text:
Zoonotic Diseases - UPSC Notes
Zoonoses or Zoonotic diseases are infectious diseases that can naturally be transmitted/spread between animals (usually vertebrates) and humans. These diseases can be caused by viruses, fungi, parasites, and bacteria. This topic finds relevance under the GS-III paper of the UPSC exam. This article provides information on the classification of Zoonotic Diseases, the causes of the Zoonotic Disease, the health risks of this disease, its prevalence in India, and the prevention and control measures.
Aspirants would find this topic very helpful while preparing for the IAS Exam.
Aspirants should begin their preparation by solving UPSC Previous Year Question Papers UPSC Previous Year Question Papers now!!
To complement your preparation for the upcoming exam, check the following links:
Download NCERT Biology Books (Free)
Current Affairs for UPSC Civil Service Exam
Download UPSC Notes PDF (Free)
Download NCERT NOTES (Free)
Videos & Tips from IAS Exam Toppers
What are Zoonotic Diseases?
Zoonosis refers to the transmission of diseases between animals and humans. Such diseases are termed as Zoonotic Diseases. Zoonotic diseases range from mild to severe, while in extreme cases can even be fatal.
Zoonoses may be bacterial, viral, or parasitic, or may even involve unconventional agents for the transmission of the disease.
WHO in 1959 defined Zoonoses as "those diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and man."
The World Zoonoses Day is observed every year on July 6 to create awareness on zoonotic diseases, how to prevent them, and what actions to take when exposed.
Classification of Zoonotic Diseases
The classification of diseases is usually done on the basis of the pathogen causing the disease. With the advancement in science, scientists and medical professionals have been able to identify and study in detail the etiological agents causing the diseases. Etiological agents usually refer to the causative agent of a diseased condition. The zoonoses are classified on the basis of three factors:
According to the etiological agents
According to the mode of transmission
According to the reservoir host
According to the etiological agents- there is a further classification under this as:
Bacterial zoonoses: e.g. anthrax
Viral zoonoses: e.g. rabies
Rickettsial zoonoses: e.g. Q-fever
Protozoal zoonoses: e.g. toxoplasmosis
Helminthic zoonoses: e.g. echinococcosis
Fungal zoonoses: e.g. cryptococcosis
Ectoparasites: e.g. scabies
According to the reservoir host: A reservoir is usually a living host of a certain species, such as an animal or a plant, inside of which a pathogen survives, often (though not always) without causing disease for the reservoir itself. A cascading effect is caused by the extinction of a species, leading to an increase in the population of the reservoir species.
Anthropozoonoses– Infections transmitted to men from lower vertebrate animals e.g. rabies.
Zooanthroponoses- Infections transmitted from man to lower vertebrate animals e.g.diphtheria
Amphixenoses- Infections maintained in both man and lower vertebrate animals and transmitted in either direction e.g. salmonellosis
Transmission of Zoonotic Diseases
Zoonotic diseases are transmitted through various means. The chances of diseases getting transmitted increase due to the expansion of transition zones between adjacent ecosystems when forests are cleared off for agricultural purposes. This is because the environment is overlapped for wild and domesticated animals. Some of the most common ways of transmission of the diseases are:
Direct zoonoses-These are transmitted from an infected vertebrate host to a susceptible host (man) by direct contact, by contact with a fomite or by a mechanical vector. E.g. Rabies
Cyclozoonoses– These require more than one vertebrate host species, but no invertebrate host for the completion of the life cycle of the agent. E.g. echinococcosis.
Metazoonosis- These are transmitted biologically by invertebrate vectors, in which the agent multiplies and/or develops and there is always an extrinsic incubation (prepatent) period before transmission to another vertebrate host. E.g. plague
Saprozoonosis- These require a vertebrate host and a non-animal developmental site like soil, and plant for the development of the infectious agent e.g. cryptococcosis
Pathogens are the organisms responsible for causing the disease. These are of five main types: viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and worms.
Vectors are organisms that do not cause the disease in itself but spread infection by conveying pathogens from one host to another. E.g. bats in the case of NIPAH virus and mosquitoes in the case of Malaria.
Causes of Zoonotic Diseases
The zoonotic diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans in multiple ways, most often, people with a weakened immune system are at risk. A few of the factors responsible for causing zoonotic diseases are:
Deforestation could be the primary reason as it increases the contact between humans and wild animals.
Through direct contact with bodily fluids such as blood, saliva, etc. of an infected animal or human.
The disease can also be transmitted through the intake of infected or contaminated food.
Global climate change, the overuse of antimicrobials in medicine, and more intensified farm settings can also contribute to the spread of Zoonotic diseases.
The Health Risk Posed by Zoonotic diseases
Historically, zoonotic diseases had a tremendous impact on the evolution of man, especially in the societies that domesticated and bred animals for food and clothing. Over the last seven decades, more than three hundred Zoonotic Diseases have been reported. They account for 75% of the Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) among human beings. The dramatic increase in the population, mobility, associated environmental and social changes in the past few decades can be attributed to the recent increase in the spread of Zoonotic diseases worldwide. The mobility of the diseases has drastically increased due to globalization.
Zoonotic diseases such as bovine tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and glanders caused millions of deaths. They are still a major problem in developing countries.
Apart from the obvious risk of the loss of significant lives, there is a risk of such dangerous microorganisms being used as biological weapons.
Since World War I, a number of nations have conducted programs to develop biological agents as weapons of war.
A majority of the biological agents that have been considered as weapons are zoonotic.
Most of the zoonotic agents are not highly contagious, which would make them relatively easy to control when incorporated into a weapons system and deployed in a tactical situation. However, these can be manipulated to be highly contagious once deployed in a population without the necessity for weaponization and can be presented as a respirable aerosol.
Terrorists have an even broader spectrum of zoonotic agents from which to choose than military weaponeers. The zoonotic pathogens are usually deployed in the form of aerosols.
Disease epidemics caused by the outbreak of zoonotic diseases also result in economic losses.
Endemic zoonotic diseases have the dual impact of causing illness and death in humans and animals as well as substantial economic loss in resource-poor societies where livestock farming is a major engine of economic growth at the household and national levels.
Zoonotic Disease Prevalent in India
Some of the zoonotic diseases which are prevalent in India are Nipah virus, Avian Influenza, Rabies, Japanese encephalitis, Leptospirosis, Hantavirus, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), Cysticercosis, Anthrax, Plague, Echinococcosis and Schistosomiasis, Kyasanur forest disease (KFD), etc.
Prevention Measures against Zoonotic Diseases
More than 220 million people in India depend on forestry and are vulnerable due to contact with wild animals but have no economic capacity to fight disease outbreaks like Kyasanur forest disease (KFD). For millennia, humans have feared the inevitable and unpredictable devastation wrought by infectious diseases emerging from forests and transmitted through wild animals. But there has been a stark increase in the incidence of Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) among both humans and domesticated animals in the recent past.
The SARS pandemic in 2003, was a milestone in disease management because it moved disease response beyond national sovereignty. It took close coordination between several state and non-state actors under the guidance of the WHO to get the disease under control.
One important measure to combat the spread of zoonotic diseases is:
The One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization tool is a semiquantitative tool for prioritization with equal input from represented sectors. It has been developed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the USA.
The tool is designed to bring together a multidisciplinary team of professionals from the human, animal, and environmental health agencies and other relevant sectors with a common goal of developing country-specific criteria for ranking zoonotic diseases of greatest national concern.
Measures to Control or Regulate the Spread of Zoonotic Diseases
A rapid and effective response to endemic and emerging zoonotic diseases relies heavily on timely and efficient surveillance and reporting systems.
Training of the epidemiologists and the laboratory staff should be undertaken to handle an emergency situation.
The establishment of effective laboratory systems is critical for a successful zoonotic disease surveillance program.
Well-functioning and separate national public health and animal health laboratory systems are essential to identify etiologic agents so that appropriate prevention, detection, and response strategies can be implemented.
Laboratories should be an integral part of the public health infrastructure with a system for rapid testing of prioritized samples and timely sharing of results.
An outbreak and emergency management system should be in place to coordinate multi-sectoral response activities at the national to sub-national levels.
Zoonotic Diseases:- Download PDF Here
COVID-19 IAS Eligibility
UPSC Books Static GK
Civil Service Exam UPSC Syllabus
Best Optional Subjects for UPSC 10 Must Read Books for IAS Aspirants


text:
import type * as React from 'react';
import {Constructor} from '../../../types/private/Utilities';
import {ViewProps} from './ViewPropTypes';
import {NativeMethods} from '../../../types/public/ReactNativeTypes';

/**
 * The most fundamental component for building UI, View is a container that supports layout with flexbox, style, some touch handling,
 * and accessibility controls, and is designed to be nested inside other views and to have 0 to many children of any type.
 * View maps directly to the native view equivalent on whatever platform React is running on,
 * whether that is a UIView, <div>, android.view, etc.
 */
declare class ViewComponent extends React.Component<ViewProps> {}
declare const ViewBase: Constructor<NativeMethods> & typeof ViewComponent;
export class View extends ViewBase {
  /**
   * Is 3D Touch / Force Touch available (i.e. will touch events include `force`)
   * @platform ios
   */
  static forceTouchAvailable: boolean;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Luxair Flight 9642 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Berlin, Germany, to Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, operated by Luxembourg national airline Luxair. On 6 November 2002, the aircraft operating the flight, a Fokker 50 registered as LX-LGB, lost control and crashed onto a field during an attempted landing at the airport. Out of 22 passengers and crew members on board, only two people survived. The crash is the deadliest aviation disaster to occur in Luxembourg.

Luxembourg's Administration for Technical Investigations (AET) concluded that the crash was caused by pilot error. The crew decided to accept the approach clearance that had been given by the ATC even though they had not conducted enough preparation for the landing, leading the crew to conduct a series of improvised actions. Their actions led to the override of a certain safety features that would have prevented the propellers from entering the reverse angle, enabling the propellers to enter the reverse angle in flight and led to the lost control situation.

The result of the investigation highlighted the possible safety risk regarding the protection system against an accidental deployment of reverse angle in turboprops during mid-flight, prompting Fokker to issue a mandatory modification on the safety feature.

Aircraft

The aircraft involved in the crash was a Fokker F50, manufactured in 1991 with a serial number of 20221. The aircraft was delivered to Luxair on the same year with a registration of LX-LGB. Equipped with PW125B engines and two Dowty propellers, it had accumulated a total of 24,068 flight cycles. According to Luxair, the aircraft had been maintained properly. The last service was conducted on 4 May. The maintenance logbook indicated that the last defect, an inoperative anti-skid system on the aircraft, had been rectified on 5 November, one day before the accident.

Accident
Flight 9642 was a regularly scheduled international passenger flight from Berlin-Tempelhof Airport to Luxembourg Findel Airport. On 6 November, the aircraft was scheduled to take off from Tempelhof and would be piloted by Captain Claude Poeckes and his co-pilot First Officer John Arendt. It took off from Berlin at around 07:40 a.m local time with 19 passengers and 3 crew members on board.

While the aircraft was flying at its cruising altitude, at around 08:55 a.m, the pilots checked the Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) for the weather information in Luxembourg. They discovered that the runway visual range was at , lower than the minimum amount of  that was required for the Fokker 50 to obtain before landing. The visibility in the area had deteriorated due to the presence of heavy fog. With such low visibility, the crew realised that there would be delay for the landing. They either had to wait until the weather condition began to improve by entering the holding pattern or diverting their aircraft to the alternate airport.

Feeling impatient, the crew decided to continue their flight to Luxembourg as planned. After several minutes, the crew checked the ATIS information again, only to discover that the visibility had not improved. They then discussed on the possible strategies for a landing during bad weather condition but failed to reach conclusion on the matter. As no decision was taken, the approach briefing was not conducted.

While First Officer Arendt was giving an address to the passengers, Captain Poeckes tried to contact Luxair officials on whether the weather had improved as a departing Cargolux jet might have cleared some of the fog in the area. To his disappointment, the airport was still covered with heavy fog. Due to the constant foggy condition, the crew were told to enter the Diekrich VOR, Findel's holding pattern. Co-pilot Arendt then announced to the passengers that the flight would enter a holding pattern first and that they would wait until the weather began to improve.

As they were heading towards the pattern, the ATC suddenly radioed the crew and instructed them to descend to  and to change their heading. The transmission caught them off guard. First Officer Arendt was initially confused by the transmission and asked Captain Poeckes:"Is that for us?", to which the captain responded with "yes". The crew accepted the instruction, but First Officer Arendt was still surprised by the transmission as he could be heard saying "What kind of shit is that?"

Approach
The crew still didn't understand the reasons for the descent that had been requested by the controller. Fearing that they had been asked to prepare for an approach, they repeatedly checked the RVR (Runway Visual Range) value with Luxair Dispatch, but the weather in Findel Airport was still below the minimum amount for the landing. They were initially feeling uncertain about whether the controller had sent such transmission for holding or for an approach.

Afterwards, the controller sent a message that cleared the crew's confusion. The controller specifically asked Flight 9642 to conduct an approach to Findel Airport. The crew were perplexed as the weather conditions had not met the minimum criteria for a landing. Meanwhile, The ATC didn't know about the required RVR information as the crew had not informed the ATC about the matter. Despite being confused, the crew accepted the controller's request anyway and started to fly their aircraft as per the controller's instructions. The crew now realized that they had been chosen as the first aircraft that would land at Findel, increasing their workload pressure. Following the transmission, the crew frantically prepared their aircraft for an approach.

The flight eventually levelled off at  and was approaching the radio beacon ELU, the point for final approach fix. During the approach to the beacon, Captain Poeckes told First Officer Arendt that they would conduct a missed approach if the weather was still below . After successfully capturing the airport's ILS, the crew checked on the RVR again, only to discover that the weather had deteriorated even further. The RVR had dropped to . With the minimums now clearly too low, the crew finally told ATC that they would need an RVR of  for a landing.

After rushing through the approach checklist, the aircraft finally reached ELU. They checked the RVR again and the report didn't indicate any improvements. Captain Poeckes then told First Officer Arendt that they would execute a missed approach, but the aircraft kept continuing to Findel. First Officer Arendt kept checking the approach checklist and then put the ground idle stop in the off position, as it was the last action that the crew were required to do on the checklist.

Captain Poeckes was not satisfied with the weather report and eventually called for a go-around at 09:04 local time. Just 10 seconds later, however, the ATC reported that the RVR had improved to 300 metres, the exact minimum amount for the landing of the Fokker 50. Immediately after this announcement, Captain Poeckes changed his mind and First Officer Arendt prepared the aircraft for landing.

Crash
As they had been levelling off for quite some time after passing point ELU, the aircraft was flying a bit higher than the glideslope. To reduce their altitude faster, Captain Poeckes stated that he would try to reduce the power lever to flight idle, claiming that by doing so the aircraft would quickly descend to the required altitude. However, First Officer Arendt voiced his concern and told Captain Poeckes that such action wouldn't be enough to slow down the aircraft.

First Officer Arendt reported to the ATC that they would continue the approach to Findel. Flight 9642 was eventually cleared to land and the crew extended the landing gear.

After extending the landing gear, the propeller speed began to increase, startling the crew due to the audible noise. The aircraft's speed and altitude then rapidly dropped. The crew realised that the reverse thrust had been deployed in mid-flight and tried to save the aircraft. In an attempt to regain lift, First Officer Arendt immediately retracted the flaps and Captain Poeckes moved the thrust lever fully forward. The aircraft, however, continued to plummet towards the ground.

As a last resort, the crew decided to shut down both engines. It didn't stop the aircraft's rapid descent. Faced with imminent crash, the crew tried to flare as much as possible to prevent a destructive impact.

The aircraft slammed onto terrain with its belly, crossing the Route Nationale 1 and scraped the road with its left wing. It then struck an embankment, inflicting major damage to the airframe. The aircraft bounced and both wheels and blades came off of the aircraft. The empennage and part of the right wing broke away. The aft fuselage detached and rested on its right side. The aircraft eventually came to a halt  further away. After coming to a stop, a fire began to erupt on the central portion of the crushed fuselage.

Immediate aftermath

Flight 9642 suddenly ceased all contact with Findel Airport. Its blip had disappeared from the radar screen, prompting the controller to call the crew multiple times to confirm their condition. As there was no response, the airport emergency services were alerted to a possible crash. A telephone call from a witness eventually confirmed that the aircraft had crashed near the airport. Meanwhile, at the crash site, taxi driver Guillaume Wainachter was the first to arrive. He attempted to save the passengers in the fuselage as survivors could be heard screaming loudly inside the wreckage. While trying to save the survivors, he heard a noise from the aircraft, and it immediately went up in flames in a matter of seconds.

It was immediately found that the aircraft had crashed in a field  to the north of runway centreline. The wreckage was located between the village of Niederanven and Roodt-Syr. Rescue services found several passengers had been ejected from the aircraft. One survivor had been ejected from the aircraft during the crash and was found outside. Three survivors were extricated alive from the fuselage and immediately rushed to the hospital, all of whom later succumbed to their injuries. Captain Poeckes was found trapped inside the cockpit, but he survived as the cockpit didn't catch fire. Rescuers had to cut a hole to evacuate him from the wreckage.

The fog was so thick that some nearby residents were unaware of the crash. Most of them claimed not to have seen or even heard anything when the crash occurred, and only realized that something had happened nearby when ambulances and emergency services arrived at the crash site.

Due to the crash, Findel Airport was closed for more than three hours. Several flights had to be diverted to Germany and Belgium.

Passengers and crew

Most of the passengers were business officials from Germany. Seventeen were found dead at the crash site with five survivors, three of whom died in the hospital. By nightfall, 18 bodies out of the 20 dead were found, while the other two remained missing. The bodies were thought to be buried under the smoldering fuselage. Rescue workers were using a crane to disentangle the charred remains. Amongst the passengers killed on the flight was artist Michel Majerus.

The Captain was 26-year-old Claude Poeckes, who had a total flying experience of 4,242 flight hours and 2,864 hours on type. The First Officer was 32-year-old John Arendt with a total flight hours of 1,156 and 443 hours on type.

Nationalities of passengers and crew

Response
Following the crash, a hospital in Belgium was put on alert. A total of 300 police officers were dispatched to the crash site. Government of Luxembourg requested additional help from the Belgian government, which deployed three helicopters to the crash site and a military hospital was put on standby.

Incumbent Prime Minister of Luxembourg Jean-Claude Juncker visited the site of the accident on the same day of the crash, accompanied by Luxembourgish Interior Minister Michel Wolter, Transport Minister Henri Grethen and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg Maria Teresa. An emergency meeting was eventually convened by the prime minister to investigate the crash. German Transport Minister Manfred Stolpe visited the country to meet with officials regarding the crash of Flight 9642.

Relatives of the victims were ushered to a special morgue to see the victims. Psychological counseling would be provided by the state for affected family members. State flags were ordered to be lowered at half-mast across the country until 10 November. A ceremonial service was held on 7 November, followed by another service which was held on 10 November on the capital's Notre-Dame cathedral.

Investigation
Officials could not theorize on the possible causes of the accident during the initial aftermath of the crash. They did note that the flight's destination airport was covered by autumnal fog. Nearby residents of Niederanven stated that the fog at the time of the accident was very thick, so much that nearby residents couldn't realize that a crash had just occurred, even though Niederanven was in close proximity to the crash site.

The maintenance logbook was also clean. The aircraft was inspected by a maintenance crew on the evening before the flight. The only recurring defect was the inoperative anti-skid system, which was rectified a day before the accident.

Lack of preparation
At 07:53 a.m local time, the crew of the flight established their first contact with the approach controller. While approaching the airport, the crew sought information about the visibility at the airport, to which the controller replied with the available data on the RVR. The crew were worried with the discovery as it was under the minimum amount for Fokker F50 and decided to wait within the holding pattern until the weather began to improve. This crucial information regarding the minimum visibility was not relayed to the controller and caused the controller to consider the crew of being capable to conduct an approach regardless of the RVR value. Meanwhile, the crew thought that it was going to be awhile before they managed to get a landing clearance and therefore no landing preparation was conducted.

While Flight 9642 was approaching the holding pattern, the controller realized that the holding pattern had become nearly full of traffic as there were three other Luxair flights in it. The controller wanted to clear the holding pattern from being jam-packed by asking one of the flights to immediately conduct an approach. Coincidentally, Flight 9642 was the most suitable for such decision as they had not reached the holding pattern yet and by asking the crew to conduct an approach there would be lesser delay for the other aircraft. The controller then instructed the crew to start executing an approach to Findel.

After a bit of confusion and another confirmation from the controller, the unprepared crew were taken aback by the order. They were initially certain that they were going to wait within the holding pattern, but the sudden transmission from the controller effectively cut their remaining time until landing. They quickly checked their checklist and hastily briefed the approach, in which during the course they accidentally missed some of the per procedure actions due to their time constraint.

Feeling uncertain with the approach, Captain Poeckes told First Officer Arendt that they would perform a go-around if the RVR was still below the minima. First Officer Arendt, however, chose to ignore him and continued with the approach checklist, a hint of a possible crew breakdown due to the lack of preparation for the approach. Captain Poeckes eventually called for a go-around, but after an updated RVR report informed him that the weather had met the exact minimum for a landing, he immediately changed his mind and decided to continue the approach.

The sudden decision from the crew to continue the approach pressed the crew to immediately capture the glide slope as the aircraft had been levelling off at 3,000ft and they had overflown the final approach point for the airport, the exact point where pilots should start descending for the final approach. There was no known procedure for the crew to intercept the glideslope after passing the final approach point. The crew should have executed a missed approach, but instead they kept their mind to land in Findel as quickly as possible.

Knowing that they were flying quite high above the glideslope, Captain Poeckes reduced the engine thrust. Eager to quickly capture the glideslope, he decided to improvise, using a skill that he had learned previously.

Reverse range
To gain the intended speed, Captain Poeckes tried to make the engines to enter the ground range by lifting the ground range selector. By doing so, the airspeed would decrease further and, as per Poeckes's understanding, their aim to get the glideslope quickly would be attained. While this technique could be used by pilots to slow down their aircraft, it was prohibited if they were still in the air. Beyond the ground range was the reverse range, which would change the propeller pitch to reverse. The reverse pitch was usually used while the aircraft was rolling on the runway during landing. Entering this range in the air would produce massive drag forces on the aircraft and would endanger the flight. To prevent an accidental deployment of the reverse range, the aircraft was equipped with a secondary stop, a specific safety feature which was regulated by the flight idle solenoid.

However, said specific feature could be overridden by a design flaw within the flight system of the Fokker F50. Fokker acknowledged that the extension of the landing gear could produce an electromagnetic interference within the aircraft's anti-skid units, causing the aircraft to think that the wheels were spinning, indicating that it was already on the ground, for a period of 30 microseconds. The brief glitch powered up the flight idle solenoids and tricked them into thinking that the aircraft was rolling on the runway, causing them to temporarily open the secondary stop feature for 16 seconds.

In Flight 9642, as the aircraft was about to land, the crew extended the landing gear and configured the aircraft accordingly. The electromagnetic interference occurred and this in turn energized the flight idle solenoids, opening the secondary stop. Captain Poeckes presumably was concerned about the limited time and their current altitude and pulled the lever back even further from the ground range to the reverse range in order to capture the glideslope faster. Normally, the secondary stop would've had prohibited the thrust from entering the reverse range, but as the 16 seconds activation was still in effect, the reverse thrust was engaged.

The activation of the reverse thrust in mid-air caused difficulties in controlling the aircraft. The propeller speed suddenly jumped and produced sound loud enough for the pilots to be startled. The airspeed then dropped and the aircraft quickly lost lift, losing altitude rapidly. The crew attempted to save their aircraft by cutting off the fuel flows to the engines, but the aircraft continued to plunge. In a last attempt, they tried to flare as much as possible to prevent a violent impact. They knew that the reverse thrust had been deployed in mid-air, but couldn't rectify the problem.

Design flaw
Fokker knew about the possible aircraft-induced reset of the secondary stop as early as 1988. The cause of the glitch was identified during maintenance activities in which the power-up effect of the aircraft's anti-skid system was found to be the culprit. However, due to the low probability of such incidence to occur, Fokker thought that no immediate corrective actions were required. For the reset to occur, these conditions had to be met:
 Landing gear must be lowered
 Anti-skid units must be powered and opened locks of the secondary stop for 16 seconds
 The lever must be below the flight idle position and the crew had to lift the ground range selector (considered to be not normal)
 Within the 16 seconds timeframe, the crew must continue to pull the thrust lever down.

In December 1994, Fokker disseminated the findings to all operators of the aircraft, including Luxair.

The company had attempted to modify their anti-skid units. In 1992, a non-binding service bulletin was issued, telling operators to transport their Fokker F50 fleets for a voluntary modification on their anti-skid units, which would prevent such failure from occurring. Multiple Fokker F50 had been turned in to Fokker to undergo modifications, but the involved Luxair aircraft was not among those sent as it was not mandatory for operators to send their aircraft for an updated design.

Conclusion
In December 2003, Luxembourgish AET published the final report. It concluded the cause of the crash as follow:

Contributing to the accident were errors concerning the implementation of a safety recommendation which had been made by the manufacturer to Fokker 50 operators.

The crash significantly affected all Fokker F50 aircraft that were being operated in Luxembourg. Nearly two weeks after the crash, following the discovery of the failure of the secondary stop safety feature to prevent the thrust from entering the reverse range, authorities decided to change the issued service bulletins regarding the anti-skid units from voluntary to mandatory. In May 2003, Dutch authorities announced that the modifications would be made mandatory. Every Fokker 50 in Luxembourg were subjected to compulsory modification on the anti-skid control system and should be changed accordingly after November 2003. AET also recommended Fokker to conduct review on the aircraft's current design as flaw within the aircraft could threaten the safety of flights by overriding the aircraft's safety feature.

Aftermath

A criminal prosecution was launched but was delayed until 10 October 2011. Captain Poecks, three former Luxair executives, and three mechanics (one of whom was formally a technical director) were all charged with involuntary manslaughter and negligence. The executives were later acquitted. On 27 March 2012, the remaining defendants were all found guilty. Captain Poecks was sentenced to 42 months (3.5 years) of probation and to pay a fine of 4,000 euros. The three mechanics were sentenced to 18 months, two years, and four years of probation respectively, and to pay fines of 2,000 to 2,500 euros. In January 2014, the families of four of the victims received 21,000 to 130,000 euros in compensation. In February the same year, the attorneys of the convicted appealed the court's verdict. In May 2015, a court paid 310,000 euros in compensation to the families of three German victims.

See also
 Air Caraïbes Flight 1501, a similar crash in Guadeloupe in which the pilots accidentally changed the aircraft's propeller switch into reverse pitch while still in mid-air
 Airlines PNG Flight 1600, a similar crash in Papua New Guinea involving a Dash 8 in which the pilots accidentally changed the aircraft's propeller switch into reverse pitch while still in mid-air
 Kish Air Flight 7170, a similar crash in United Arab Emirates in which the pilots accidentally changed the aircraft's propeller switch into reverse pitch while still in mid-air
 Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517, a similar crash in Indonesia involving a Xian MA60 in which the pilots accidentally changed the aircraft's propeller switch into reverse pitch while still in mid-air
 List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

References

Further reading
  "Jugement dans l'affaire dite Luxair" [Judgment in the so-called Luxair case] (Archive). Government of Luxembourg. 27 March 2012.

External links

 Administration for Technical Investigations
 Final Report (Archive) – Translation of French report
  Final Report." (Archive) – Original report
 Preliminary Report (Archive, Alternate) – Translation of French Report
  Preliminary Report (Archive, Alternate) – Original report
 "AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT LG9642/LH2420" (Archive). Luxair.
 Government of Luxembourg
  Accident aérien au Luxembourg (6 novembre 2002) (Archive)
  Communiqué Déroulement de l'accident d'un avion Luxair." (Archive) – 6 Nov 2002
  Communiqué du parquet du Luxembourg (2003) (Archive)

Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript and accident summary
Pictures of the crash

2002 disasters in Europe
Aviation accidents and incidents in Luxembourg
Airliner accidents and incidents caused by pilot error
Aviation accidents and incidents in 2002
2002 in Luxembourg
Airliner accidents and incidents involving fog
Accidents and incidents involving the Fokker 50
Airliner accidents and incidents involving controlled flight into terrain
November 2002 events in Europe

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Sports Speakers 360 Blog
Sports Celebrity News
Request Booking Info
Former Bengals Offensive Lineman Anthony Munoz to Make an Appearance at The 2017 Super Bowl Breakfast – Feb 4
February 2, 2017 By SS360 Staff Leave a Comment
HOUSTON, TX 77010 – Former Cincinnati Bengals offensive lineman, eleven-time Pro Bowler and Hall of Famer Anthony Munoz is scheduled to make an appearance at the 2017 Super Bowl Breakfast on Saturday, February 4, 2017. The breakfast will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at which time Anthony Munoz will be in attendance. The event will take place at the Marriott Marquis Houston, 1777 Walker Street, Houston, TX 77010. Source: NFL
According to the NFL web page on the event, group tables of 10 are available plus there will be a presentation of the 2017 Bart Starr Award:
"Presentation of the 2017 Bart Starr Award to an NFL player for outstanding character, integrity and leadership on and off the field. … Tables of 10 are $2500 and $2000."
Anthony Munoz is a former NFL offensive tackle who played for the Cincinnati Bengals from 1980 to 1992 and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1993. Munoz is an eleven-time Pro Bowl player from 1981 to 1991, a nine-time First-Team All-Pro for 1981 through 1983 and from 1985 through 1990 plus a two-time Second-Team All-Pro for 1984 and 1991. Munoz has earned numerous awards and honors including the Bart Starr Man of the Year for 1989, the Walter Payton Man of the Year in 1991 as well as the NFL 1980s All-Decade Team. Anthony Munoz was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1998.
PFP Sports Talent Agency is a top booking agent for motivational sports speakers and sports personalities. If you would like to book NFL stars like Anthony Munoz for a speaking engagement, personal appearance or special event, you can request Anthony Munoz agent and speaker information from PFP Sports Talent Agency or call 800.966.1380.
Filed Under: Athlete Appearances, Football News, Sports News, Sports Speakers Tagged With: Anthony Munoz Agent, Anthony Munoz Speaker
SportsTalent360 Tweets
Sports Speakers 360 Secures Joe Thomas, AJ Hawk, DeAngelo Williams and Fred Lynn for Virtual Event
Religion in Sports
Nine of the Most Famous NASCAR Drivers in History
10 Greatest Hockey Players of all Time
The 9 Best Catchers of All Time
Athlete Endorsements
Baseball Speakers
Boxing Speakers
Cancer Speakers
Celebrity Golf Tournaments
Darryl Strawberry
Famous NASCAR Drivers
Football Speakers
Golf Speakers
Greatest Hockey Players
Greatest Sports Comebacks
Inspirational Sports Speeches
Motivational Sporting Speeches
Olympic News
ProCamps
Professional Tips & Tricks
Youth Motivational Speakers
Please retweet our posts on Twitter and don't forget
to like us on Facebook.
Magic Johnson for TXAA
John Elway for GLE
Hines Ward for Penn State
Mia Hamm for DMM
Copyright 2009-2018 Sports Speakers 360, All rights reserved · DMCA · Log in

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


In this week's Opinion Blog, Nil By Mouth Campaign Director Dave Scott reflects on the legacy of Jack McConnell's work on tackling sectarianism and the need to forge consensus across political parties on how to continue the fight.
It's often said that the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. That was certainly Jack McConnell's approach 15 years ago when he spoke of sectarianism being 'Scotland's Secret Shame' and announced a raft of measures, put together by a cross party group of MSPs, in an effort to address this complex and controversial problem. Over the next five years the McConnell administration pushed forward a range of educational initiatives, summits and changes to the law that sought to empower people and institutions to discuss and challenge bigotry in their midst.
In recent years this work has been continued by his successors as First Minister and driven forward by Dr Duncan Morrow, whose advisory group has provided the research, evidence and ideas to tackle the problem thoughtfully and effectively.
I do not believe any of our 129 MSPs want to be on the side of people like that. I believe they can park the finger pointing and cheap politics and focus on the bigger prize – a Scotland where people aren't forced to endure the bitterness of others.
We built a consensus and faced down the bigots in 2002. If the Scottish Parliament is big and bold enough we can do it again today.


With violinist Minn Majoe heading half way around the world to tour Japan we asked her to tell us all about the Dulcinea Quartet and what they're getting up to! Here's what she had to say….
'Everyone loves a string quartet. It's a basic rite of passage during any string players musical education. To my mind, no matter what your musical background, there's a universal delight in this unique blend of string colours which is repeatedly visited by composers and produces such a varied body of repertoire. That's why I was thrilled when we formed the Dulcinea Quartet in 2008 as fledgling students at the Royal Academy of Music, probably in the dark recesses of the basement practise rooms. Fast-forward to 2015 and we are busy finalising details for our second tour to Japan! Based on the success of last year's tour and with the continued support of our audiences, Sasakawa foundation, Kinzoku and the Metal Technology Co Ltd, we have been able to fill our ten day schedule with concerts in wonderful venues all over the country.
In everyday quartet life, we love performing both well known music from the quartet canon as well as new music from around the world. For our Japan tours we enjoy commissioning works from both British and Japanese composers. This year we will premier 'The Echoes of Dream' for shamisen and string quartet by Taichi Imanishi. We had a great first rehearsal with shamisen last week – the combination of western and Japanese string instruments is really successful and perfectly showcases how the two musical cultures can work together beautifully. Alongside this we will perform works by Britten, Vaughan Williams and Elgar, plus arrangements of folk songs by our multi-talented violist Martin.
The tour has been in the planning since Autumn 2014 and as in every group, each person has their own role to take care of. I tend to oversee repertoire programming and keep on track with UK concerts while the others concentrate on Japan. Haru (violin 2), as our resident Japanese lady, has turned into our PA and tour organiser extraordinare. As I mentioned already, Martin is our music arranger, online promoter and hat buyer for kids concerts (see photo). Our cellist Hannah is self-appointed restaurant researcher, a highly important role as we are a very hungry (greedy) quartet. We are at the stage where there is less administration and the fun part can happen which is rehearsing the repertoire for the tour. There is a fair amount to learn as we have six recitals, some involving shamisen and piano, plus children's concerts and community performances, which each have their own programme. We're happy though as we've chosen pieces we love playing, so bring it on!
Don't forget to follow the Dulcinea Quartet's travels on Facebook and Twitter or head to dulcineaquartet.com.


text:
Department of Interior Wants To Destroy Records of Oil & Gas Leasing, Mining, Wells, Timber Sales and Much More
ppjg	corruption, Government, The PPJ Gazette, WATER, wild horses and burros	corruption, critical habitats, Department of Interior, endangered species, federal agencies, Federal Register, fishing, FOIA, gas leases, Government, land acquisition, marine conservation, National Archives & Records Administration, non-endangered species, oil leases, The PPJ Gazette, timber sales, Wells, wild horses & burros	4 Comments
Public submission
Federal agencies don't keep most of their records forever. At some point, they're legally allowed to destroy the majority of them.
But when? And which records? That's up to the agency and the National Archives (with some input from the public, at least in theory).
In an overlooked process that's been going on for decades, agencies create a "Request for Records Disposition Authority" that gives details about the documents, then proposes when they can be destroyed (e.g., three years after the end of the fiscal year, 50 years after they're no longer needed, etc.). Occasionally, agencies propose keeping some documents permanently, which means eventually transferring them to the National Archives.
The National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) then "appraises" the agency's Request for Records Disposition Authority, almost always giving the greenlight.
Around this point, the agency's request and NARA's appraisal are announced in the Federal Register. They are not published in the Register, nor are they posted to the Register website (including Regulations.gov). Their existence is simply noted.
Dept. of the Interior is asking for permission to destroy records about oil and gas leases, mining, dams, wells, timber sales, marine conservation, fishing, endangered species, non-endangered species, critical habitats, land acquisition, wild horses & burros and lots more. It's also wanting to permanently retain a smaller subset of documents in each category, which will be transferred to the National Archives, where they will become harder to access via FOIA.
This is crucial stuff. In the months, years, and decades ahead, if you get "records destroyed" responses, or a vague "no records" response, from NPS, BLM, FWS, BIA, etc., this could be the root cause.
Comment period has been extended to Nov. 23, 2018 READ MORE HERE↓
WHILE AMERICA BURNS: SMOKE N' MIRRORS
ppjg	Chuck Frank, environmental pollution, Government	2016 fire season, Chuck Frank, endangered species, environment, forest fires, Forestry service, Government, let it burn, national forests	1 Comment
Author,Chuck Frank
With the new 2016 fire season upon the west, wildfires are in full swing again. And just one year ago the U.S. Forest Service said that for the first time in its 110 year history it spends more than 50% of its annual budget fighting fires at the expense of other programs. So no longer do we have a real forest service agency fulfilling its core mission. It has become the fire department.
While there is much talk every year about the expenses and the causes and the effects of forest and range fires, those very same state and federal agencies who are paid to protect the land, only offer us smoke and mirrors. They never talk about solutions on how to save at least 10 million pristine acres from being charred every year. Yet, all the while, management offers excuses such as "climate change", "drought", growing development or budget issues that hide the real problems. Where are their solutions? They are present but the government and the mainstream media backs away from the full story.
The "Endangered" Frog and Toad-Revisited
ppjg	Agenda 21, Government	Agenda 21, Chuck Frank, endangered species, enviro-gods, Fish & Wildlife, Forest Service, Government, mountain frog, Sierra National Forest Service Management, Sierra Nevada National Forests, Yosemite toad	Leave a comment
lightofthenation.us
Recently, the US Fish and Wildlife issued their biological opinion regarding how the nine Sierra Nevada National Forests in California must address the endangered yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad. If 197 pages is too much for you to read then here is a snapshot.
Now, perhaps many of you out there recall the many public hearings on whether to list the yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite Toad as a threatened or endangered species.
Most of the people that went to these hearings, Congressman, Tom McClintock for one, and thousands of others were strongly opposed to the listing. I too showed up for the grand occasion.
With as many people who went as the "anti-listers", I coined a word, you would have thought that the Fish and Wildlife agency would have listened.
Well, as it turned out, the public hearings were just a formality, an exercise, a procedure that was meant to give the public input while the Feds, all along, had no intention of doing what the majority of the public wanted. Fish and Wildlife is sadly tuned into the Enviro-Times, and that is our latest environmentalist radio show streaming from the planet Mars. So I dialed in on K-ECO and low and behold the Sierra National Forest Service Management is "very concerned" about the immense impact of protecting frog and toad together.
Unless we forget, we were told that the identification of these species as endangered would not have ANY significant impact on Sierra National Forest or public access. Sure. Well, well, well, think again. It is all by design and deception. We were not told the truth and the lies of Fish and Wildlife have now been exposed. What we had feared is now coming upon us.
And here is the rest of the story.
No permits are being issued at this time until these rules are clarified for summer grazing in the Sierra National Forest. This ruling could and is already adversely affecting recreation, along with All-Terrain-Vehicles, firewood cutting, fishing, hunting, and logging, because it delineates that no wheeled vehicles may be used in the forest that "may be" a habitat for the Yosemite frog. This would also effect mechanical thinning, which is one way of reducing ladder fuels, which contribute to high intensity uncharacteristic wildfires.
For the Forest Service management to protect what the US Fish and Wildlife life is requiring, it will take away significant resources from areas like forest restoration to prevent uncharacteristic wildfires, as well as many other areas. These rules represent another Agenda 21 unfunded nightmare mandate.
In a nutshell, if our Congressmen, Sheriffs and County Supervisors do not stop the encroachment of our National Forests and the public right to use them, we the people will be left in the dust and radical environmentalism will continue to chip away at our God given land rights to where millions will bow to the new enviro-gods of the Fish and Wildlife Agency.
And, by the way, don't include me in any of the Sunday morning worship services honoring the czars of Fish and Wildlife.
Ref: Parts taken from The Jackson Press;
http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=30592
How the EPA separates landowners from their properties
ppjg	land theft, WATER	Bureau of Reclamation, endangered species, endangered species act, epa, ESA, established water rights, federal agency, federal environmental purposes, Forestry service, Klamath Fall, private property owners, property owner, property owners, PROPERTY RIGHTS, Russ McAfee Sr, unlawful land regulations, water, water rights, wild life	6 Comments
W. R. McAfee
On April 7, 2001, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ignored state and federal law in the name of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and stopped water to more than 200,000 acres and some 1,400 canal-irrigated family farms near Klamath Falls, Oregon, plunging the community toward bankruptcy and devastating families.
Why? Because the bureau said two species of bottom-feeding suckerfish and a Coho salmon, in a reservoir the farmers depended upon might be "affected" if water was released during the current drought.
The ESA had already been used to cut off water to a group of California farmers, causing their crops to dry up.
In Colorado, the forest service threatened another agricultural operation with a by-pass flow that would have resulted in an 80-percent loss of the dry-year water supply from a key reservoir, with a direct economic loss of between $5 and $17 million.
They also attempted to impose a "by-pass flow" that would have taken some 50 percent of the dry-year water supply provided from a Colorado municipal water storage facility.
In Idaho, a federal permittee was told he would have to bypass water to protect aquatic species or obtain an alternate source of water at a cost of $120,000.
In Arizona, where state law requires water rights be held by the person making the beneficial use of the water, the regional forester had demanded that water rights owned by grazing permittees be transferred to the feds – rights long established under state law for livestock purposes.
Federal agencies—at the direction of the EPA—are using the ESA nationwide to try and override established water rights, state laws, and the McCarran Act.
Under the Water Rights Act of 1952 (McCarran Amendment) it's illegal for anyone – federal agency or citizen, without exception – to force water bypasses or withhold water along natural flowing streams, rivers, and their tributaries. More
Millane Rehor, trying to save the most endangered wild horse in the world (Wed., July 30th) on Wild Horse & Burro Radio
debcoffey	Debbie Coffey, Wild horse slaughter	Arkwild, BLM corruption, Debbie Coffey, endangered species, Milanne Rehor, wild Horse & Burro Radio, Wild Horse Freedom Federation, Wild horse slaughter, wild horses, wild horses of Abaco	3 Comments
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2014 More
UPDATE on (almost) extinct donkeys of Bonaire
debcoffey	Debbie Coffey	donkeys of Bonaire, endangered species, Marjorie Farabee, Rona Aguilar	3 Comments
Times for this Wednesday night show are: More
Pending Extinction of Bonaire Donkeys (& How YOU Can Help Stop It!) on Wild Horse & Burro Radio
debcoffey	Debbie Coffey, radio	Bonaire, Bonaire's wild donkeys, Debbey Coffey, endangered species, MArjoree Farabee, Nubian ass, RT Fitch, TMR Rescue Inc.), TS Radio, wild Horse & Burro Radio, Wild Horse Freedom Federation	6 Comments
Times for this Wednesday night show are:
6:00 pm PST … 7:00 pm MST … 8:00 pm CST … 9:00 pm EST
Listen Live HERE!
Call in # 917-388-4520
Please call in the last half hour of this 2 hour show if you'd like to ask questions.
The shows will be archived, so you can listen anytime.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tonight's guests include:
Marjorie Farabee, Director of Wild Burro Affairs at Wild Horse Freedom Federation, Equine Manager of Todd Mission Ranch (home of TMR Rescue, Inc.) and President of the Wild Burro Protection League, who recently went to Bonaire (Dutch Antilles) to investigate this issue and speak at a public meeting. Marjorie took DNA samples from the donkeys in Bonaire to Dr. Gus Cothran, geneticist at Texas A & M, and the DNA proved to be a perfect match to that of a rare, globally endangered species.
Carl Mrozak, videographer (Eagle Eye Media), with work appearing on CBS, PBS, the Discovery Channel, the Weather Channel and other networks.
Rona Aguilar, member of the team formed by Al Catalfumo to investigate the plight of the donkeys in Bonaire.
This radio show is co-hosted by Debbie Coffey, Director of Wild Horse Affairs at Wild Horse Freedom Federation and Marti Oakley, PPJ Gazette.
To contact us: ppj1@hush.com, or call 320-281-0585
LISTEN TO ARCHIVED RADIO SHOWS: More


text:
Will Gmail Come Out of Beta?
Five years after its release, Gmail is still a beta application. Gmail continues to add significant features, but most of the interesting ideas are now in Gmail Labs: tasks, offline Gmail, sending SMS or adding iGoogle gadgets.
It makes sense to add experimental features in the Labs section and remove the "beta" label from Gmail's logo. Felipe Zamorano, a reader of this blog, noticed that the Gmail logos created for some of the themes have two versions: one that includes "beta" and another one without "beta".
Google has recently launched a Labs section for APIs and started to add deprecation policies for the APIs that graduated from Labs. "For these graduates, we're increasing our commitment with published deprecation policies and other critical support services. The Visualization API terms, Contacts Data API terms, and Picasa Web Albums Data API terms include good examples of transparent deprecation policies. They state that we'll support each version for at least 3 years from when it's deprecated or a newer version is introduced."
Maybe it's time to show the same commitment for popular applications like Gmail or Google Calendar and drop the "beta" label.
Labels: Gmail
Sheldon March 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I like how Google commits it's products to constant testing until it graduates from beta status but 5 years is a bit long.
MSC March 9, 2009 at 5:48 PM
I think they need to move it out of beta. Especially if they want to attract midsized businesses to their platform.
Just Two Words March 9, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Beta status protects Google, pure and simple.
Maybe there should be a Labs feature to remove the "Beta" label :P
Ted Howard March 9, 2009 at 6:24 PM
What amuses me most is that people are paying to use Google's beta software in the form of Google Apps for Domains. http://www.google.com/a advertises gmail, calendar, and docs. All of these are in beta still.
I'm showing my age, which isn't very old, by saying that I remember a time when there was outrage that companies would have public betas. People were upset that the company was abusing its users as free software testers when they should be paying their employees to do the job. Now, Google is getting companies to pay *it* for beta software.
The technology world is stranger than fiction sometimes.
Jim March 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM
- Inigo Montoya
i love the princess bride
Teegan March 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Jim, you rock! That pretty much perfectly describes what google is doing...
Yeah, 5 years is a bit long.
Pascal March 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I found about 5 months ago a logo of Google Mail without the beta:
my posting
Cool Acid March 9, 2009 at 11:16 PM
When some Google guy came to my college, someone asked about that. His answer was: "The beta in our products means that we are never going to stop innovating"
BiT March 10, 2009 at 2:34 AM
Beta or not beta. It works much better than other services and offer better tools.
Actually, last week, for about 2 days, my Gmail account (actually a Google Apps i.e. Google for Domains account) had a logo without the "Beta"!!! After logging in and out again, it was back to "normal" though... the logo was basically the same, just a little bigger and sharper
Can anyone who's into Google programming tell me why there are no Mail APIs?
again! my gmail account doesnt show the "beta"
Jim March 10, 2009 at 4:26 AM
@Cool Acid,
Yeah, I've heard that "ongoing innovation == permanent beta" line from Web companies before. Personally, I think it's BS and just an attempt to be grown ups and take responsibility. I would bet they have millions, perhaps tens of millions of users. That's "production" whether they want to admit it or not.
What, POP3, IMAP and SMTP not good enough for ya? ;-)
I never even really noticed the Beta tag. Gmail works great no matter what you call it but 5 years IS too long for anything to be considered a Beta product.
fv March 10, 2009 at 6:23 AM
I'm guessing that the marketing value of a Google product marked "beta" is worth more than one without the label. Google, as a brand, is synonymous with innovative, bleeding edge technology. To peel off the "beta" label is to peel away that association and some of the fun exploring it's new products and features, which may explain Google's reluctance to remove the beta label after several years. And the risk of doing that? Not much. When Google uses the term beta, as Inigo would say (thanks Jim), it means something different, "innovative, new and perhaps slightly quirky." When Microsoft uses the term "beta" on new products, (nothing against MS here) you better believe they mean it, as in, "liable to take your system down in a blue flash of glory." That's real risk baby! True blue beta.
Aladek March 10, 2009 at 6:58 AM
"ongoing innovation == permanent beta"
"The beta in our products means that we are never going to stop innovating"
I have to agree. To me, hearing Gmail is beta tells me they are still bringing everything they got on it. It tells me they are working to improve it everyday, to see what works and what people like. Personally, I don't want to see Beta taken off -ever. I don't want to hear, "that's good enough."
Who cares it is a great product
Joseph March 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Who knows how long Google Chrome will be in beta or a different release.
Dzertyx March 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM
The longer the better ; it means the product is still being improved !
I am pretty sure, there is a voice recognition to write email in the pipes.
mirshafie March 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The problem is that the Beta label doesn't mean anything for an application that is constantly being improved. That's why it's ridiculous.
The word "beta" has definitely been watered out a bit in the public eye. If Google have serious stability or security concerns with their product, they should not offer it commercially. If they do not have stability concerns, they should remove the beta label. I'm really annoyed that they have been clinging on to it for all this time, especially if it turns out that this was some marketing idiots idea of how to associate Gmail with innovation. That's just dumb.
Seems pretty inconsistent to me. The Classic Google search application , iGoogle, Google search history, Google Maps, Google Reader etc are not in beta but are constantly being improved.
Must be marketing as it all works better than beta for me. The only exception being some of the labs add ons.
I don't like the new Gmail logo.
But who fucking cares?
Salvar March 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM
The continuing use of the beta tag on such an obviously mature service really means very little, one way or another... but it devalues the word. Are we going to have to start saying "alpha" now to refer to products that aren't ready for primetime?
It is ridiculous for Google to still have the beta tag on Gmail. The notion that they think it's appropriate to leave it in beta because they want to continually improve upon it is absurd. If the product is ready for the public to use and if Google believes the code is solid, then they need to "release" it. Beta means it's still being tested, and is not ready for release because there may still be bugs. It does NOT mean that the code is frozen from any future improvements. That's what future releases are for. This is just absurd, and they know it which is what boggles my mind. For a big software company like Google to leave such a large project that has become so widely used in perpetual beta is just nuts. That said, I use Gmail because I like it. It's a really good project. But come on Google, release the frickin product already.
For me using something beta is annoying. Beta means its not perfect and i like my stuff to be perfect. Although Gmail to me is more perfect then anything else.
Gmail Great. Beta not.
oli March 23, 2009 at 8:00 AM
There is no such thing as 'perfect' in the software world, since it has more to do with magic then science.
Off late, Gmail almost never works on Mozilla Firefox [2, 2+ and 3]or IE 6.0
I keep getting "Connection interrupted Error" and/or Error code 700.
Wonder of wonders, it works fine on Chrome.
Smelling something..
Jack Clarke April 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Although it's just a word I think it would almost look odd without the beta tag after all these years with it.
I think Gmail really have to go out from beta now. It has the capabilities to be number one email service provider, you know. I even like Gmail better than Y*hoo!
NCreation May 3, 2009 at 4:26 PM
@"off late..." Anonymous poster
"keep getting "Connection interrupted Error" and/or Error code 700.
Wonder of wonders, it works fine on Chrome."
I wouldn't be so quick to assume. I use firefox, chrome, and avant and have never had any problems with Gmail loading. Maybe your ad-blocker is interfering? Adblock Plus for Firefox is known to screw Gmail up.
who fucking cares about the beta
3-in-1 Google
Try Your Query on a Different Search Engine
Translate Gmail Messages
Google China Music Search, Now Available Everywher...
Real-Time Google Translate
More Search Options in an Experimental Google Vide...
Import Your Old Hotmail Messages into Gmail
Hosted by Google, but Not Open to Search Engines
Drawing in Google Docs
Find Custom Maps
Find and Replace in Google Docs
In Google We Trust
Google Translate, Added to the Navigation Menu
More Google Search Insights
Find Images that Contain a Certain Color
Web Search Tips for Internet Explorer 8
Google Tests Enhanced Suggestions for IE8
Undo Sending a Gmail Message
Alternative Answers for GoogleLookup
Google Street View for UK and Netherlands
Gmail Media Previews
First Google Chrome Extensions
Google Chrome 2.0 Beta
orkut Birthdays in Google Calendar
Ads Next to Picasa Web Albums Search Results
How to Sort Tables in Google Docs
Google's Market Share in Your Country
Google, the Thinking Machine
Google Voice, the New Version of GrandCentral
Optimize Web Pages for Google Image Search
Behavioral Targeting in Google AdSense
Google Noticeboard
Google Video Upload, Powered by Gears
Google Apps Status
Sergey Brin on "To Tell the Truth"
Translate PDF Files and Office Documents
Google and Question Answering
Export Gmail Filters
Google Chrome, Bundled with RealPlayer
Offline Google Calendar, Available for Everyone
Earthquake OneBox in Google Search
Google Spreadsheets to Add Macros, Drawings
Gmail Brings Back the Web Search Button
Get Faster Gmail, Google Toolbar and a New Homepag...
Standalone Offline Installer for Google Chrome
[Update: The final hours] Prime Day 2019 Mega-list: All the best tech, smart home, and phone deals (Updated continuously)


Since its foundation in 1958, Herzog has been one of the leading manufacturers of precision turned parts, gear kits and complex systems solutions.
With its working area of 15,400 sqm and 370 employees, Herzog's capabilities range from soft machining, such as multi-spindle turning, in-house heat treatments and hard machining continuing up to the final assembly.
Established in 1976, with a headcount of 550 people, miniGears is one of very few companies worldwide to combine traditional Steel Machining with Powder Metal technologies and has achieved over the years a remarkable position in the manufacturing of gears and components.


How to Help : Ronald McDonald House Charities of Central Florida, Inc.
Each year, our volunteers generously give over 20,000 hours of their time to support the families we serve. Do you want to feel good about doing good? Join us!
This initiative is good for Ronald McDonald House families, local schools and the environment. We can all do a little to make a big difference in our community!


text:
For signed information about any topic, please click the following icon.
This research is in the area of computer vision - making computers which can understand what is happening in photographs and video. However, most learning based approaches require annotated data which can be expensive to acquire. This project seeks to develop automated tools that allow temporal visual content,such as a human gesturing, using sign language, or interacting with objects or other humans, to be learnt from standard TV broadcast signals using the high level annotation in the form of subtitles or scripts. This requires the development of models of the visual appearance and dynamics of actions, and learning methods which can train such models using the weak supervision provided by the text. As such there are two main domains to this work, Sign Language Recognition and more general understanding of actions and behavior in broadcast footage. More details on some of these elements are given below.
Upper Body Pose Estimation and Tracking
Learning Sign Language by Watching TV
Sign Recognition using Sequential Pattern Trees
Additional pose data and CNN body pose software
Action Recognition
Recognising actions in 2D
Tracking and Character Identification
2D detection and tracking
Tracking 3D objects from 2D footage
Tracking Hands in 3D
Identifying Characters in Footage
This page was last updated on 19/03/2016 by S Hadfield


text:
Your Introduction to Jewish Spirituality
Hosted By:	Inner Judaism
In this introductory 90 minute program, you will learn the basics of Jewish spiritual practices and become familiar with spiritual vocabulary: Mussar, nefesh, ruach, neshama, hitbonenut. We'll experience a visualization, chanting, and engage in text study. This program is recommended for beginners, or for those who might be engaging in Jewish spiritual practices (like meditation) but who want to learn more about Jewish teachings regarding the soul and our relationship with the Divine.
Tue. Nov. 30, 2021
7:30 pm - 9:00 pm	EST
Ruth Schapira
Ruth Schapira leads online and in-person groups using creative and contemplative techniques that connect people with text and allows for a deep understanding. She has led groups for organizations such as LimmudFSU Labs, Hadassah, Gratz College, The Mussar Institute, and synagogues. Ruth has a master's degree in counseling from NYU and has training as a Mussar facilitator. She currently is completing research for her doctorate in Jewish education.
Inner Judaism
Inner Judaism provides creative and interactive online educational programs that result in gaining deeper meanings and insights into Jewish wisdom. Being part of an online learning community satisfies your intellectual curiosity while deepening your spiritual experience.
Follow Follow Host on Facebook
Thu. Jan. 20, 2022 @ 7:30 pm EST
Introduction to Judaism: The Big Ideas
Hosted by: Haberman Institute
View More About Event	Event Arrow
Mon. Jan. 24, 2022 @ 11:00 am EST
Online Jewish Yoga Studio
Hosted by: Institute for Jewish Spirituality
Tue. Jan. 25, 2022 @ 9:30 am EST
Jewish Meditation Moment
Hosted by: My Jewish Learning
Days of Awe Sermon Slam
Rabbi Danielle Upbin
Watch a High Holidays sermon from the spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Shalom, Clearwater, FL.
Shehechiyanu: A Meditation on this Moment
This blessing, traditionally recited for firsts, can be said anytime -- since every moment is new and unprecedented.


text:
Blaming Russia for Hunter's problems was a big misstep, Joe, and it may prove to be your downfall
Tags: Collusion, conspiracy, corruption, deep state, elections, hoax, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, national security, politics, Russia, traitors, treason
(Natural News) Joe Biden recently suggested that stories circulating about his son Hunter were part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Whatever he has or hasn't been up to, blaming another nation is unwise and won't go down well with voters.
(Article by Micah Curtis republished from RT.com)
It's safe to say that Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden, is having a rough time. After the contents of his laptop, including details of his international business dealings, came into the public domain, it transpired that the computer had been the subject of a subpoena in a money-laundering investigation. Now, former business partners are beginning to turn on him, and one of them has said that he's turning "everything" over to the FBI and the Senate. Another one claimed that Biden was consulted with regard to Hunter's foreign deals.
During the second and final presidential debate, Biden made a key mistake when it came to addressing these issues. Instead of simply stating that he had no comment to make, he decided to blame Russia for the fact that Hunter's emails had been leaked from the laptop's hard drive. Ah yes. So we're back to that old 'reliable' narrative. I'm assuming that Joe may have missed the embarrassment that was the Mueller investigation.
Maybe Biden doesn't like Russia. Whether he does or doesn't is inconsequential. It is a very bad idea to blame his problems on a foreign power. In fact, it's not the proper behavior of someone who wants to be president. Here's the truth. Hunter Biden's dealings across the pond likely had some issues. It's hard to say exactly what these might be, because there's an ongoing investigation. I don't think that Biden is so dumb that he doesn't realize that this hurts his chances of the presidency. However, there is a big lack of responsibility here. Blaming what's happening on anyone except Hunter is a bit silly. I'd even argue that it's incredibly irresponsible.
What's even more obvious is the desperation. Biden and the Democrats in general want this story, whatever it is, to be squashed. It's why you have seen so little coverage on left-leaning TV networks. If Donald Trump Jr was in a similar situation it would be a story on every single one of them, and likely the subject of a Don Lemon lecture or five.
What Biden may not realize is that when voters see something being blamed on Russia, they tend to roll their eyes. It invokes the image of Boris and Natasha grabbing a laptop in the hopes of finally grabbing the moose and squirrel. It's cartoonish. And what happens if the worst-case scenario for Biden comes true and his son is indicted for something? Well, at that point it's more than just a 'Russian disinformation campaign'. It's very real indeed.
And this is where Biden could end up with plenty of egg on his face. If he and his son are in trouble, then no amount of blaming another country is going to change that. And it wouldn't surprise me if this becomes a major factor in the upcoming election. Why would you vote for someone who can't, or won't, take responsibility for what is going on with their own family?
What Biden needs to do at this point is come clean on what his level of involvement was, and simply be a dad to his son instead of a politician. Then again, Biden has been a politician longer than he's been a father, so it's hard saying which hat he plans on wearing for the next two weeks.
Read more at: RT.com
Previous :New Canadian bill would criminalize Christian teaching on sexuality
Next : Obama praises young leftists creating 'a new normal in America'
More news on Collusion
Full story behind Hunter's laptop debunks latest Russia conspiracy theory
Hunter Biden colluded with Russia to enrich his family's coffers
Exposing Hunter Biden is just the beginning to uncover the US deep state which colludes with the CCP
AUDIO: Hunter Biden confesses criminal partnership with Chinese "spy chief"
Facebook and Twitter continue to completely blacklist all links from NaturalNews.com or Brighteon.com, waging a war on independent platforms that support Trump
Facebook, Google spent $700 million to "buy off the press"
DNI Ratcliffe: There 'should be' more indictments coming from Durham investigation
Senator raises calls for FBI counterintelligence briefing on Biden to determine national security risk of corrupt family dealings
As Hunter Biden scandal gets ready to explode in their faces, Big Tech, the MSM and the Democrat Party are committing mass suicide by attempting to 'rig' the election for Joe Biden
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-02-blaming-russia-for-hunters-problems-was-misstep.html
Blaming Russia for Hunter's problems was a big misstep, Joe, and it may prove to be your downfall


text:
Q: how to make the background cover in mobile mode here the background video is covering the entire screen but as I resize it to mobile view it leaves the black area at the bottom, how to deal with it I want the background video to be consistent in any screen width.
HTML and JS part:
import './App.css';
import Footer from './Components/Footer';
import Header from './Components/Header';
function App() {
  // let imageArr = ["back.jpg", "front.jpg", "right.jpg"];
  // let randomNum = Math.floor(Math.random() * imageArr.length);
  // let randomImage = imageArr[randomNum];
  return (
    // <div className="App" style={{backgroundImage: `url(${randomImage})`}}>

      <video  src="back.mp4" autoplay="autoplay"loop muted></video>

    //

  );
}

export default App;

css part
.App
{
  background-size:cover;
  height: 100vh;
  width:100vw;
  overflow: hidden;
  background:  no-repeat center center fixed;

}
.container
{
  padding: 3%;
  margin: 0px;

}
.overlay
{
position: absolute;
width:  100vw;
height:100vh;
background: rgb(0, 0, 0);
mix-blend-mode: overlay;
}
video
{
  position: absolute;
  width:  100vw;
  height:1fr;
 overflow: hidden;
opacity: 0.8;
}

A: video {
  width: 100%;
  height: auto;
}

for further information please check W3 article: https://www.w3schools.com/css/css_rwd_videos.asp

A: For a full-screen video on desktop and mobile you should start with a parent with a max-height: 100vh;.
Side note: background-blend-mode only works when there is a background: url('') and a background-color. It won't work with the img element.
With that being said, make the full-screen overlay with a pseudo-element. In your case, I used overlay:after to create the overlay. Then, most importantly for your video to stay full screen on desktop and mobile you need to have a min-width and min-height on the video itself. In this instance, I gave the video an ID called #video-position to get those styles.
I also added a sample overlay text. See the snippet below:

body {
  margin: 0;
}

.overlay {
  position: relative;
  max-height: 100vh;
  overflow: hidden;
}

.overlay:after {
  content: "";
  background: rgb(0, 0, 0, .5);
  position: absolute;
  z-index: 1;
  left: 0;
  top: 0;
  right: 0;
  bottom: 0;
}

#video-position {
  min-width: 100%;
  min-height: 100vh;
  z-index: 0;
}

.overlay-txt {
  position: absolute;
  z-index: 2;
  top: 50%;
  width: 100%;
}

.overlay-txt>h1 {
  color: white;
  text-align: center;
}

Overlay Text

  <video src="https://www.w3schools.com/howto/rain.mp4" id="video-position" autoplay="autoplay" loop muted></video>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Melbourne op shoppers we are spoiled for choice when it comes to op shopping!
A new one has opened this month in Balwyn.
The opening hours according to their website are Monday – Friday 9.30am – 4pm and Saturday 9.30am – 1pm.
If you get a chance to pop in soon let us know what you thought and if you're on Instagram #ilovetoopshop to show us the shop or what you picked up.
You can also find out about other Villa Maria Catholic Homes op shops on their website here.


M&R Marketing Group has created new logos for two popular venues. You can see the logos above for the Macon Coliseum and the Macon City Auditorium.
"The Macon Coliseum and Macon City Auditorium are facilities with their own look, feel, function, and history," said David Aiello, Spectra General Manager of the Macon Coliseum and Macon City Auditorium.


text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Missouri › Eastern District of Missouri › 2019 › Cole v. Dan Wiley et al › Filing 116
Cole v. Dan Wiley et al, No. 2:2016cv00041 - Document 116 (E.D. Mo. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons discussed above, the defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29 ) is granted. An appropriate judgment order is issued herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 9/27/2019. (CLO)
Cole v. Dan Wiley et al Doc. 116 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION LANCE ADRIAN COLE Plaintiff, v. DAN WILEY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:16 CV 41 DDN MEMORANDUM OPINION This action is before the Court on the motion of defendants Dan Wiley and William Jones for summary judgment. (Doc. 94). The Court heard oral argument on the motions. All parties have consented to the exercise of plenary authority by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions for summary judgment. BACKGROUND The following facts are uncontroverted unless otherwise specified. At all times relevant to plaintiff's complaint, defendant William Jones was the Deputy Warden of Operations and defendant Dan Wiley was a Corrections Officer in the Missouri Department of Corrections, both at Northeast Correctional Center ("NECC") in Bowling Green, Missouri. (Doc. 96, ¶¶ 1-3; Doc. 112, ¶¶ 1-3). Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at NECC, until his release on October 22, 2018. (Doc. 1; Doc. 96, ¶ 1; Doc. 112, ¶ 1). Plaintiff was serving a 15-year sentence related to a 2003 conviction, for which he had filed a number of legal challenges. (Doc. 96, ¶ 6; Doc. 112, ¶ 6). These included a direct appeal and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Id.). On July 12, 2015, plaintiff was moved to a new area of the prison and inadvertently left his legal papers under his mattress during the move. (Id. at ¶ 7). The Dockets.Justia.com inmate who moved into plaintiff's old cell gave the legal papers to another inmate, who then gave them to a third inmate for delivery to plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 8). Defendant Wiley observed the third inmate and asked why he was carrying an envelope, and the third inmate admitted that the papers did not belong to him and he was supposed to give them to another prisoner. (Id. at ¶ 10). Prison policy generally does not allow inmates to pass property to each other. (Id. at ¶ 11). Defendant Wiley told the inmate he needed to turn over the documents as contraband or receive a conduct violation. (Id. at ¶ 13). The inmate gave the documents to defendant Wiley. (Id.). The parties dispute whether defendant Wiley's seizure was in line with prison policies. (Id. at ¶ 15). Around July or August 2015, defendant Jones learned of the seized documents, which related to two legal claims plaintiff intended to file: petitions for writs of habeas corpus in this federal court and in Illinois state court. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19). These documents included an affidavit by David Horwitz about exculpatory photographs and an affidavit from witness Lorenzo Nunn. (Id. at ¶ 21). In 2010, plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that included these documents, and this Court found them not exculpatory with regard to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Cole v. Roper, No. 4:10 CV 197 CEJ, 2013 WL 398755 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 1, 2013). In this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff's amended complaint alleges the following claims against both defendants in their official and individual capacities, seeking money damages: Count 1: Denial of Access to the Courts, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Count 2: Denial of Due Process, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Count 3: Violation of the Equal Protection Clause, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Count 4: Unlawful Taking, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 81). -2- MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate "if there is no dispute of material fact and reasonable fact finders could not find in favor of the nonmoving party." Shrable v. Eaton Corp., 695 F.3d 768, 770-71 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). A dispute is genuine if the evidence could prompt a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either the plaintiff or the defendant, and it is material if it would affect the resolution of a case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Rademacher v. HBE Corp., 645 F.3d 1005, 1010 (8th Cir. 2011). If reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250-51 (1986). B. Discussion 1. Official Capacity Defendants first argue that plaintiff's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. A state is immune from civil rights claims for damages unless it waives its sovereign immunity. Bd. Of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. V. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001). When a plaintiff brings such a claim against a state official in his official capacity, it is a suit against the state itself, so it will be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Because the State of Missouri has not waived its sovereign immunity, "neither the State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' capable of being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983," id., and plaintiff's official capacity claims must be dismissed. Only the individual capacity claims remain. 2. Denial of Access to the Courts Plaintiff claims that defendants' actions denied him access to the courts. Prisoners have a constitutional right to access the courts. White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d 677, -3- 679 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 11 n. 6 (1989)). To establish a violation of this right, a prisoner must plead and prove that he has not been "provided an opportunity to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner's sentence or conditions of confinement in a court of law." White, 494 F.3d at 680 (citing Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413 (2002)). Additionally, the plaintiff must show that there was an actual injury. Id. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner "must demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded." Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 832 (8th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). A claim is frivolous if it lacks arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Garner, Black's Law Dictionary 677 (8th ed. 1999); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An inmate must also demonstrate that he suffered prejudice. Weber v. Wood, 986 F.2d 504 (8th Cir. 1993). The parties dispute whether plaintiff's documents were "contraband" and whether they were properly seized and disposed of under prison policies. However, given the absence of actual injury or prejudice, these disputes are not material. Plaintiff has not shown that he suffered actual injury or prejudice by the loss of these legal materials, or that his claims have an arguable basis either in law or fact. With regard to plaintiff's federal habeas petition, this Court already considered the effect of the photographs and affidavits. Cole v. Roper, No. 4:10 CV 197 CEJ, 2013 WL 398755 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 1, 2013). That case addressed the evidence in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but the Court nevertheless considered whether the evidence would have changed the outcome of the case. Plaintiff has not indicated the specific claim his second federal habeas petition would have raised. However, in every case, plaintiff would need to show that the inclusion of the evidence would have changed the outcome of the case. Id. at *4. As this Court already considered that question and concluded the evidence would not have changed the outcome of plaintiff's case, and was not exculpatory, plaintiff's second habeas petition would have been frivolous and he suffered no prejudice. -4- As to plaintiff's Illinois putative state habeas claim, 1 plaintiff was not in the custody of the State of Illinois, so such an action would have been frivolous. See, e.g., People ex rel. Jackson v. Moore, 336 N.E.2d 197, 198 (1975) (holding that habeas relief in Illinois courts is available only to individuals in Illinois state custody); (Doc. 112, Ex. 1 at 45-49) (plaintiff testifying that the state and federal motions for writs of habeas corpus were the only actions he was pursuing at that time). For these reasons, defendants are granted summary judgment as to Count 1. 3. Due Process Claim Plaintiff also claims that he was deprived of property without due process of law. When it is legal property that is taken, Simmons, the case upon which plaintiff relies, explains that the alleged violation concerns a substantive, fundamental right. Simmons v. Dickhaut, 804 F.2d 182, 184-85 (1st Cir. 1986). Accordingly, that claim involving the taking of legal property was ultimately a substantive claim for denial of access to the courts. For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff's substantive due process claim of access to the courts is without merit. To the extent plaintiff raises a procedural due process claim, the Supreme Court has held that intentional deprivations of property by a state officer do not violate due process if post-deprivation procedures are available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536 (1984). Here, there are several post-deprivation procedures available to plaintiff, including state prison grievance procedures, which plaintiff used, as well as state-law remedies, such as common law trespass to chattels. See Foremost Ins. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Missouri, 985 S.W.2d 793, 797 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998); 2 Mo. Tort Law, § 21.19 (MoBar 2d ed.1990). Moreover, plaintiff alleges "policies or customs, practices 1 At the hearing, plaintiff stated that this was an action for wrongful imprisonment, but in his deposition and in every court filing, he has described it as a motion for a writ of habeas corpus. Based on his detailed deposition testimony and the fact that wrongful imprisonment claims may form the basis of motions for habeas corpus relief, the Court interprets plaintiff's deposition testimony as referring to a motion for writ of habeas corpus, based on his allegations of illegal incarceration in Illinois. (Doc. 112, Ex. 1 at 45-49). -5- and usages" that harass offenders and deprive them of their rights to the court without proper or independent investigation, but plaintiff has shown no evidence of such policies. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's due process claims. 4. Equal Protection Claim Plaintiff claims that he was discriminated against and treated differently than other prisoners situated similarly to him with regard to the destruction of his documents. An equal protection claimant must demonstrate he was treated differently than others similarly situated to him. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Dissimilar treatment of dissimilarly situated people does not violate equal protection. Plaintiff claims that "all inmates" were treated one way and he was treated differently, because his legal materials were taken. "A § 1983 class-of-one equal protection claim is stated when a plaintiff alleges that a defendant intentionally treated [him] differently from others who are similarly situated and that no rational basis existed for the difference in treatment." Mathers v. Wright, 636 F.3d 396, 399 (8th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has defined the outer limits of this cause of action by excluding class-of-one claims in the context of public employment, explaining: There are some forms of state action, however, which by their nature involve discretionary decisionmaking based on a vast array of subjective, individualized assessments. In such cases the rule that people should be "treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions" is not violated when one person is treated differently from others, because treating like individuals differently is an accepted consequence of the discretion granted. In such situations, allowing a challenge based on the arbitrary singling out of a particular person would undermine the very discretion that such state officials are entrusted to exercise. Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 603 (2008). Many decisions by corrections officers in a prison, like those in the employment context, are based on subjective factors. "Engquist underscores the importance of context in determining whether the alleged intentional disparate treatment is actionable or rather a permissible exercise of discretion." Mathers v. Wright, 636 F.3d at 400. -6- Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts, and state prison officials may not actively interfere with inmates' attempts to prepare legal documents, but must ensure "a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (citations omitted). Delays in obtaining legal documents are not of constitutional significance, even where they result in actual injury, "so long as they are the product of prison regulations reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Id. at 362. Based on the uncontroverted facts, the prison policy was to not destroy or remove any legal material from the prison except via a specific storage and notification procedure. (Doc. 112, Ex. 3). When defendant Wiley intercepted the documents from another offender, he did not follow this procedure, but took the documents and kept them either at his home, as Jones testified, or in his office, as Wiley testified. (Docs. 112-2 at 11-14; 112-4 at 38-41). When plaintiff initiated the grievance process, Jones became aware of the missing documents and reviewed Wiley's actions. He determined that the materials would be disposed of as contraband, as they were found in the possession of another inmate. He informed plaintiff of this via the grievance process. (Doc. 112, Ex. 5). While plaintiff suggests that Wiley was acting out of personal animus in keeping the documents, his testimony in context is to the contrary—that Wiley would have disposed of the documents, but when he found out they were plaintiff's, he kept them as he anticipated there would be grievances filed. (Doc. 112, Ex. 2 at 47). The entirety of his testimony reads: [A]t the time, it was contraband. Nothing but contraband. So I opted to put it in my file cabinet until I could properly dispose of it. Before I could dispose of it Mr. Cole came over and said that it was his stuff. "Mr. Cole, I'm sorry. I've disposed of it." That's what was supposed to have happened. But because it's Lance Cole I kept ahold of it. . . . I said, "I'm going to hold onto these, because I know what's going to happen." (Id. at 47-48). These actions were within the reasonable discretion of the defendants as prison officials. Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that defendants treated other -7- inmates' abandoned or misplaced legal documents differently, when they were found in the possession of another inmate in violation of prison policy. The disposal of the documents following a grievance investigation appears "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," Lewis, 518 U.S. at 362, because the transfer of items between prisoners poses legitimate safety and management concerns. While plaintiff suggests that defendant Wiley acted out of personal animus, because of plaintiff's history of filing grievances against him, defendant Wiley refrained from following prison procedure to dispose of contraband—an action in plaintiff's favor. While the outcome of the grievance process ultimately confirmed that policy should be followed in disposing the materials as contraband, there is no indication that this outcome was not within the reasonable discretion of defendants. Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) ("the purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.") (citations omitted). Accordingly, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim. 5. Takings Claim Finally, plaintiff claims that the destruction of his private legal property was a taking for public purposes without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 81). Plaintiff relies on an opinion from the Northern District of Texas, which held that when a prisoner's legal materials were confiscated pursuant to prison policy, which policies are enforced to secure the prisons, the taking was for public use. McCullough v. Johnson, No. 7:05 CV 58R, 2007 WL 3406753, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2007). However, other courts have compared to statutory forfeiture the confiscation of inmate property for violations of prison regulations. The Supreme Court, for example, held that deprivations of property accomplished as an exercise of state police power required no compensation. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156-57 (1919). Forfeiture is the "divesture of specific property without compensation resulting from failure to comply with the law." -8- 37 C.J.S. Forfeiture § 2 at 3 (1943). The Court is persuaded that McCullough considered the question too narrowly: while a taking of property to enforce prison regulations will make the prison safer and more secure, it is not a taking so much as a forfeiture. A forfeiture is constitutionally permissible without compensation if it is "reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose under the police power." Id., § 4 at 8 (citations omitted). The prison's policy prohibiting the transfer of such material is reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose under the police power. While defendant Wiley's steps taken beyond the initial confiscation—in failing to deposit the documents in the storage room or follow the usual procedure for legal documents—may not have complied with policy, at that point, the purpose was personal, not public. The action against him is in his individual capacity, and there was no government taking when defendant Wiley chose to take the documents home contrary to prison procedure. Both defendants are entitled so judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed above, the defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is granted. An appropriate judgment order is issued herewith. /S/ David D. Noce l UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signed on September 27, 2019. -9-