laws of other countries.
Whether to accord patentability to the class of invention as claimed would involve law-making of a kind which should be done by the legislature.
The new, additional factors 1, 2 and 4 above were described as the most important in the balancing process the inquiry envisaged by their Honours.[7]
Having regard to these considerations, French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ declared at [94]:
Although it may be said in a formal sense that the invention as claimed, referring to isolated nucleic acids, embodies a product created by human action, that is not sufficient to support its characterisation as a manner of manufacture. The substance of the invention as claimed and the considerations flowing from its substance militate against that characterisation. To include it within the scope of a "manner of manufacture" involves an extension of that concept, which is not appropriate for judicial determination. Further, to include this class of claim within that concept would not contribute to coherence in the law as was the case in Apotex. Nor do Australia's international obligations and the differently framed patent laws of other jurisdictions, which were referred to earlier in these reasons, support the conclusion that this class of claim should fall within the concept.
The "substance of the invention" and the considerations flowing
In the decision of the Full Federal Court under appeal, it had been pointed out that isolated DNA was in fact man made – it didn't occur in nature. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, however, considered that was to elevate form over substance. So at [90], their Honours accepted a submission from the appellant:
"Myriad's claims are simply not expressed in terms of chemical composition, nor do they rely in any way on the chemical changes that result from the isolation of a particular section of DNA. Instead, the claims understandably focus on the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes."
That characterisation, so far as it emphasises the focus of the claims on genetic information, is applicable to the claims in this case and, contrary to the view of the Full Court, should be accepted.
At [93], their Honours then emphasised:
When proper regard is paid to their emphasis on genetic information, the subject matter of the claims lies at the boundaries of the concept of "manner of manufacture". That it does lie at the boundaries is further evidenced by the odd consequence that if the claims are properly the subject of a patent, the patent could be infringed without the infringer being aware of that fact. That consequence coupled with the very large, indeed unquantified size of the relevant class of isolated nucleic acids, all of which bear the requisite information, raises the risk of a chilling effect upon legitimate innovative activity outside the formal boundaries of the monopoly and risks creating a penumbral de facto monopoly impeding the activities of legitimate improvers and inventors.
The characterisation of the claims as "information"[8] has some affinity for Gordon J's approach, discussed briefly below, ruling that the claims were to a mere discovery rather than invention. As discussed above under A narrow approach, this seems to flow from the singular nature of the claims in suit with the consequent uncertainties, particularly for infringement.
An extension of the concept
How do you tell that Myriad's claim involved an extension of the concept of manufacture?
It is true that no court in Australia had ruled on the patentability of isolated gene sequences until the Myriad litigation. However, the Patent Office has been granting patents for 'man made' microbes since 1976 and for isolated genetic material since 1995. The legislative history showed that Parliament rejected an attempt to exclude genetic material from patentable subject matter when passing the 1990 Act. A further attempt to exclude human genetic material was rejected in the Senate in 2011. Two inquiries by Government agencies in the 2000s had also endorsed the status quo and recommended against exclusion. Indeed, the Government of the day had publicly announced its acceptance of the ALRC's recommendation not to exclude isolated genetic materials from patentability. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ said at [37]:[9]
This Court is not concerned in this appeal with "gene patenting" generally, but with whether the invention as claimed in Claims 1 to 3 falls within established applications of the concept of manner of manufacture. If it does not, then the question is one of inclusion not exclusion. The legislative history cannot be read as impliedly mandating the patentability of claims for inventions relating to isolated nucleic acids coding for particular polypeptides. The legislative history does not assist the Court in answering the question posed in this appeal.
Contribute to coherence
[Apotex][apotex] had (more or less) upheld the status of methods of medical treatment as patentable subject matter. That contributed to coherence because there was no rational basis to distinguish between patenting medical products and patenting methods of treatment.
Here, arguable, the nature of the claim as already discussed means it is impossible to assess the risks of infringement in advance. That presumably does not promote coherence. Their Honours also focused on the broad range of what was claimed and the potential impacts on future researchers. As already discussed, it may be difficult to distinguish those aspects from claims to other chemical compounds.
Gageler and Nettle JJ
Given the length of this post already, I shall only comment briefly on the remaining judgments.
Like French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, Gageler and Nettle JJ considered at [125] that "an artificial state of affairs" and "economic utility" were necessary requirements for patentable subject matter, but not sufficient.
Also like French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, Gageler and Nettle JJ stated at [144] that the question of patentable subject matter must be looked at as a matter of substance rather than form.
Invoking Microcell and Philips v Mirabella, their Honours considered at [133] that patentable subject matter involved a threshold inquiry of "inventiveness".
Products of nature therefore did not qualify as at [136] they lacked the necessary quality of inventiveness. Gageler and Nettle JJ considered that Myriad's claims were properly characterised as merely claims to products of nature.
Earlier at [128], Gageler and Nettle JJ had said:
Regardless, however, of the amount of labour involved or the differences between the product and the raw natural material from which it is derived, it is necessary that the inventive concept be seen to make a contribution to the essential difference between the product and nature.
Then, at [134], their Honours said:
Here, the essence of claim 1 is the correlation between the incidence of cancer and the presence of the specified mutations and polymorphisms in the mutated BRCA1 gene. Such ingenuity as that entails consists in the idea of examining an isolated fragment of a patient's naturally occurring DNA constituted of the BRCA1 gene for the presence or absence of the specified mutations and polymorphisms. The subject matter of the claim does not make any contribution to the inclusion of the specified mutations and polymorphisms in the mutated BRCA1 gene. Their presence or absence in or from it is the result of the isolated BRCA1 gene being part of the naturally occurring DNA from which the sequence is isolated. To adopt and adapt the reasoning in NV Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken Application, it is "the inevitable result of that which is inherent in the [DNA]".[10]
Like the reasons of French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, this passage emphasises that Myriad did not itself make, or cause to be made, the relevant material. Rather, it was generated in the human body independently of any action by Myriad.
Thus, Gageler and Nettle JJ said at [139]:
…. the BRCA1 gene is not patentable as such because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon which lacks the quality of inventiveness necessary to qualify as a manner of new manufacture.
Gordon J
Gordon J at [222] – [225] specifically rejected D'Arcy's argument that "naturally occurring things, or products or phenomena or principles of nature are excluded as a proper subject matter of a patent." These were too vague, malleable and imprecise to be useful tools.
Instead, her Honour focused on the role isolation of the nucleic acid played: it simply allowed identification of the presence, or absence, of naturally occurring mutations or polymorphisms. Gordon J then advanced five reasons why the claims did not qualify as patentable subject matter:
The claim is to multiple products, not a single product: [231]-[239];
Although Myriad claims a class of chemical compounds as a product, it cannot delineate the bounds of its claim by reference to chemical composition: [240]-[243];
Myriad did not create, make or alter the characteristic, the code: [244]-[249];
There is no idea, concept or principle embodied in a manner of new manufacture: [250]-[258]; and
The claim is too broad: [259]-[264].
Points 1, 2 and 5 focus on the sheer number and variety of compounds or sequences which were embraced. So at [241] and [242], her Honour recorded that Myriad could not identify the boundaries of the claims:
…. it is not possible for Myriad to record all of the various chemical compounds (or products) that might be produced by isolating an individual's nucleic acid. For example, as Myriad accepted during argument, the claim is to an "extremely wide number" of chemical compounds where the compound formulae would vary according to the number of sequences extracted but the compound would nevertheless contain one or more of the specific mutations or polymorphisms.
As has been seen, changes in chemical composition are not limited to variation in the number of nucleotides. So, although the claimed product is a chemical compound, Myriad did not and cannot delineate the bounds of the class of compounds by reference to the chemical composition of the class of the claimed product. Instead, Myriad sought to delineate the boundaries of the claim by reference to what it described as the "characteristics identified within the claim" – the specific mutations and polymorphisms, represented by the code.
I am not sure why delineation by class of compound would be any more precise than the method chosen by Myriad – if you know, please leave a comment.
Under point 5, her Honour also pointed out the concern that no-one could know in advance whether they infringed or not and, if the role of the claim, is to identify the boundaries of the monopoly, that does rather cause a problem.
Under point 4, Gordon J referred to the nature of invention as discussed in the Hickton Patent Syndicate case:
In my opinion, invention may lie in the idea, and it may lie in the way in which it is carried out, and it may lie in the combination of the two; but if there is invention in the idea plus the way of carrying it out, then it is good subject-matter for Letters Patent. (Gordon J's emphasis)
Her Honour considered that claims 1 to 3 failed to qualify because they did not carry out Myriad's discovery that certain mutations or polymorphisms indicated increased risk of breast cancer. Gordon J said:
[254] Here, having located the BRCA1 gene and identified its nucleic acid sequence, Myriad's idea, concept or principle is that specific mutations or polymorphisms in that sequence suggest a predisposition to breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
[255] How then is that idea carried out in claim 1? It is not. It is not and could not be carried out – as claim 1 suggests – by creating a product comprising isolated nucleic acid from a patient which contains the identified characteristic in any one of its many forms. As has been seen, Myriad does not claim the methods by which it isolates the nucleic acid or the methods by which it identifies the sequence of the patient's nucleic acid. Myriad does not claim the characteristic. Claim 1 is not a claim to the idea, concept or principle.
Gordon J contrasted these claims to claim 4 which used the discovery to create a probe to test for the presence or absence of mutations. That was an invention. So analysed, claims 1 to 3 might be seen to be 'mere' discoveries' rather than an application or now to offend against the enablement and sufficiency requirements.
Some other scary thoughts
First, it is not entirely clear from the decision whether cDNA is patentable subject matter as the US Supreme Court accepted. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ said at [73]:
Nor, as previously noted, are the claims subject to any process?based limitation involving the breaking up and physical stitching together of the sequences comprising the isolated nucleic acids which are the products the subject of the claims. The "conceptual" stitching together, which may be regarded as the ordered compilation of information defining the relevant sequence, falls outside the claims entirely. The claims encompass molecules comprising isolated nucleic acids containing coding nucleotides arranged in the same sequence as appears in the DNA from which they were derived, whether or not introns and other non-coding sections have been removed from the relevant stretch of that DNA.
That might leave room for debate that cDNA could qualify. Also, the exclusion of introns or other "non-conding regions" might ameliorate the "chilling effects". Gageler and Nettle JJ, however, at [116] characterised the claims as claiming "the uninterrupted sequence of nucleotides without introns", i.e., cDNA. According to Gordon J at [283], the parties agreed that, if the claims were not patentable subject matter, they would not be saved where they extended to cDNA.
Philips v Mirabella!
Dr Patentology has called Philips the second worst ever patent judgment by the High Court. No argument from me. Turns out, we're both wrong. At least 6 judges of the current High Court consider it good law[11] and appear to use it as their touchstone of patent principles.
I would say we need legislative reform but, as the Angel of Lake said, "Before you choose your wish son You better think first …."
D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35
According to Gordon J at [205] a "mutation" is a variation in a gene sequence "private to an individual or that indiviual's immediate family." In contrast, at [207] a "polymorphism is a genetic variant which has arisen in a distant common ancestor and is therefore not unique to an individual or that individual's immediate family. Forty per cent of women in the general female population have one or more polymorphisms in the BRCA1 gene that are not found in the remaining 60 per cent of the population." ?
Gageler and Nettle JJ also focused on this point at e.g. [162]. See also Gordon J at [248]. ?
Citing Cornish, Llewellyn and Aplin for the final conclusion. ?
Of course, these days, s 119C would probably provide one with a defence to infringement, at least for the research into the possible use. ?
In fact, the Full Federal Court in Grant has told us there is a the third requirement: a physical transformation of something. Arguably, that was not in issue in Myriad as the isolated gene sequence was physically different to the unisolated genetic material in the human body to an extent. ?
Insofar as the claim falls within existing concepts of "manner of maufacture" as it has been developed through the cases, their Honours said at [28] requirements 1 and 2 "will also ordinarily be sufficient." (emphasis supplied) ?
The survey of foreign laws didn't really help as it was only the USA following the US Supreme Court's Myriad decision that appears to have ruled out patent protection for isolated genetic material. ?
Optimistically hoping it was the claim to "information" rather than just genetic information which was important. ?
Gageler and Nettle JJ took a similar position at [171]. Nicholas J reviewed the legislative history at [113] – [123] in Cancer Voices. ?
A different Philips case, which their Honours read as endorsed by NRDC: (1954) 71 RPC 192 at 194, quoted in NRDC (1959) 102 CLR 252 at 279. ?
In addition to Gageler and Nettle JJ, see French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ at [12]. ?
Australia,BRCA1,Gene,gene patents,Grant,manner of manufacture,Microcell,Myriad,NRDC,patentable subject matter,Patents,Philips,subject matter
Previous ArticleIsolated gene sequence not patentable in Australia
Next ArticleProductivity Commission reviews IP


If you are looking for a general review of SiteGround web hosting, then this is the place to be! Here we are going to talk about the basic features of SiteGround web hosting, as well as prices and what they included. View the siteground review and siteground coupon site at www.siteground-review.org.
Not only that, but we will talk about what kind of e-commerce tools this site offers to help you get your online business up and running. This is the siteground review you are not going to want to miss. The most important thing to keep in mind about this place is that they offer everything that you need to get either a personal website or a business website up and running in no time. This is because you can get a plan that includes 750 GB of web space. That is more web space than most websites ever use! On top of all, that you are going to get 750,000 GB of bandwidth.
This will help insure that you never run out of bandwidth during the middle of the month. You will be able to attract as many people to your website as you want without having to worry about if you will run out of bandwidth. The next thing that you need to know about is the great support that SiteGround web hosting offer. When you sign up with SiteGround hosting, you are going to not only get support, but you are going to get support 24 hours a day! Now, how is it that they can do that? Well, that is because SiteGround offer two different types of support. Email support and phone support. You will always be able to find someone to help you.
Also, when you sign up, you are going to get unlimited email accounts. So no matter how many email accounts you need, or want to give out, you can make sure that you have enough for everyone on your staff. With this, you also get unlimited MySQL database, and your site is going to be e-commerce ready.
That means, if you want to change your personal site to a business site, you will be able to do that with little to no problem. That is something that you can not do with other hosting sites. Another good thing that they have is that you can expect to have up to 99% up time. This means that the website is hardly ever going to be down.
What does that mean for you? Well, more business of course. If your website is never down, then you never have to worry about your customers getting turned away. No site can ever have 100% up time, but having 99% is about as close as you will ever come. So how much is all of this going to cost you? That is the next question you have on your mind. Well, the great news is that it's going to cost you a lot less than those other guys. In fact, it's only going to cost around $5.
95 a month! You can get even more saving with the siteground coupon at http://www.siteground-review.org/siteground/siteground-coupon . Now that is a deal way too sweet to pass up.
www.siteground-review.org is the best siteground review and siteground coupon site.


How Much Does Property Management Cost in Folsom, CA?
The average cost of property management depends on where you are and how your property management company approaches fees. Fees for property management are percentage-based or flat fee-based. At Residential Equity, we charge a flat fee. The advantage of hiring a property management company that uses a flat fee is you know what the management fee is going to be monthly. The percentage model will fluctuate, and you won't always know what you're paying. There's no difference in how the property is managed when you're considering different fee structures. It's the same service.
What Percentage Do Property Managers Charge?
We handle many high rent properties. When you consider what it would cost an owner who pays a percentage of the rent in management fees each month, it can get quite costly. No one wants to pay that when they can pay and count on a flat fee each month. People don't realize the value of a property management company, especially if they've never used a property manager before. They don't know what they're getting until they've used the services. So, owners will hesitate to hire a percentage based management company.
Clients would expect rent collection every month, and in addition to that, we provide an accounting statement. It arrives in email form and details the income for that month, the expenses, and the balance in the account as well as what's been dispersed. We also do an auto deposit to the client's bank account. We can do paper checks if the owner prefers. We handle any tenant requests or complaints on behalf of the owner. Our job is to keep the owner from having to communicate with the tenant about repairs and the like. Typically, if the tenant has the owner's contact information, they will bypass us and that defeats the purpose of hiring a management company. We try to explain that to our clients, and they let us take full charge. We are always transparent with our fees, which is why we have satisfied clients. There's a lot more involved in this topic, and we'd be happy to tell you more about fees for property management. If you have any questions, please contact us at Residential Equity Management.


text:
Q: Count 'n' records from table between 'now()' and date from secondary table - then calculate I have a database to track rewards purchases for our customers.  Our customers come in, make a purchase, and we log it into this rewards database.  When a customer meets the requirements (see below) for a rewards "issue", the database will "issue" the rewards to the customer.  Next time the customer makes a purchase, we will see $XX.XX rewards in our database and apply that discount to their purchase.
The biggest thing I'm struggling with is a method to accomplish this that 1) won't slow down the database, and 2) can be accomplished in the background, when the db user is working.
Currently, the requirements are:

*

*Six purchases within a calendar year.

*The Six purchases have to occur on DIFFERENT dates.  Purchases that occur on the same day are tallied as part of the same purchase

*These requirements (6 purchases in 6 visits) are kept as options in tblOptions
I'm trying to assemble a procedure (a function I could call throughout the db to perform the "math" here each time the user completes a task) in order to check if there are n purchases since the beginning of the calendar year (based on NumVisits & NumPurchases in tblOptions) OR since the last date rewards had been issued (this date is in qryLastRewardIssuedDate) from tbPurchases (yes, I left out an "l" on accident - I'll fix it later).
Goals:

*

*Retrieve how many purchases had been made since qryLastRewardIssued.IssueDate

*Verify they were made on separate days and in the current calendar year

*IF the requirements above have been met, then calculate a percentage of their total purchases based on the setting in tblOptions.PerDiscount
Here are my relationships:

HISTORY:
This started with me attempting to create a simple query to pull the number of purchases.  I wanted to try to accomplish this using queries, but after some thought I decided it might be more efficient to create a procedure I can call each time the user performs an action.  My queries, unfortunately, haven't been working out for me and I've struggled with this entire process.  I'm really rusty with Access (as evident by my Stack Overflow history) and I'm honestly not that great with it to begin with.  I'm experienced with Access and have designed several databases in the past, but those all were simple "put data in, review data later" databases.  This one actually needs to process math procedures on a regular basis as it's being used.
Since this started with a query to just pull the number of purchases, here's the SQL statement I've been using (which doesn't give an error, but it always returns no results):
SELECT Count(tbPurchases.MemberID) AS CountOfMemberID, Count(tbPurchases.PurchaseDate) AS NumOfPurchases
FROM tbPurchases INNER JOIN qryLastRewardIssuedDate ON tbPurchases.MemberID = qryLastRewardIssuedDate.CustomerID
HAVING (((Count(tbPurchases.PurchaseDate)) Between [qryLastRewardIssuedDate]![IssueDate] And Now()));

And here is the SQL to my query, qryLastRewardIssuedDate:
SELECT tblRewards.CustomerID, Last(tblRewards.IssueDate) AS LastOfIssueDate
FROM tblRewards
GROUP BY tblRewards.CustomerID;

I know there's not a whole lot to go by here, and I'm sorry for that.  I haven't had any epiphanies to lead me in the right direction yet.  I hoping y'all can help me with that.  Thank you!
EDIT:
After playing with your SQL statement a little bit (and fixing the aliases mentioned in the comment), here is what I'm up to:
SELECT q.MemberID, Max(q.PurchaseDate) AS MaxOfPurchaseDate
FROM (SELECT p.MemberID, p.PurchaseDate FROM tbPurchases p WHERE p.PurchaseDate >= Dateserial(2012,1,1)
  AND p.PurchaseDate > (SELECT Max(r.IssueDate) FROM tblRewards r WHERE r.CustomerID = p.MemberID))  AS q
GROUP BY q.MemberID
HAVING (((Count(*))>=(SELECT Last(o.NumPurchases) AS LastOfNumPurchases FROM tblOptions o)));

This accounts for the variable number of purchases, too.  One issue I'm having is outputting the proper cost of the purchase (tbPurchases.PurchaseAmount).  I get the same result down the query when I use this SQL:
SELECT q.MemberID, Max(q.PurchaseDate) AS MaxOfPurchaseDate, Last(tbPurchases.PurchaseAmount) AS LastOfPurchaseAmount
FROM (SELECT p.MemberID, p.PurchaseDate FROM tbPurchases AS p WHERE p.PurchaseDate >= Dateserial(2012,1,1)       AND p.PurchaseDate > (SELECT Max(r.IssueDate) FROM tblRewards r WHERE r.CustomerID = p.MemberID))  AS q, tbPurchases
GROUP BY q.MemberID
HAVING (((Count(*))>=(SELECT Last(o.NumPurchases) AS LastOfNumPurchases FROM tblOptions o)));

Which, I assume could be a JOIN problem or possibly the fact that I need to alias tbPurchases.PurchaseAmount?  I'm not entirely sure.
Additionally, I'm not entirely sure how to verify the purchases were made on separate days right now.  Any ideas?
EDIT 2 - Sample Data:
tblMembers:
╔════╦════════════╦═══════════╗
║ ID ║ First Name ║ Last Name ║
╠════╬════════════╬═══════════╣
║  1 ║ Jason      ║ Something ║
║  2 ║ Jimmy      ║ Carter    ║
║  3 ║ Ronald     ║ Reagan    ║
║  4 ║ Ronald     ║ McDonald  ║
╚════╩════════════╩═══════════╝

tblOptions:
╔════╦═══════════╦══════════════╦═════════════╗
║ ID ║ NumVisits ║ NumPurchases ║ PerDiscount ║
╠════╬═══════════╬══════════════╬═════════════╣
║  1 ║         6 ║            6 ║ 10.00%      ║
╚════╩═══════════╩══════════════╩═════════════╝

tblRewards:
╔════╦════════════╦════════════╦═════════════╦
║ ID ║ CustomerID ║ IssueDate  ║ IssueAmount ║
╠════╬════════════╬════════════╬═════════════╬
║  1 ║      24544 ║ 7/22/2011  ║ $100.00     ║
║  2 ║      24557 ║ 6/27/2018  ║ $100.00     ║
║  3 ║      25012 ║ 11/23/2019 ║ $46.63      ║
║  4 ║      28227 ║ 11/11/2019 ║ $40.35      ║
╚════╩════════════╩════════════╩═════════════╩

tbPurchases:
╔════╦══════════╦══════════════╦════════════════╗
║ ID ║ MemberID ║ PurchaseDate ║ PurchaseAmount ║
╠════╬══════════╬══════════════╬════════════════╣
║  1 ║    29792 ║ 2/25/2013    ║ $37.99         ║
║  2 ║    24586 ║ 1/3/2019     ║ $114.99        ║
║  3 ║    26505 ║ 1/3/2019     ║ $7.96          ║
╚════╩══════════╩══════════════╩════════════════╝

EXPECTED RESULTS:
The idea here is to check the db for customers who have made n purchases (from tblOptions.NumPurchases - currently 6) in the current calendar year.  The data in the database doesn't have a whole lot, but I did add some purchases just to test it out for this purpose.
If there have been the correct number of purchases in the current calendar year, then it will calculate the total amount the customer spent on those n purchases and using tblOptions.PerDiscount it will calculate the amount of "rewards" the customer is entitled to on their next visit.
Then is when the procedure comes in.  I would like to try to create a function that can accomplish these calculations throughout the database.  Adding it to other actions, such as adding new customers, or entering a purchase by a current customer.  And, most importantly, when the database opens and closes.  These are all easily accomplish by creating a procedure I can call repeatedly.  But I'm having trouble getting these SQL queries to cooperate.

A: Firstly, do not use Last to obtain the most recent IssueDate: when used with an unordered dataset, Last will merely return the last record encountered by the database engine when evaluating the query, which will not necessarily be the last record in the dataset.
This is also noted in the documentation:

These functions return the value of a specified field in the first or last record, respectively, of the result set returned by a query. If the query does not include an ORDER BY clause, the values returned by these functions will be arbitrary because records are usually returned in no particular order.

Instead, you should use max to obtain the latest IssueDate for each CustomerID:
select
    r.customerid,
    max(r.issuedate) as lastissued
from
    tblrewards r
group by
    r.customerid

For the overall goal, I might suggest a query such as the following:
select
    q.memberid
from
    (
        select distinct
            p.memberid,
            p.purchasedate
        from
            tbpurchases p
        where
            p.purchasedate >= dateserial(year(date()),1,1) and
            p.purchasedate >
            (
                select
                    max(r.issuedate)
                from
                    tblrewards r
                where
                    r.customerid = p.memberid
            )
    ) q
group by
    q.memberid
having
    count(*) >= 6

Note that the above is entirely untested.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Description - The Jubilee is one of Halifax's few luxury waterfront condominiums, featuring many unique footprints with fine finishes. Set at the quiet end of Jubilee in a beautiful neighbourhood this building attracts long term condo owners who hold onto their investments, making these gems a rarity on the market.
Building Amenities - 24hr security monitoring, most units have private seaside decks and a fireplace, en suite, in suite laundry, storage lockers, private wharf and moorings.


H&R's Valuation Process Minimizes The Risk That Comes With Trade-Ins.
H&R Agri-Power has developed a proprietary app that guides its sales team through the trade-in process, ensuring all the necessary information is included to value it properly — quickly.
David Gibson Wholesale Division Manager with H & R Agri-Power August 1-2, 2017. Start Video at 27 minute mark.


text:
Galion Inquirer on Facebook
Galion Inquirer on Twitter
Posted on October 28, 2019 by Russell Kent
Galion police reports
Crime, Top Stories
Thursday, Oct, 17
10:25 p.m. — Banking account information was reportedly stolen and used at several places.
12:22 p.m. — Books were reported stolen from a hangar at Galion Municipal Airport.
1:19 p.m. — A tandem axle trailer was reported stolen by a Smith Street resident.
4:27 p.m. — A possible overdose was reported the 800 block of Harding Way West.
11:31 p.m. — One person was arrested on a felony warrant, three counts of drug possession, obstruction of justice and fleeing an officer after an incident in the 300 block of Harding Way East.
Friday, Oct. 18
1:26 a.m. — A 37-year-old Florida man was arrested for disorderly conduct in the 300 block of Third Avenue.
2:35 a.m. — A domestic dispute was investigated in the 300 block of North Columbus Street.
3:27 p.m. — Police received a report of three kids throwing a bike off the bridge at Heise Park.
5:50 p.m. — One person reported being assaulted in the 300 block of South Union Street.
7:57 p.m. — One person was arrested for criminal damaging after a window was broken at Photorama.
10:44 p.m. — After a report of a disturbance in the 700 bock of South Boston Street, one person was arrested for disorderly conduct.
11:15 p.m. — Vandalism was reported to the bathroom at South Park.
9:16 p.m. — A breaking and entering was reported in the 300 block of Sherman Street.
6:52 p.m. — A photo book was found near Amann Reservoir.
9:42 p.m. — One person was arrested for public intoxication after a report of fighting at the gazebo.
Monday, Oct. 21
9:41 a.m. — A purse was reported stolen from a North Market Street residence.
10:42 a.m. — A Sixth Avenue resident reported gas stolen from a vehicle.
5:17 p.m. — A South Street resident reported receiving harassing phone calls.
5:22 p.m. — An assault was reported in the 1100 block of North Market Street.
6:39 p.m. — An assault was reported in the 200 block of East Summit Street.
11:04 p.m. — A possible breaking and entering was reported in the 400 block of Second Avenue.
11:32 a.m. — A domestic dispute was reported in the 200 block of South Street.
12:13 p.m. — One person was arrested on Harding Way East for possessing drug abuse instruments.
12:22 p.m. — An assault was reported in the 400 block of Portland Way North.
8:04 a.m. — A domestic dispute was reported in the 400 block of South Union Street.
https://www.galioninquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/38/2019/10/web1_generic-police-2.jpg
Mt. Gilead OH, 43338
Follow @GalionNews
Hi! A visitor to our site felt the following article might be of interest to you: Galion police reports. Here is a link to that story: https://www.galioninquirer.com/top-stories/47949/galion-police-reports-118

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Visit the Baltimore Museum of Industry "Free for All" tonight. Admission, tours, kids' arts and crafts workshops and food samplings from Zeffert and Gold Catering and Cuisine Catering will be free. Visitors can also check out the new ex hibit Bodine's Baltimore: A City at Work, which runs through April 29. The "Free for All" runs 5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m. at the mu seum, 1415 Key Highway. Call 410-727-4808 or go to www.thebmi.org.


The most common issue come in the form: "I used to be able to do XYZ, and now I can't."
See http://madwifi.org/wiki/NewCodebase for a discussion of the Why Is There A New Codebase Anyway.
See [wiki:NewCodebase] for a discussion of the Why Is There A New Codebase Anyway.
See http://www.madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/MonitorMode for the old vs new way of making a 'raw' interface. In NG you just send packets to a monitor mode interface and it acts as a raw device.
See [wiki:UserDocs/MonitorMode] for the old vs new way of making a 'raw' interface. In NG you just send packets to a monitor mode interface and it acts as a raw device.


text:
CA. Mohit Balani
Contact No. +91 8238036174
Send in your Queries
Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT- (Delhi High Court) [ Discussion on the Judgement]
By CA. Mohit Balani February 19, 2016 No comments
Recently, the delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT held that in absence of any income claimed as exempt by the assessee, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Very said view was taken by The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 97. The facts of the case were that, the assesse was engaged in the business of making investment in shares and accepting/granting of loans. The Assessee was one of the co-promoters of Max India Ltd. The Assessee borrowed funds on which interest expenditure of Rs.1,21,03,367/- was incurred. The factual assertion of the Assessee was that in the relevant AY no dividend income was earned by the Appellant from the amount invested in various shares.For the AY in question, the Appellant filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.13,84,086/-. This case was picked up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act disallowing Rs.97,87,570/- out of the total expenditure incurred during the year under Section 14A of the Act. The reason recorded by the AO for this disallowance was that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of purchase of shares for the purpose to earn dividend income which is exempted under section 10(34) of the Act and thus, not forming a part of the total income, and therefore the paid thereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A.
The CIT (A) by an order dated 27th September 2007 upheld the applicability of Section 14A of the. In the appeals before the ITAT, a Special Bench was constituted to decide the question regarding applicability of Section 14A of the Act in an year when no exempt income had been earned. The Special Bench by an order dated 5 th August 2009 answered the question by inter alia referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC). The Special Bench of the ITAT negatived the submission of the assesse.
The Assessee then filed an appeal against the above stated special bench decision befre Delhi High Court, wherein the following question of law was admitted :-
"Whether disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the Assessee?"
The court while determining the issue, observed that the complete answer to the above stated was provided by the very said Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. (decision dated 5th September 2014 in ITA No. 486/2014). The Court then referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 86. The Court also referred to three decisions of different High Courts which where in the above said substantial question law was admitted. The first was the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Incl. (decision dated 2nd April 2014 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in ITA No. 970/2008) which in turn referred to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Limited [2010] 323 ITR 518 and CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204. The second was of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd [2014] 223 Taxmann 130 (Guj.) and the third of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (decision dated 5 th May 2014 in ITA No. 88/2014). All the three decisions were passed after taking a view against the revenue and reiterated the position that when an Assessee had not earned any taxable income in the relevant AY in question "corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for disallowance.
The court then observed that in the case Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the expression "incurred for making or earning such income", did not mean that any income should in fact have been earned as a condition precedent for claiming the expenditure. The court further observed that s. 57(iii) requires is that the expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income. It is the purpose of the expenditure that is relevant in determining the applicability of s. 57(iii) and that purpose must be making or earning of income. s. 57(iii) does not require that this purpose must be fulfilled in order to qualify the expenditure for deduction. It does not say that the expenditure shall be deductible only if any income is made or earned. There is in fact nothing in the language of s. 57(iii) to suggest that the purpose for which the expenditure is made should fructify into any benefit by way of return in the shape of income. The plain natural construction of the language of s. 57(iii) irresistibly leads to the conclusion that to bring a case within the section, it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure."
The court further observed that Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income." and accordingly the decision in the case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. The Court held that that the expression "does not form part of the total income" in Section 14A of the Act, envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income.
In other words, the court after referring the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs Corrtech 372 ITR 97 & other decisions as enumerated above, held that Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year.
Schedule of Appeal Fees & How to file Income Tax Appeal Challan
Schedule of Appeal Fees Particulars Fees for filing appeal before CIT (A) Fees for filing appeal before I.T.A.T Assessed Tota...
Blog # 22. S.56(2)(vii) : Property Acquired
Assessing officers in case of property being acquired by an assesse, for a cost less than the stamp valuation have started issuing show ...
Blog#21 . Finance Act 2018
Analysis of Direct Tax Proposals in Finance Act, 2018 24th February, 2018 Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry & A...
Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT- (Delhi High Court) [ Disc...
S.221 (1)
S.37(1) (1)
S.44AA (1)
S.68 (1)
Copyright © Legal Corner | Powered by Blogger


Let yourself get carried away by harmonious melodies, full of healing aliquot tones of music therapy instruments.
Creative workshops for complete art beginners.
Regular Monday workshops with Oldřich Pelikán focused on drawing of nudes.
Opening of the exhibition "Who is the Victor?"
The opening of the exhibition will begin on Tuesday, June 19, at 5 pm in The House of Arts in Ostrava.
These creative workshops are specially targeted at senior citizens. Start at 4 pm.


text:
Boards/Committees » Historic Preservation Commission » Minutes: March 15, 2012
Note: Meeting minutes by chairman's notes.
Mr. Bates, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231 P.L., 1975, adequate notice as defined in Section 3D of Chapter 231, P.L. 1975, had been forwarded to the New Jersey Herald on March 1, 2012. Notice is also posted on the bulletin board and filed with the office of the Township Clerk.
Roll Call of Members
Charles Bates P
Christopher Hanke P
Sharon Cheadle NP
Stephen Sokolewicz P
Ted Laabs P
Andrew Borisuk (7:20 p.m.) P
Carol Gunn Kadish P
Motion: Mr. Sokolewicz made a motion to approve of the above minutes. Mr. Hanke seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Kadish Farm Application
Note: Carol Gunn Kadish recused herself from this discussion.
Mr. and Mrs. Kadish came forward and presented their home for memorialization. It will be noted that they do not want a plaque on their property. The following issues were presented:
Mr. and Mrs. Kadish want only the house memorialized as the farm is already preserved.
The history records the house owned by the Edsall family in the late 1700s with many additions added up to approximately 1955.
One of the additions was from the Sears mail order company.
The Kadish home presents with a variety of wood structures (e.g. chestnut, maple) indicative of the economic times of the family living there.
Ruben Kadish, an artist from California, lived there.
The house and barn are on one lot and block. It was suggested that a metes and bounds survey be done for only the house.
In general, the house is being recommended for memorialization because of the date, the prior ownership of record and the mansard roof structure.
Motion: Mr. Borisuk made a motion to accept the application for memorialization. Mr. Laabs seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Ms. Gunn Kadish presented that she and Ms. Cheadle are ready to present 3 cemetery sites (McCamly, Cherry Ridge and Canistear) for memorialization. It was also shared there may only be 2 more cemetery sites for historic memorialization. It will be noted that prior references record the existence of 35-37 cemeteries. Approximately 25 sites are noted in historical references but are lost due to a variety of reasons. They are noted as lost to reservoir construction, headstones being removed due to the plowing of fields, and/or remains of the dead being buried with no reference to physical resting place.
Parker House Application
A rough draft has been completed and Ron DuPont is reviewing it for accuracy.
Board of Education Building
Copies of a building sign indicating "high" will be presented to the Board of Education in hopes they will place the explanation of "high" school in the window next to the plaque for future reference.
Incentives for Historic Designation
It was discussed that the possibilities of an incentive package be researched by Steve Sokolewicz that our town council may want to include in the master plan for the purposes of providing "something" to a homeowner who wants to preserve his/her property. Further details at the next meeting.
Applications Reviewed
LU# 2-12-3: T-Mobile Northeast LLC, Block 233, Lot 7.01, Conditional Use Site Plan to Maintain an Antenna Concealed within the Existing Cupola
LU# 2-12-5: Daniel O'Keefe, Block 204.07, Lot 1, Bulk Variance to Build a Porch Roof Over an Existing Slab
LU# 2-12-4: T-Mobile Northeast LLC, Block 199.10, Lot 4, Conditional Use Site Plan to Maintain an Antenna on a Roof
LU# 1-12-2: Noemy Toste, Block 143.01, Lot 6, Bulk Variance for Front Yard Addition
LU# 3-12-6: Peter and Linda Tczap, Block 44.02, Lot 13, Bulk Variance for an Attached Garage
The HPC members reviewed the above applications and determined that these sites hold no historical significance.
Mr. Borisuk made a motion to adjourn the HPC meeting at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Laabs seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Transcribed by Cynthia Davis on April 18, 2012.


In order to realize a EU project it is often necesary to attract a foreign partner. We offer a unique free of charge possibility to look for and find possible collaboration partner for realization a project you are interested in.
To make use of this opportunity you have to find a programme you are interested in, to open it and in the part "looking for partners" to fill in the necessary questionnaire. Filling in the the questionnare you can identify yourself as Projectproposer or Offering collaboration.


text:
Waging Wisdom
UNCOMMON SENSE FOR A WORLD IN CONFLICT
Why Wisdom
Why this blog
[ Charles Strohmer ]
Book Editing
The Last Person to Hear about 9/11
Posted on September 9, 2015 by Charles Strohmer (c) 2014
2.30 p.m. GMT. Three hours out of London, the passengers aboard Delta Flight 59 were digesting their lunches, quietly absorbed in their laptops or reading novels. Others fell drowsily captive to that vespertine atmosphere created on planes when the movies are running. Other than departing Gatwick 30 minutes late, at Noon (7 a.m. EDT), so far the only bother was that all of the video screens had suddenly gone dark.
"The movies should be back on in a few minutes," an air hostess replied over the intercom to the hushed buzz of passengers. "A computer needs re-booting. It happens. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Yawn. Passengers stretched, ordered drinks, queued for toilets. Someone across the aisle from me lifted his porthole shade and broke the spell of counterfeit evening. I was overwhelmed. The bright blue evanescence, which I once heard a pilot call "severe clear," stretched out into forever. It hurt your eyes to gaze at the boundless brightness. I turned away. Twenty more minutes passed. Still no movies. People fidgeted. The Boeing 777 droned on. Five hours to go before touchdown in Atlanta.
3.15 p.m. GMT. Suddenly everyone's attention locked on to the Texas drawl coming from the intercom. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. May I have your attention. Your serious attention." The dreaded words. Worst nightmares sprung from the fuselage, the overhead compartment, the unconscious — wherever you had stowed them before boarding. A kind of holy moment spread through cabin. No one spoke. No one dared. We're going down.
It seemed much longer than the millisecond it took before Captain William's steady but troubled Texas drawl continued: "There's been a major incident in the United States and all air space throughout the nation has been closed. All planes in the air in the United States are being directed to land at the nearest airports, and all international flights into the U.S. are being diverted. We are okay. I repeat. We are okay. But we cannot land in the U.S. We will be landing in Halifax, Nova Scotia in about two hours. We can't give you any more information at this time. Please be patient and bear with us. We will have more details for you when we get on the ground in Halifax. Thank you for your cooperation."
Like synchronized swimmers on cue, passengers turned to face their seat-neighbors. Whispers arose. What do you think it is? Who knows? Maybe that announcement was just a ploy and we're going down? Must have been a huge earthquake? What would they close all the airports for that? A nuclear bomb, then? Maybe the air traffic control system has failed? Does the captain even know what's going on?
Nothing made any sense to me. Why had the FAA closed all the airports? I had to know. Knowing would help me beat back worst-case-scenario self-talk. I quickly calculated to Eastern Time and realized that my wife would be in class with her first-graders. But how could I even be sure of that? Was she safe? What had happened? And where? Who had been effected? Was I even going to get home?
Someone must know. Ahh. Coming down the aisle toward me was a hostess whom I had spoken with earlier and had made a connection. I was traveling alone and there were no passengers near me. I decided to take advantage of that privacy. Our eyes met but I deliberately remained seated, hoping she would stop when I sought inconspicuously to flag her down. She stopped and crouched to listen. "I know you can't tell me what happened, even if you know," I whispered, "and I'm not asking you to. But can you at least tell me, does the crew know what's happened?" She nodded discreetly, stood, and then continued on her errand. Well, it was something. A kindness. The first of many to come during the next four days.
5.45 p.m. GMT/12.45 p.m. EDT. Delta Flight 59 became the penultimate of 42 planeloads of international air travelers permitted safe harbor at Halifax International before the tarmac ran out of wing space. As we circled before landing, I was surprised to see the asphalt service road filled with on-lookers in cars, vans, and pickups; like bystanders congregating to stare at a blazing house fire, they had queued to watch the emergency landings. Well, more than that. It wasn't just the striking sight of landing these huge commercial jets that had brought them out of their homes and businesses that sunny day. They knew what had happened. Who did not? We still did not.
1 p.m. EDT. Taxiing to our place at the end of the long queue of planes, far from the terminal, we eased past the staring congregation of on-lookers until Captain Williams brought the 777 to a gentle halt. We heard the mic cue. Williams immediately thanked us for our patient cooperation and then provided what details he had of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. "Hopefully," he concluded, "they'll re-open U.S. airspace to get these international flights to their destinations. So maybe we'll get out of here in a few hours."
We now asked a thousand questions of the crew, but they only knew what Captain Williams knew. Cell phone service had been turned off as we flew to Halifax, and there were no televisions. The details available to us upon landing were still very sketchy and rumors still ran wild in the media about "more possible attacks." There was a rumor about "a plane crashing in Pennsylvania."
It would be nearly 24 hours after the attack before our imaginations would be seared by television images of flying machines, twisted I-beams, and charred bodies crashing, falling, and billowing in the explosive chemistry of terror, dust, and loss.
©2015 by Charles Strohmer
Note from Charles: Every week of September 11 since 2001, I remember where I was on that fateful day. I still find it eerie – given the immediate, ubiquitous, and lengthy worldwide media coverage of the attack – to have been one of the last persons on the planet to hear the news. More importantly, I think about how opposite of the terrorist attackers was the spirit of thousands of stranded passengers and our Canadian hosts as we built community in and around Halifax those days. I called that spirit "the kindness of strangers," and it was duplicated for many thousands of stranded others across the U.S. and Canada. If you would like to read the full essay of my account, first published for the one-year anniversary of 9/11, here it is.
Top image: smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, taken from the international space station (image by NASA/Bryan Allen/Corbis). Bottom: the 42 huge international passenger jets parked wingtip to wingtip on a runway of Halifax International (image by CBS News).
A personal note from Charles Strohmer: If you want more of the perspectives that wagingwisdom.com seeks to present, I want to invite you to follow the blog. Simply click here wagingwisdom.com, find the "Follow" button in the right margin, enter your email address just above that button, and then click "Follow." You will then receive a very short email notice whenever I publish a new article. And, hey, if you really like it, tell some friends! Thank you.
This entry was posted in ESSAYS, MOODS & TUDES TODAY, ON 9/11 and tagged 9/11, Halifax Nova Scotia by Charles Strohmer (c) 2014. Bookmark the permalink.


To better enforce its noise curfew, San Jose's airport will install two thermal-imaging cameras in July to snap infrared pictures of planes that are not supposed to take off or land during the overnight ban. The San Jose City Council on Tuesday approved spending $18,730 to have the cameras installed on Terminal C overlooking the runways, the final step after spending about $105,000 earlier this fiscal year on the cameras.
Under the airport's 17-month-old curfew, planes that produce more than 89 decibels of noise are barred from flying from 11:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. The old curfew applied to passenger and cargo planes that weighed more than 75,000 pounds.
The airport already monitors curfew violators through regular cameras, citizen complaints, daily reviews of air traffic control transmissions and workers at its 24-hour operations center.
Acting Aviation Director Frank Kirkbride said the new cameras will improve the monitoring system by providing a "thermal signature" of the exact moment planes touch down or take off. He said such photographs could prove useful in the event that an airline disputes that it violated the policy and appeals the $2,500 per-incident fine to the Airport Commission.
But residents who live near the airport said the cameras are a token gesture that does nothing to address the bigger noise problem created by the city's new curfew policy. Commercial jets are now allowed to fly in the middle of the night as long as they are relatively quiet.
This week, America West's new daily flight from Las Vegas began landing at 1:25 a.m., about two hours later than the usual curfew cutoff of 11:30 p.m.
Councilman Ken Yeager, whose District 6 includes many airport neighbors, asked Kirkbride to report periodically to the council about the number of planes that take off before 6:30 a.m.


text:
The Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., Founder of the ..., Band 2
von Luke Tyerman
A Long Tour.
evening of the same day, the society contributed £14 more for a few of its own distressed members.
The day after, he began a tour, which occupied the next two-and-thirty weeks.
On his way to Bristol, his horse dropped down dead. At Stroud, he preached in the new chapel. Towards the close of the sermon, a young man fell to the ground, and vehemently prayed for mercy. After supper, a young gentleman cried, "I am damned," and sunk prostrate on the floor. A second did so quickly after, and was much convulsed, and yet quite sensible. Leaving Stroud, Wesley proceeded to Worcester, Birmingham, Derby, and Sheffield.
At Manchester, Bolton, and Liverpool, he had overflowing congregations. He wished to embark for Ireland; but, after a fortnight's waiting, on account of unfavourable winds, he set out, on April 11, for Kendal, where Francis Gilbert resided, brother of Nathaniel Gilbert, Esq., of Antigua. Here also was Miss Mary Gilbert, a girl fourteen years of age, who had been sent by her father from Antigua to be educated, but who, three years afterwards, triumphantly expired, leaving behind her the beautiful journal which Wesley immediately published.
From Kendal, Wesley proceeded across the mountains, in the midst of a rainy hurricane, to Barnardcastle, where he examined those who, two or three years before, had professed to be entirely sanctified. The result was far from satisfactory. In London, about two thirds of the high professors had lost their confidence; and he found the same proportion in Barnardcastle.
On April 22, Wesley set out for Scotland, where he says: "my coming was quite seasonable, as those bad letters, published in the name of Mr. Hervey, and reprinted here by Mr. John Erskine, had made a great deal of noise." After preaching at Dunbar, Edinburgh, Musselburgh, and Glasgow, he made his way, in company with his itinerant, James Kershaw, along the west coast of Scotland, till he reached Portpatrick, where he and his horse got into an open boat, and crossed the Channel to Donaghadee, in Ireland.
From May 2 to August 2, he was incessantly travelling, writing, and preaching in the sister island. Coming to
1765 Londonderry, he knew no one, nor where the preacher Age 62 lodged; but while he stood musing how to act, a gentleman, on horseback, asked his name, and took him home with him. This was Alexander Knox, Esq., a member of the corporation, a scholar and a Christian, who, for thirty years, carried on a correspondence with Bishop Jebb.
After Thomas Williams, the first Methodist itinerant in Ireland, was discarded by Wesley, he visited Londonderry, became popular as a preacher, formed a society, fell into sin, married, and then went off, leaving his wife behind him. This was in 1764. Two of Williams's members wrote to Dublin for a preacher, and James Clough was sent. This was the preacher whom Wesley wanted, when he was met by Mr. Knox. Wesley's host took him to the church, and led him to a pew, where he was placed next the mayor. He gave him hospitable entertainment for a fortnight, and he and his wife became members of Wesley's society; and, though he ultimately left the Methodists, yet, as will be seen hereafter, to the end of life, he retained the profoundest respect for his friend.
During his stay with Mr. Knox, Wesley wrote as follows:"LONDONDERRY, May 14, 1765.
"DEAR SIR,-You have admirably expressed what I mean by an opinion, contradistinguished from an essential doctrine. Whatever is 'compatible with love to Christ, and a work of grace,' I term an opinion. And certainly the holding particular election and final perseverance is compatible with these.
"Yet what fundamental errors,' you ask, 'have you opposed with half that fervency as you have opposed these opinions?' I have printed near fifty sermons, and only one of these opposes them at all. I preach about eight hundred sermons a year; and, taking one year with another, for twenty years past, I have not preached eight sermons in a year upon the subject. But how many of your best preachers have been thrust out, because they dissented from you in these particulars?' Not one, best or worst, good or bad, was ever thrust out on this account. Two or three voluntarily left us, after they had embraced those opinions; and two I should have expelled for immoral behaviour; but they withdrew, and pretended not to hold our doctrine. Set a mark, therefore, on him that told you that tale, and let his word for the future go for nothing.
"Is a man a believer in Jesus Christ, and is his life suitable to his pro
1Methodist Magazine, 1835, p. 123.
fession?' are not only the main, but the sole, inquiries, I make, in order to his admission into our society. If he is a Dissenter, he may be a Dissenter still: but if he is a Churchman, I advise him to continue so.
"I think on justification, just as I have done any time these seven-andtwenty years; and just as Mr. Calvin does. In this respect, I do not
differ from him an hair'sbreadth.
"I am, dear sir, your affectionate brother and servant,
"JOHN WESLEY."
Wesley did not get to Dublin till the 18th of July, in the evening of which day, he says, "I began expounding the deepest part of the holy Scripture, namely, the first epistle of St. John, by which above all other, even inspired, writings, I advise every young preacher to form his style. Here are sublimity and simplicity together, the strongest sense and the plainest language. How can any one, that would speak as the oracles of God, use harder words than are found here?"
During Wesley's tour in Ireland, Whitefield arrived in England from America. His health was shattered; and, no sooner was he at home again, than he became the butt of malignant wit. Lloyd's Evening Post published a long "Lecture on Heads," in which Whitefield was caricatured as "the bell-wether of the flock, who had broken down orthodoxy's bounds, and was now rioting on the common of hypocrisy"; and then followed a ribald harangue put into his mouth, and far too foul for quotation.
Wesley, also, in the same periodical, had his share of personal abuse; and was calumniated as the patron of a practice then in vogue, namely that of parties of religious people using cards, with Scripture texts, to ascertain their spiritual condition, and eternal hopes.1 Both, however, were too accustomed to such scurrility, to suffer it to disturb their peace.
On August 2, Wesley embarked for England, and landed, at Whitehaven, on the 6th. He hurried to Newcastle; and, on Sunday, the 11th, preached thrice, held a covenant service, spoke for an hour at a society meeting, and rode nearly thirty miles. Pretty well, for a man more than threescore years of age.
On his way southwards, he preached at Sunderland, Dur
1 Lloyd's Evening Post, Sept. 27, 1765.
1765 Age 62
1765 ham, Yarm, Leeds, and Huddersfield.
He then rode to
Chester to preach in the octagon chapel, just erected, and said to be capable of containing from six to eight hundred people. At this period, Chester was included in the Manchester circuit, the society raising, by their united efforts, about a shilling per week for the support of their preachers.1
On August 20, Wesley opened his conference, in Manchester. The circuits in England at this period were twentyfive in number: namely-London, Sussex, Canterbury, Colchester, Norwich, Bedford, Oxfordshire, Wilts, Bristol, Devon, Cornwall (East), Cornwall (West), Staffordshire, Salop, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Sheffield, Epworth, Grimsby, Leeds, Birstal, Haworth, York, Yarm, The Dales, and Newcastle. It is a fact worth noting, that six of these circuit towns, nearly a fourth of the entire number, were in Yorkshire. In addition, there were four circuits in Scotland: namely-Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, and Glasgow; two in Wales-Glamorganshire and Pembroke; and eight in Ireland—Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Athlone, Castlebar, Newry, and Londonderry. To these thirty-nine circuits ninety-two itinerant preachers were appointed, twelve of whom were admitted, on trial, at the present conference.
This will give the reader an idea of the growth of Methodism, during the first twenty-five years of its eventful history; and it may be added that, while at the Manchester conference, of 1765, there were only ninety-two preachers for the whole of the circuits in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, there were, a hundred years later, in 1865, not fewer than one hundred and seventeen, for the circuits in the Manchester district only; in other words, the Manchester district, only, had, in 1865, nearly one third more ministers than the whole of the Methodist connexion had in 1765.
The proceedings of the conference may be gathered from the following synopsis of its minutes.
The connexional collection for the support of Kingswood school was ascertained to be £100 9s. 7d. The yearly subscription in the classes was £707 18s.; of which £578 was devoted to the payment of chapel debts; £38 17s. was
1 Methodist Magazine, 1843, p. 380.
Conference of 1765.
spent in defraying law expenses, and the remaining £91 15. was divided among the preachers who were in want. Rules were adopted for the management of the fund for the support of superannuated preachers, their widows, and their children. Many of the chapels being still deeply involved in debt, it was determined, that no new chapel should be begun, but by the advice of one of the assistants; and that no assistant should consent to a new erection without an absolute necessity. Some of the chapels already built were not vested in trustees, and several trustees of other chapels were already dead. To remedy these defects, a person was to be sent through England, to examine the deeds, and to appoint trustees where needed. In all future buildings, there were to be sash windows, opening downwards; but no "tub pulpits," and no backs to the seats. Men and women were to sit apart everywhere; outdoor preaching had often been omitted to please societies or their stewards, but this was not to be done again; weeknight preaching, except in harvest time, was never to commence later than seven o'clock, and a lovefeast should never continue longer than an hour and a half, for every one ought to be at home by nine. Breaking bread to each other at lovefeasts, "a silly custom invented by James Wheatley," was to be discountenanced, on the ground that it created much confusion. Some of the preachers were not "merciful to their beasts," and it was directed, that hard riding should be abandoned, and that every one should "see with his own eyes his horse rubbed, fed, and bedded." It was resolved, that members, removing from one society to another, should not be received, unless they brought a certificate from the assistant officiating where they left.
Other regulations were adopted by the conference of 1765. No preacher was to print anything without Wesley's approbation. Societies and congregations were to be taught singing. The preachers were to meet the societies, bands, and children; to use intercession on Fridays; and to recommend fasting, both by precept and example. The people were to be urged to use family prayer twice a day; to be good economists; to guard against "little oaths, as upon my life, my faith, my honour;" and against little compliments, or unmeaning words. The members might "tenderly and prudently call each other


text:
(Photo by Thor Wegner/DeFodi Images via Getty Images)
'Wasn't his night': Nottingham Forest-owned star gets 5/10 after 'tough evening'
Nottingham Forest winger Alex Mighten was handed a first League One start for Sheffield Wednesday in their 3-0 win over Morecambe on Tuesday night.
The talented youngster joined the Owls on a season-long loan deal on transfer deadline day and has now made three outings.
Mighten desperately needs regular game time and he's a player that has a lot of potential to unleash.
Although the 20-year-old has made 66 appearances for the Reds, he's struggled to hold down a regular place in the team.
Mighten is relatively raw and has managed just four goals and two assists from his outings in the Garibaldi.
(Photo; Michael Regan; Getty Images)
It would appear that he was given a tough assignment on his first league start for Wednesday.
Morecambe are yet to win a game during 2022/23 and they were no match for the Owls.
It would appear that Mighten did struggle though and he will need to adapt to playing in a new division.
Yorkshire Live gave him a 5/10 for his performance and suggested that he struggled throughout the clash.
In their player ratings piece, they wrote: "Handed his first start by Darren Moore. Was utilised on the right flank. Morecambe did a good job of keeping him quiet. A tough evening for the young man."
The Sheffield Star, provided a similar assessment, merely stating: "It wasn't really his night."
Mighten handed first start
It's fair to say that the Forest man will need to improve – and he will.
The Reds have high hopes for Mighten and he must showcase that he's got what it takes to make an impact on Trentside.
At 20, the academy graduate will need to start kicking on and Wednesday should provide him with the perfect opportunity.
The Owls will be one of the better outfits in League One and they will win more games than they lose.
Mighten should therefore be playing in a team that has a lot of the ball and he should get plenty of chances to shine.
It's been a slow start for the Forest performer and the challenge now is to park his current outings and start showcasing his undoubted ability.
Tags: Alex Mighten
Report: 'Elite' Nottingham Forest trickster set for shock CG return but he could be in limbo
'Let him down': Nottingham Forest gem shows familiar trait in Tuesday defeat but wins praise
Nottingham Forest talent and Leeds international praise Brennan Johnson on Instagram
'Encouraging showing': Nottingham Forest-owned gem produces 'outstanding' display on loan
Report: EFL outfit want Nottingham Forest speed demon, Cooper will sanction loan
Nottingham Forest predicted XI: Five changes, 27-year-old gets full debut
'Not happening': Nottingham Forest gem slated for latest display on loan, he's 'off the pace'
Report: 'Exciting' Nottingham Forest 20-year-old is a shock target for top-flight club
One Nottingham Forest man has bulked up and he deserves to start against Hull
Nottingham Forest-owned 27-year-old rewarded for loan form, he will rival Arsenal newcomer
Nottingham Forest-linked player stuns Chelsea and Reds can now land him for £26m
Nottingham Forest transfer news: Reds reportedly set to loan Ateef Konate out


text:
No need to sell 'prize jewel' Wells
James Burton, Sub-editor
Monday, June 24, 2013 2:08 AM
*File photo
Bradford City say they have no need to sell 'prize jewel' Nahki Wells but admitted a 'stupid offer' could see him leave.
The Bermudian striker was the club's top scorer last season and was on target as the Bantams beat Northampton Town in the play-off final at Wembley to seal promotion to League One.
Along with strike partner James Hanson, Wells, 23, is viewed as an integral part of a side that also reached the final of the Capital One Cup, only to be soundly beaten by Premier League Swansea City.
Joint-chairman Mark Lawn told the Bradford Telegraph & Argus they would have little choice but to accept a large offer for the hugely-promising former Dandy Town forward — who has interest Leeds United, Huddersfield and Burnley — but said the club are under no pressure to sell.
He said: "They are prize jewels and we wouldn't want to lose them.
"Financially we don't need to sell. We've got them on contracts that we can afford so it's not going to kill us to keep them here.
"If we get a stupid offer, then don't get me wrong we'd certainly have to look at it. But it would have to be one where Phil (Parkinson) is happy to turn round and say 'I can replace him'.
"If we were to let either one of them go, we'd have to get enough money to be able to replace them. That's up to Phil, not me, and he would have to tell me what he wants.
"But everyone knows our position. That's why all the usual tyre kickers haven't bothered coming along because they know we'd give them short shrift."
Lawn concedes Wells would probably have been sold if the past campaign had not gone so well.
He said: "Nahki was in our mind when we took the risk (with the budget) last year. If it hadn't worked out by January, then we would look to move him on.
"But to be fair, it did go so well so we didn't have to do that.
"Nahki's tied down for two years after this and James has still got one more. We'll be talking to him at some stage but there's no rush.
"They are both level-headed about it. They realise that Phil has developed them and can see they've come on a lot.
"We've managed to keep the team together and I get the impression from both Nahki and James that they want to come in next year and improve even more under this coaching staff.
"They are still quite young and on that level where they can improve a hell of a lot. Let's hope we can get that out of them."
Wells honoured during half-time presentation
I may leave Bradford, says Wells
Win a dream come true, says goal hero Wells
Live: Wells first Bermudian to score at Wembley
Wells: Final is career-defining
Northampton boss hits back at Wells
Wells unfazed by transfer talk
Wells: Time for Wembley redemption
Wells better prepared this time
Wells: We'll make fans proud at Wembley
Wells double propels Bradford to Wembley
Wells and Bradford seal play-off spot
Wells seeks transfer advice from Goater and Lightbourne
Wells: Achievements still sinking in
We can match Wells' ambitions, say Bradford City
Bradford City turn down Wells bid
Clinical Wells opens League One account
On-fire Wells makes in three in three
I'm going all out to break record, says Nahki
Best: 'Harry can help Nahki'
Nahki bid admission upsets City
Wells sets 30-goal target
'Wells staying would be like a new, big-money signing'


text:
WTO Court Rules in Favor of El Salvador!
October 20, 2016 Claudia Lucero Central America
Continue reading WTO Court Rules in Favor of El Salvador!
CRLN at the Border: SOA Watch Convergence Report Back
October 11, 2016 Claudia Lucero Immigration
Continue reading CRLN at the Border: SOA Watch Convergence Report Back
Colombia Voted No: A Complicated Picture & the Path Ahead
October 4, 2016 Claudia Lucero Colombia
(Español aquí)
Photo: Jesús Abad Colardo / archive SEMANA
CRLN, along with many in the international community and our partners in Colombia, is surprised and saddened by this weekend's NO vote on Colombia's proposed Peace Accords. The final count came down to 50.21 percent 'NO' and 49.78 'YES', a difference of 53,894 votes. The turnout was 37 percent, out of 34 million eligible voters.
The motivations of NO voters are myriad and complicated, some not knowing what was actually in the accords, some feeling excluded from the peace process, some seeing the Colombian state giving too many concessions to FARC guerillas, especially voters in FARC strongholds. Meanwhile, in areas where the worst massacres of the war were committed, like Bojayá, 96% of the voters cast their ballots for 'YES'. Likewise, in regions with the most intensive ongoing conflict, the majority of people voted in favor of the Peace Accords.
The other political split that affected the vote was between President Juan Manuel Santos and former President, now Senator Alvaro Uribe. Uribe was one of the main campaigners against the Peace Accords, some suspecting that his opposition is linked to his history of connections with paramilitary groups and extrajudicial killings by Colombian state security forces during his time in the presidency. (Unlike what you read in most U.S. newspapers, the FARC was not responsible for all of the violence against civilians during the war. Paramilitary groups have been active forces of violence and displacement throughout the war and continue to displace people from their territories, often in the interest of mining and other extractive industries.) Meanwhile, President Santos, who did not campaign as effectively in favor of his Peace Deal, also has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president in Colombia's modern history.
While we continue to sift through the various reports, we offer a news round up of some of the stories published since Sunday in English and Spanish. We believe that there is still a path toward peace and we will continue working with our partners to achieve that goal. We will also continue working with organized African descendant and Indigenous peoples, who have been disproportionately affected by the violence and displacement and who worked so hard to win the inclusion of the Ethnic Chapter last month.
English, WBEZ: Worldview's Jerome McDonnel's Interview with Gimena Sanchez of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) / Entrevista de Jerome McDonnell de Worldview con Gimena Sanchez de la Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
Spanish, BBC: Bojayá, la población donde las FARC cometieron una de sus peores masacres y que votó abrumadoramente por el Sí / Bojayá, the population where the FARC committed one of the worst massacers y and which voted overwhelmingly for Yes
English, NACLA: A Dark Day in Colombia / Un Día Oscuro en Colombia
Video, English / Spanish, MSN: Colombia's FARC victims campaign for 'Yes' vote in peace deal / Víctimas de la FARC en Colombia hacen campaña por 'Si' a los Acuerdos en el plebiscito
Spanish, Semana: Las víctimas votaron por el Sí / The victims voted 'Yes'
English, Latin American Herald Tribune: Colombia's Santos Gives Peace Negotiator a Vote of Confidence / Santos en Colombia le da al Negociador de Paz un Voto de Confianza


text:
H1Z1 to Go Free to Play on Playstation 4
by Kristofer Brozio • April 24, 2018
I've never played it but I have heard good things, I prefer single player games myself, but H1Z1 is going free-to-play on PS4 and the open beta begins May 22nd. Details below…
Daybreak Games® today announced that H1Z1®, the original standalone battle royale game, is coming to PlayStation® 4. Open Beta begins May 22, 2018.
H1Z1 on PS4™ is designed specifically for the console and focuses exclusively on the core elements that make battle royale exciting. The game features a new weapon progression system, fully reworked UI, and new weapons and gear.
"H1Z1 on PS4 is true battle royale mayhem. We have reimagined the game for PlayStation 4 and have designed it to accentuate the essentials of battle royale that make the genre so exciting to watch and play," said H1Z1 Producer Terrence Yee. "We have added key gameplay differentiators to keep the game frantic and fun — an action shooter's dream of fast-paced battle royale."
The control scheme for H1Z1 on PS4 has been tailor-made to keep players focused on the action. H1Z1 now features a grab-and-go equipment system, simplifying loot collection and inventory management; a familiar radial weapon menu so players can quickly switch between guns and grenades; and a revamped HUD that delivers vital information at-a-glance. The crafting system has also been removed from the game.
Capitalizing on increased mobility, the PS4 edition takes H1Z1's signature fast-paced combat one step further by introducing new gameplay progression mechanics. The game's gas pacing has been altered to speed up the play of the match and the airdrop system has been revamped to keep players moving and invested in fights.
With the new weapon progression mechanics, players only have access to loot six level-one weapons at the start of the match and must strategically decide which airdrops to pursue if they want better level weapons and gear. Mass airdrops are released throughout the map, through which players may pick up familiar weapons like the AK and AR, as well as the new KH43, Marauder, Combat Shotgun, CNQ-09, Scout Rifle and MK46. Airdrops serve as the primary way to secure higher powered armor, which have been retooled to provide players with a health bonus.
While airdrops will be the primary method to secure leveled-up gear, special crates that contain level 2 and level 3 weapons and gear have been hidden throughout the map. Players with a more passive strategy may diligently search the world for these rare crates, which emit a low radio chatter and signal beacon when they are in proximity.
H1Z1 has been fully optimized for the PlayStation 4 and runs at 60 frames-per-second on PS4 Pro. The game's first Closed Beta weekend starts this month, and players can sign up now at the game's official website: www.H1Z1.com/PlayStation4
Starting today through May 22, 2018, players can preorder a special H1Z1 bundle for $29.99 for unique in-game cosmetic items that will be granted at the start of Open Beta. They'll also be given a dynamic theme at the time of purchase. PlayStation Plus Members will receive 20% off their preorder purchase.
Tags: free gaming h1z1 kristofer brozio PS4
← What's Going on at DreamHack This Year?
Can Fitness Gadgets Help You Build Muscle and Lose Weight? →
1 comment for "H1Z1 to Go Free to Play on Playstation 4"
Morgan Reiner
It does require PS+ subscription tho so "free"