here you can get to know me better.
Do you want more information about my skills and experience?
You can check here my full CV.
I love audiovisual translations from English into Spanish, but there is more!
it is one of my passions.
Love for the language and a keen eye for detail.
Deliver an audio recording in written form?


text:
Internationalist Socialist League Sunday, 29 January 2023 - 19:39
Israel: Are Current Green Taxes Proposals Progressive?
admin on August 9, 2021 — Leave a Comment
By Adam Smith, Internationalist Socialist League (RCIT Section in Israel / Occupied Palestine), 06.08.2021, http://www.the-isleague.com
The Israeli Treasury has proposed a congestion tax of 37.5 shekels per day for those entering Tel Aviv starting in 2024, as well as eliminating discounts on tickets for public transport.[1] This proposal (for the congestion tax) has received support from many "left-wing" supporters, therefore it is important to take a closer look at its effects.
Firstly, Liberman the finance minister has said that the cuts would not affect commuters, which is out of touch with reality as the discount of charging money on the transport card (as opposed to using a monthly pass) is such that for somebody who uses it for 2 rides a day 5 times a week inside Tel Aviv area or even three days a week for someone commuting from further, the monthly pass barely saves any money.
This is on top of deteriorating service due to Covid. And even before, there were serious problems with the public transport system, as it doesn't work on Shabbat (Saturday) or Friday afternoon. In addition, most trains don't run on the weekends at all, and after 22:00 or even 20:30 at night. You can see why many people would prefer to use a car (renting a car is not realistic either as the only branch to open on Shabbat is in the airport), and if they already have a car they will use it on the weekdays as well. Even if there is a way to use public transport, because of the fact virtually all neighborhoods and suburbs that were designed after 1948 (aka in the Car Age), were designed in such a way that they require a car, as public transport takes way longer and is unreliable. This is also tied with Zionist ideology of occupying as much land as possible and not creating an urban core.
The Tel Aviv metropolitan is one of the largest in the world without a metro system (which is a problem as buses get stuck in traffic with cars). Construction has started on rail lines, but it is still supposed to take years and in the meanwhile, it has put further stress on the network.
All of this leads to the fact that the official purpose of the congestion toll is to encourage public transport use, but if the alternative of public transport is not effective, then one will have to continue to use a car, and it will essentially become just a tax. While congestion charges have reduced traffic, they have also led to a gentrification of the city (for example in London), with high income workers in the core of the city who can afford the rents there and everybody else outside. This is portrayed as a tax on the rich but the reality is that a rich person uses the car to get to work as much as a poor person, but earns a lot more, so this tax, like the VAT, is highly regressive (a classic example in Israel was the "luxury" import charge on TVs over 50 inches). Owning a car today is hardly a marker of great wealth (more of "lower middle class" or higher), it is a necessity to get to work, and no doubt most people would prefer using other modes of transport if presented with a better option. Those issues come into play when more urban left wingers meet more sub-urban working-class populations, like in the Yellow Vests movement. Also, this congestion system will have a cost of its own to set up and maintain and it will be a surveillance system of its own.
Another great example of a "green" policy helping a certain segment of the bourgeoisie is direct subsidies for big corporations invested in EV, like Tesla. [2] Also, green cap and trade schemes in Australia or the green car credits in the US have made Tesla more money (from trading its green credits) than from selling cars. [3] Those market-based mechanisms, such as buying carbon credits or reforestation credits are highly problematic as there is a strong incentive to cheat, e.g. to get the money for planting the trees to offset CO2 emissions but not to actually plant them. Micheal Moore had a movie on those fake "Green" policies (like the promotion of biomass energy instead of growing corn and other foods) called "Planet of the Humans" in 2019 which was censored by YouTube for a few seconds of alleged copyright infringement.
The new budget also includes further attacks against the working class such as raising the pension age, increased budget for the military to prepare for further attacks against Iran and Gaza, a cut to unemployment benefits for those under 45, as well as proposals to strengthen the "Green Pass" system. Those proposals are often tied to the vote on the budget, in an anti-democratic mechanism called the "Economic Arrangements Law", similar to the Spanish Ley de Acompañamiento, and found in many other "democratic" countries such as the U.S. or Belgium.
"One of the main arguments against the Arrangements Law is that it is passed in a procedure that "circumvents democracy". In debates in the Knesset plenum since 1986 concerning the Arrangements Law as a phenomenon, dozens of statements in this spirit were made by Members of the Knesset from all sections of the House. This is what MK Maxim Levy (Gesher) said on December 23, 1997: "For many years this law turned into an anti-democratic law, which empties the Knesset Committees of any content… The Government cancels laws that were legislated in the Knesset Committees after much toil – they heard various publics, listened to them, initiated by means of this House laws that gave solace to thousands of people, and here comes the Government one night and asks this coalition machine to erase and run over laws…". In all the countries in which we found laws similar to the Arrangements Law we found similar statements regarding the anti-democratic procedure by which they are approved."[4]
Down with the new budget!
For a usable mass public transport system!
Down with the "Green Industrial Complex" and "green" corporate welfare – for a real plan to combat climate change!
We refer reader to the respective sections on environment in the RCIT's Programmatic Manifesto's:
The Fire of Revolution Will Burn Down Catastrophic Capitalism! (2021): Chapter "The Climate Disaster caused by Capitalism", https://www.thecommunists.net/rcit-fire-manifesto-2021/#anker_4
Manifesto for Revolutionary Liberation (2016): Chapter IV, https://www.thecommunists.net/rcit-program-2016/
The Revolutionary Communist Manifesto (2012): Chapter V, https://www.thecommunists.net/rcit-manifesto/
[1] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/congestion-tax-rav-kav-charges-ahead-of-massive-transport-budget-plan-675826
[2] https://newrepublic.com/article/160500/elon-musks-big-government-grift
[3] https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36266393/tesla-made-more-money-selling-credits-and-bitcoin-than-cars/
[4] https://m.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/mmm/me01237.pdf
« Defeat the Israeli Aggression against Iran!
Afghanistan: Another Proof of the Decline of U.S. Imperialism »

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The template will be created just for you, and will only be available to you to use. You will also be able to one click import this template from inside ProStyler on all of your websites so you can use it as many times as you want.
Note: When we develop a custom template we do not customize it with your content. We create it and use filler text and images so you can then go in and replace this with your information.


text:
From The Word
Brief reports from our churches worldwide.
Century Camp Meeting Celebrates 60 Years
The camp meeting held July 22-29 in Century, Florida, commemorated the sixtieth camp meeting of the United States Southern and Eastern District. Attendees from branch churches throughout the district came for the diamond anniversary, and the enthusiasm was evident from the very first service.
At every evening service of the convention, a number of pioneers of the work in that region were remembered. On Tuesday, the testimony of the late Reverend Isaac Davis was shared; he was saved in 1947 and served as U.S. Southern and Eastern District Superintendent for over ten years. The testimony of the late Reverend Leon Dicks was recalled on Wednesday. He was saved in 1944 after his heart was pricked during a street meeting, and he later founded the Apostolic Faith Church at 265 Lafayette in Brooklyn, New York. He also served as District Overseer from 1985 to 1989. Several other inspiring testimonies were shared, encouraging attendees to be faithful like those who have gone before.
On Thursday, a photo gallery was set up in the Century church, highlighting the sixty years of camp meetings. A video was also shown of the late William McClary preaching a memorable sermon titled "A Song in the Night." The entire camp meeting was a blessing as the saints remembered all God has done and looked forward to what He will do in the days ahead.
District Superintendent of Jamaica Appointed
In late spring of 2018, it was announced that Reverend Calvin Palmer would be retiring from the position of District Superintendent of Jamaica, with Reverend Rohan Clough succeeding him. Reverend Clough had served on the Jamaica Board of Trustees since 2002, and in May of 2018, was appointed as the interim leader of the Apostolic Faith work for the island nation. On July 14 of the same year, at the Portland camp meeting, the headquarters Board of Trustees prayed for him, and he officially assumed his new role on August 1. Reverend Palmer will continue to serve as pastor of the churches in Christiana and Crofts Hill, Jamaica.
Newfoundland 75th Anniversary Camp Meeting
The camp meeting held August 5-12 in Roddickton, Newfoundland, Canada, included a celebration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Roddickton church, which was founded in 1943 as the first Apostolic Faith Church in Canada.
On Wednesday of the camp meeting, a walk-through was set up with photos and displays that recounted the history of the work. The memorabilia included a model of the original church, with such intricate details that pews and a pulpit were visible on the interior. There was also a model of the boat used during the early days to evangelize towns which were only accessible by water. There were many photos documenting the work through the years as well.
The Wednesday evening church service was also dedicated to the history of the church in Canada. During the service, Reverend Rene Cassell, former District Superintendent of Canada, gave an overview of the work, including how it expanded from only Newfoundland to other parts of Canada during his tenure. The late Reverend Gideon Hancock, founder of the Roddickton church, was known to have loved the song "Abide with Me," and members of the Hancock family sang that song during the meeting. Later, the current District Superintendent of Canada, Reverend Chris Hewlett, read a Scripture passage from Ephesians and then acknowledged the founding veterans of the Roddickton work, bringing out that the Gospel message has not changed at all in the past seventy-five years.
Search our literature
Living in Anticipation Jan 13, 2020
January 2020 Viewpoint Jan 03, 2020
Sermon Excerpts Dec 16, 2019
You Are Called to Serve Dec 09, 2019
An Abounding Work in Angola Dec 05, 2019
THE APOSTOLIC FAITH MAGAZINE


H11 is the first antibody reported to have dual activity as a non-concerted, Diels-Alderase and hydrolytic catalyst. It was previously shown to catalyse the cycloaddition of acetoxybutadiene 1a to N-alkyl maleimides 2 to afford hydroxy-substituted bicyclic adducts 3 with a 30% ee of a major isomer. To better understand this mechanism and the partial stereospecificity, a homology model of H11 was constructed and used in docking studies to evaluate potential antibody-ligand complexes. The model suggested the hydrolytic nature of H11 was due to Glu 95H acting as a catalytic base, and evaluation of the shape complementarity of the proposed antibody-ligand complexes confirmed at a semi-quantitative level the observation that the major enantiomer is produced in a 30% ee.


text:
Problems on Ages
The sum of the present ages of a father and his son is 60years.
five years ago, father's age was four times the age of theson.
so now the son's age will be
The sum of the present ages of a father and his son is 60 ye
The sum of the ages of a father and son is 45 years five yea
The sum of the ages of a father and son is 45 years five years ago the product of their ages was 4 times the father's age at thattime.
The present ages of the father and son respectively are
What is Arun's present age
Five years ago, Arun's age w
Five years ago, Arun's age was double that of his son's age at that time
Present ages of Arun and his son are in the ratio of 11 : 6 respectively
Five years hence, the respective ratio of Arun's age and his son's age will become 12 : 7
Six years ago, father's age was five times the age of theson.
After 6 years, son's age will be
The sum of the present ages of father and his son is 60 year
The sum of the present ages of father and his son is 60years.
Which of following statements are required to answer the Act
Which of following statements are required to answer the Actual age of Abhinav ?1. Five years ago, Abhinav's age was double that of his son's age at thattime.
2. Present ages of Abhinav and his son are in the ratio of 11 : 6respectively.
3. Five years hence, the respective ratio of Abhinav age and his son's age will become 12 : 7
The sum of the ages of a father and son is 45years.
Five ye
Five years ago, the product of their ages was four times the fathers age at thattime.
The present age of father and son
The sum of ages of a father and son is 45years.
Five years ago the product of their ages was 4 times the father�s age at thattime.
The present age of the father and son, respectively are
Hari Ram's present age is three times his son's present
Hari Ram's present age is three times his son's present age and two fifth of his father's presentage.
The average of the present age of all of them is 46years.
What is the difference between Hari Ram's son's present age and Hari Ram's father's present age
Eighteen years ago, a father was three times as old as his s
Eighteen years ago, a father was three times as old as hisson.
Now the father is only twice as old hisson.
Then the sum of the present ages of the son and the father is
Problem on Ages


text:
WCJI 1016 FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE: SELF‑DEFENSE
Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions (WCJI)
1016 FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE: SELF‑DEFENSE: SECOND DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE — § 940.01(2)(b); § 940.05; § 940.02(1)[1]
Crimes To Consider
The defendant in this case is charged with first degree intentional homicide, and you must first consider whether the defendant is guilty of that offense. If you are not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of first degree intentional homicide, you must consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide or first degree reckless homicide which are less serious degrees of criminal homicide.
Intentional and Reckless Homicide
The crimes referred to as first and second degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless homicide are different degrees of homicide. Homicide is the taking of the life of another human being. The degree of homicide defined by the law depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
While the law separates homicides into different types and degrees, there are certain elements which are common to each crime. Both intentional and reckless homicide require that the defendant caused the death of the victim. First and second degree intentional homicide require the State to prove the additional fact that the defendant acted with the intent to kill. First degree reckless homicide requires that the defendant acted recklessly, under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life. It will also be important for you to consider the privilege of self‑defense in deciding which crime, if any, the defendant has committed.
The Criminal Code of Wisconsin provides that a person is privileged to intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what (he) (she) reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person by the other person. However, (he) (she) may intentionally use only such force as (he) (she) reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. (He) (She) may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death unless (he) (she) reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).[2]
As applied to this case, the effect of the law of self‑defense is:
The defendant is not guilty of any homicide offense if the defendant reasonably believed that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person, and reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).[3]
The defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide if the defendant caused the death of (name of victim) with the intent to kill and actually believed the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself), but the belief or the amount of force used was unreasonable.[4]
The defendant is guilty of first degree intentional homicide if the defendant caused the death of (name of victim) with the intent to kill and did not actually believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).[5]
The defendant is guilty of first degree reckless homicide if the defendant caused the death of (name of victim) by criminally reckless conduct and the circumstances of the conduct showed utter disregard for human life. You will be asked to consider the privilege of self‑defense in deciding whether the elements of first degree reckless homicide are present.[6]
Because the law provides that it is the State's burden to prove all the facts necessary to constitute a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you will not be asked to make a separate finding on whether the defendant acted in self‑defense. Instead, you will be asked to determine whether the State has established the necessary facts to justify a finding of guilty for first or second degree intentional homicide or for first degree reckless homicide. If the State does not satisfy you that those facts are established by the evidence, you will be instructed to find the defendant not guilty.
The facts necessary to constitute each crime will now be defined for you in greater detail.
Statutory Definition of First Degree Intentional Homicide
First degree intentional homicide, as defined in § 940.01 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is committed by one who causes the death of another human being with the intent to kill that person or another. In this case, first degree intentional homicide also requires that the defendant did not actually believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.[7]
State's Burden of Proof
Before you may find the defendant guilty of first degree intentional homicide, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following three elements were present.
Elements of First Degree Intentional Homicide That the State Must Prove
The defendant caused the death of (name of victim) .
"Cause" means that the defendant's act was a substantial factor in producing the death.[8]
The defendant acted with the intent to kill ((name of victim) ) (another human being).[9]
The defendant did not actually believe that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.[10]
Meaning of "Intent to Kill"
"Intent to kill" means that the defendant had the mental purpose to take the life of another human being or was aware that (his) (her) conduct was practically certain to cause the death of another human being.[11]
When May Intent Exist?
While the law requires that the defendant acted with intent to kill, it does not require that the intent exist for any particular length of time before the act is committed. The act need not be brooded over, considered, or reflected upon for a week, a day, an hour, or even for a minute. There need not be any appreciable time between the formation of the intent and the act. The intent to kill may be formed at any time before the act, including the instant before the act, and must continue to exist at the time of the act.
Deciding About Intent
You cannot look into a person's mind to find intent. Intent to kill must be found, if found at all, from the defendant's acts, words, and statements, if any, and from all the facts and circumstances in this case bearing upon intent.[12]
Intent and Motive
Intent should not be confused with motive. While proof of intent is necessary to a conviction, proof of motive is not. "Motive" refers to a person's reason for doing something. While motive may be shown as a circumstance to aid in establishing the guilt of a defendant, the State is not required to prove motive on the part of a defendant in order to convict. Evidence of motive does not by itself establish guilt. You should give it the weight you believe it deserves under all of the circumstances.
Actual Belief That The Force Used Was Necessary
The third element of first degree intentional homicide requires that the defendant did not actually believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself). This requires the State to prove[13] either:
1) that the defendant did not actually believe (he) (she) was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; or
2) that the defendant did not actually believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).
When first degree intentional homicide is considered, the reasonableness of the defendant's belief is not an issue. You are to be concerned only with what the defendant actually believed. Whether these beliefs are reasonable is important only if you later consider whether the defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide.[14]
Jury's Decision
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death of (name of victim) with the intent to kill and that the defendant did not actually believe that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself), you should find the defendant guilty of first degree intentional homicide.
If you are not so satisfied, you must not find the defendant guilty of first degree intentional homicide, and you must consider whether the defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide, as defined in § 940.05 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, which is a lesser included offense of first degree intentional homicide.
Make Every Reasonable Effort To Agree
You should make every reasonable effort to agree unanimously on the charge of first degree intentional homicide before considering the offense of second degree intentional homicide.[15] However, if after full and complete consideration of the evidence, you conclude that further deliberation would not result in unanimous agreement on the charge of first degree intentional homicide, you should consider whether the defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide.
Second Degree Intentional Homicide
Before you may find the defendant guilty of second degree intentional homicide, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following three elements were present.
Elements of Second Degree Intentional Homicide That the State Must Prove
The defendant acted with the intent to kill ((name of victim) ) (another human being).
The defendant did not reasonably believe that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person or did not reasonably believe that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).[16]
You have already been instructed on the definitions of "causing death" and "with intent to kill." The same definitions apply to your consideration of second degree intentional homicide.
Reasonable Belief That The Force Used Was Necessary
The third element of second degree intentional homicide requires that the defendant did not reasonably believe that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person or did not reasonably believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself). This requires that the State prove any one of the following:[17]
1) that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant would not have believed that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person; or
2) that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant would not have believed (he) (she) was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm; or
3) that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant would not have believed that the amount of force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).
The reasonableness of the defendant's belief must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of (his) (her) acts and not from the viewpoint of the jury now. The standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the position of the defendant under the circumstances existing at the time of the alleged offense.
Jury Decision
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death of (name of victim) with the intent to kill and did not reasonably believe that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person or did not reasonably believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself), you should find the defendant guilty of second degree intentional homicide.
If you are not so satisfied, you must not find the defendant guilty of second degree intentional homicide, and you should consider whether the defendant is guilty of first degree reckless homicide, in violation of § 940.02 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, which is also a lesser included offense of first degree intentional homicide.
You should make every reasonable effort to agree unanimously on the charge of second degree intentional homicide before considering the offense of first degree reckless homicide.[18] However, if after full and complete consideration of the evidence, you conclude that further deliberation would not result in unanimous agreement on the charge of second degree intentional homicide, you should consider whether the defendant is guilty of first degree reckless homicide.
Statutory Definition of First Degree Reckless Homicide
First degree reckless homicide, as defined in § 940.02(1) of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is committed by one who recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.
Before you may find the defendant guilty of first degree reckless homicide, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following three elements were present.
Elements of the Crime That the State Must Prove
"Cause" means that the defendant's act was a substantial factor in producing the death.[19]
The defendant caused the death by criminally reckless conduct.
"Criminally reckless conduct" means:[20]
the conduct created a risk of death or great bodily harm to another person; and
the risk of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable and substantial; and
the defendant was aware that (his) (her) conduct created the unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm.[21]
You should consider the evidence relating to self‑defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self‑defense, (his) (her) conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another. The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. And, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case that the risk was unreasonable.[22]
The circumstances of the defendant's conduct showed utter disregard[23] for human life.
In determining whether the circumstances of the conduct showed utter disregard for human life, consider these factors: what the defendant was doing; why the defendant was engaged in that conduct; how dangerous the conduct was; how obvious the danger was; whether the conduct showed any regard for life;[24] and, all other facts and circumstances relating to the conduct. You should consider the evidence relating to self‑defense in deciding whether the circumstances of the defendant's conduct showed utter disregard for human life. The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. And, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case that the circumstances of the defendant's conduct showed utter disregard for human life.[25]
ADD THE FOLLOWING IF EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S AFTER-THE-FACT CONDUCT HAS BEEN ADMITTED.[26]
[Consider also the defendant's conduct after the death to the extent that it helps you decide whether or not the circumstances showed utter disregard for human life at the time the death occurred.]
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death of (name of victim) by criminally reckless conduct and that the circumstances of the conduct showed utter disregard for human life, you should find the defendant guilty of first degree reckless homicide.
If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.
You are not, in any event, to find the defendant guilty of more than one of the foregoing offenses.
Wis JI‑Criminal 1016 was originally published in March 1991 and revised in 1993, 2003, 2012, and 2014. The 2003 revision made changes in the treatment of self‑defense required by State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, and adopted the new format. The 2012 revision involved adding footnote 26 and the text accompanying it. The 2014 revision added to the text to reflect the decision in State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis.2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833. See footnotes 22 and 25. This revision was approved by the Committee in March 2015; it revised footnote 21 to reflect 2013 Wisconsin Act 307.
This instruction is for a case where first degree intentional homicide in violation of § 940.01 is charged and lesser included offenses defined in §§ 940.02 and 940.05 are submitted. The statutes are among those created by 1987 Wisconsin Act 399 as part of the revision of the homicide statutes. The statute applies to offenses committed on or after January 1, 1989. For a brief overview of the homicide revision, see the Introductory Comment at Wis JI‑Criminal 1000. A comprehensive outline and discussion of the changes can be found in "The Importance of Clarity in the Law of Homicide: The Wisconsin Revision," by Walter Dickey, David Schultz, and James L. Fullin, Jr., 1989 Wisconsin Law Review 1325.
[1]. This instruction is for a case where first degree intentional homicide is charged, there is evidence that the defendant acted in self‑defense, and the lesser included offenses of second degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless homicide are to be submitted to the jury.
[2]. These statements are based on the definition of the privilege of self‑defense found in § 939.48.
[3]. The effect of the privilege of self‑defense in a case where first degree intentional homicide is charged is as follows:
(a) if the exercise of the privilege was reasonable, both in inception and scope, the defendant is not guilty of any crime;
(b) if the defendant actually believed it was necessary to use force in self defense, but acts unreasonably, the defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide. He or she may act unreasonably in either of two ways:
i) the belief that it was necessary to act in self‑defense may be unreasonable; or
ii) the amount of force used may be unreasonable
(c) if the defendant did not actually believe it was necessary to use force in self defense, the defendant is guilty of first degree intentional homicide.
[4]. Section 940.01(2)(b) provides that causing the death by "unnecessary defensive force" mitigates what would otherwise be first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide: "Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable."
[5]. The absence of the mitigating circumstance – no actual belief that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm – becomes a fact necessary to constitute the first degree offense. See § 940.01(3) and State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis.2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413. Also see the discussion in notes 13 and 14, below.
The Committee considered adding a "subjective threshold" to the definition of the mitigating circumstance. A "subjective threshold" would require that the defendant actually believed that there was an unlawful interference. The Head decision is unclear on this point. One statement in the opinion is consistent with adding this requirement:
. . . If unnecessary defensive force is been [sic] placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not actually believe she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with her person or did not actually believe that the force she used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm – even if those beliefs were unreasonable – to sustain a conviction for first-degree intentional homicide.
2002 WI 99, ¶70.
However, in two other paragraphs in the opinion the court stated the requirements for unnecessary defensive force without including the "actual belief in an unlawful interference" element. See 2002 WI 99, ¶¶5 and 90. Because § 940.01(2)(b) does not include this requirement, and because the Head decision placed great emphasis on the plain language of the statutes, the Committee decided that it should not be added to the instruction. As a practical matter, the requirement is probably implicit in the other aspects of the standard. Someone who actually believes that it is necessary to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm almost certainly will believe that the source of that threat is an unlawful interference.
In State v. Peters, 2002 WI App 243, 258 Wis.2d 148, 653 N.W.2d 300, the court of appeals reversed a conviction for first degree intentional homicide because, under the standard set forth in the Head decision, second degree intentional homicide [unnecessary defensive force] and the complete privilege of self defense should have been submitted to the jury. As to unnecessary defensive force, Peters met the obligation set out in Head "to present only 'some' evidence that she actually believed that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force she used was necessary to defend herself." 2002 WI App 243 at ¶19.
[6]. See notes 22 and 25, below.
[7]. When the issue of self‑defense "has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt" for a violation of § 940.01. § 940.01(3). This statute codifies prior Wisconsin law which had established that when evidence of a defense is in the case, the absence of that defense becomes a fact the state must prove to establish guilt for the crime charged.
A defense is "placed in issue" when "a reasonable view of the evidence could support a jury finding that the state has not borne its burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt the facts constituting the defense." Judicial Council Note to § 940.01, 1987 Senate Bill 191, citing State v. Felton, 110 Wis.2d 485, 508, 329 N.W.2d 161 (1983).
[8]. The Committee has concluded that the simple "substantial factor" definition of cause should be sufficient for most cases. Where there is evidence of more than one possible cause, something like the following might be added:
There may be more than one cause of death. The act of one person alone might produce it, or the acts of two or more persons might jointly produce it.
Also see Wis JI‑Criminal 901, CAUSE.
[9]. The parenthetical reference to "another human being" is based on § 940.01(1), which addresses the common law doctrine of "transferred intent." That doctrine has been described as follows:
It is immaterial that the human being killed is not the one the actor intended to kill. If X shoots at and kills a person who he thinks is Y but who is actually Z, X is as guilty as if he had not been mistaken about the identity of the person killed. The same is true where X shoots at Y intending to kill him, but he misses Y and kills Z. In both of these cases, X has caused "the death of another human being by an act done with intent to kill that person or another." In other words, the section incorporates the common law doctrine of "transferred intent." 1953 Judiciary Committee Report on the Criminal Code, Wisconsin Legislative Council, page 58.
[10]. See note 5, supra.
[11]. The phrase "or aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause that result" was added to the definition of "with intent to" found in § 939.23 by the 1988 revision of the homicide statutes. Further, the revision applied the § 939.23 definition to homicide offenses. Under prior law, "with intent to kill" was defined solely in terms of mental purpose for offenses in Chapter 940. See the discussion in Wis JI‑Criminal 1000 and 923B.
[12]. This is the shorter version used to describe the process of finding intent. The Committee has concluded that it is suitable for use in most cases. For the longer description of the intent-finding process, see Wis JI‑Criminal 923A.
[13]. Section 940.01(2) recognizes four circumstances as affirmative defenses which mitigate first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide. When the existence of an affirmative defense "has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt" for a violation of § 940.01. See § 940.01(3). This statute codifies prior Wisconsin law which had established that when evidence of a defense is in the case, the absence of that defense becomes a fact the state must prove to establish guilt for the crime charged. Moes v. State, 91 Wis.2d 756, 284 N.W.2d 66 (1979).
Two beliefs must be held by the defendant in order to mitigate first degree intentional homicide on the basis of "unnecessary defensive force": a belief that the defendant (or another) was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; and a belief that the force used was necessary to defend against that danger. See § 940.01(2)(b). By proving that the defendant did not actually hold either one of these beliefs, the state may meet its burden of proving that "the facts constituting the defense did not exist." Section 940.01(3).
[14]. The 2002 revision of the instruction changed this element in response to the decision in State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis.2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413. Head modified State v. Camacho, 176 Wis.2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993), by holding that there is no "objective threshold" for invoking the mitigating factor of "unnecessary defensive force." The "objective threshold" refers to a requirement that the defendant reasonably believe that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference. Head holds that it is sufficient for purposes of "unnecessary defensive force" that a defendant actually believe that the defensive force used was necessary. This is summarized in the following paragraphs of the opinion:
¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self‑defense is placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state has the burden to prove that the person had no actual belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, or no actual belief that the amount of force she used was necessary to prevent or terminate this interference. If the jury concludes that the person had an actual but unreasonable belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, the person is not guilty of first‑degree intentional homicide but should be found guilty of second‑degree intentional homicide.
¶104. In light of this analysis, we must modify Camacho to the extent that it states that Wis. Stat. § 940.01(2)(b) contains an objective threshold element requiring a defendant to have a reasonable belief that she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with her person in order to raise the issue of unnecessary defensive force (imperfect self‑defense).
Also see State v. Peters, 2002 WI App 243, note 5 supra.
[15]. This paragraph builds in part of the transitional material usually used between the charged crime and the lesser included offense. See Wis JI‑Criminal 112.
[16]. The absence of the complete privilege of self‑defense is a fact necessary to constitute the offense of second degree intentional homicide, assuming there is evidence of the complete privilege in the case. Since there already has been a finding of "some evidence" of the imperfect privilege, (now called "unnecessary defensive force"), there will almost always be a basis for submitting the existence of the complete privilege to the jury. See State v. Gomaz, 141 Wis.2d 302, 414 N.W.2d 626 (1987).
The 2002 revision of the instruction added the requirement that the "defendant did not reasonably believe that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference." This requirement was previously part of the requirements for the mitigating factor of unnecessary defensive force. When State v. Head modified State v. Camacho, see note 14, supra, this "objective threshold" was removed from the mitigating factor determination. However, it remains part of the complete privilege of self defense and must be added here. Head's holding that the objective threshold does apply to claims of the complete privilege of self defense was stated as follows:
. . . [A] defendant seeking a jury instruction on perfect self‑defense to a charge of first‑degree intentional homicide must satisfy an objective threshold showing that she reasonably believed that she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with her person and reasonably believed that the force she used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on perfect self‑defense when the trial evidence places self‑defense in issue. Perfect self‑defense is placed in issue when, under a reasonable view of the trial evidence, a jury could conclude that the state has failed to meet its burden to disprove one of the elements of self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (Emphasis in original.) 2002 WI 99, ¶4.
In State v. Peters, 2002 WI App 243, 258 Wis.2d 148, 653 N.W.2d 300, the court of appeals reversed a conviction for first degree intentional homicide because, under the standard set forth in the Head decision, second degree intentional homicide [unnecessary defensive force] and the complete privilege of self defense should have been submitted to the jury. As to the complete privilege, Peters met the obligation set out in Head to present "some evidence" supporting the claim of self defense. "[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Peters, a jury could conclude the State had not disproved the perfect self-defense theory beyond a reasonable doubt and that Peters reasonably believed she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with her person and reasonably believed that the force she used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." 2002 WI App 243 at ¶24.
[17]. The exercise of the privilege may be proved to be unreasonable in any one of three ways: by showing that the defendant's belief that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference was unreasonable; or, by showing that the defendant's belief that he or she was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm was unreasonable; or, by showing that the amount of force used was unreasonable. See note 16, supra.
[19]. The Committee has concluded that the simple "substantial factor" definition of cause should be sufficient for most cases. Where there is evidence of more than one possible cause, something like the following might be added immediately preceding the sentence in the instruction beginning with "before":
Also see, Wis JI-Criminal 901 Cause.
[20]. "Criminal recklessness" is defined as follows in § 939.24(1):
. . . 'criminal recklessness' means that the actor creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another human being and the actor is aware of that risk.
The Judicial Council Note to § 939.24, 1987 Senate Bill 191, explains that "[r]ecklessness requires both the creation of an objectively unreasonable and substantial risk of human death or great bodily harm and the actor's subjective awareness of that risk."
[21]. The statutory definition of "recklessness" clarifies that subjective awareness of the risk is required. That raises the possibility that intoxication could, as a factual matter, negate awareness of the risk. For that reason, the original definition of recklessness provided that if voluntary intoxication prevented the actor from being aware of the risk, it was not a defense. This rule was set forth in § 939.24(3):
(3) A voluntarily produced intoxicated or drugged condition is not a defense to liability for criminal recklessness if, had the actor not been in that condition, he or she would have been aware of creating an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another human being.
The Judicial Council Note to subsection (3) explains it as follows:
Subsection (3) continues the present rule that a voluntarily produced intoxicated or drugged condition is not a defense to liability for criminal recklessness. Ameen v. State, 51 Wis.2d 175, 185, 186 N.W.2d 206 (1971). Patterned on s. 2.08 of the model penal code, it premises liability on whether the actor would have been aware if not in such condition of the risk of death or great bodily harm. The commentaries to s. 2.08, model penal code, state the rationale of this rule in extended fashion.
Note to § 939.24(3), 1987 Senate Bill 191.
Section 939.42, the statute codifying both voluntary and involuntary intoxication defenses, was revised by 2013 Wisconsin Act 307 [effective date: April 18, 2014]. Reference to voluntary intoxication was eliminated; as amended, the statute refers only to involuntary intoxication. Act 307 also repealed former sub. (3) of § 939.24, thus getting rid of the special rule excluding voluntary intoxication as a defense to the "aware of the risk" element. For cases arising before the effective date of Act 307, the suggestion included in the previous version of this Comment would still apply: "In a case where there is evidence of intoxication, it may be helpful to advise the jury of the rule provided in subsection (3). The Committee concluded that simply reading the statute is the best way to provide the necessary information.
[22]. The Committee has concluded that consideration of the privilege of self‑defense is relevant to both the "unreasonable risk" and "utter disregard" components of first degree reckless homicide. Conduct does not create an unreasonable risk of harm to another if the conduct is undertaken as reasonable action in self‑defense. Recklessness and reasonable exercise of the privilege cannot coexist. Thus, the Committee concluded that it is best to advise the jury to consider the privilege of self‑defense when considering the "unreasonable risk" component of recklessness.
The last two sentences of this paragraph were added in 2014 in response to the decision in State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis.2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, in which the court of appeals ordered a new trial for a person convicted of 2nd degree recklessly endangering safety. The court held that the jury instructions given in that case – which followed the pattern suggested by Wis JI‑Criminal 801 – were deficient because they did not specifically state that the prosecution must prove the absence of self-defense once raised. The first of the added sentences is intended to make that requirement clear. The second added sentence is intended to emphasize that even if the state succeeds in proving the absence of self-defense, the jury still must be satisfied by all the evidence that the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.
[23]. "Under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life" is the factor that distinguishes this offense from second degree reckless homicide. For a complete discussion of this factor, see Wis JI-Criminal 924A or note 4, Wis JI-Criminal 1020.
[24]. All the circumstances relating to the defendant's conduct should be considered in determining whether that conduct shows "utter disregard" for human life. See Wis JI-Criminal 924A or note 5, Wis JI‑Criminal 1020.
[25]. The Committee has concluded that consideration of the privilege of self‑defense is relevant to both the "unreasonable risk" and "utter disregard" components of first degree reckless homicide. Conduct does not show utter disregard for human life if it is undertaken on the reasonable exercise of the privilege of self‑defense. Thus, the Committee concluded that it is best to advise the jury to consider the privilege of self‑defense when considering the "utter disregard" element.
The last two sentences of this paragraph were added in 2014 in response to the decision in State v. Austin, see note 22, supra. Austin was concerned with the "unreasonable risk" element of the offense, but the same concern should apply to the "utter disregard" element of 1st degree reckless offenses. The first of the added sentences is intended to make it clear that the prosecution must prove the absence of self-defense once raised to meet its burden to prove "utter disregard for human life." The second added sentence is intended to emphasize that even if the state succeeds in proving the absence of self-defense, the jury still must be satisfied by all the evidence that circumstances of the defendant's conduct showed utter disregard for human life.
[26]. This material was added in 2011 in response to the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Burris, 2011 WI 32, 333 Wis.2d 87, 797 N.W.2d 430. For a complete discussion of this issue, see Wis JI-Criminal 924A or note 6, Wis JI-Criminal 1020.
← Previous Jury Instruction
Next Jury Instruction →


text:
[Home](./index.md) > [sip.js](./sip.js.md) > [UserAgentCore](./sip.js.useragentcore.md) > [register](./sip.js.useragentcore.register.md)

## UserAgentCore.register() method

Send REGISTER.

Signature:

```typescript
register(request: OutgoingRequestMessage, delegate?: OutgoingRequestDelegate): OutgoingRegisterRequest;
```

## Parameters

|  Parameter | Type | Description |
|  --- | --- | --- |
|  request | [OutgoingRequestMessage](./sip.js.outgoingrequestmessage.md) | Outgoing request. |
|  delegate | [OutgoingRequestDelegate](./sip.js.outgoingrequestdelegate.md) | Request delegate. |

Returns:

[OutgoingRegisterRequest](./sip.js.outgoingregisterrequest.md)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The HSBC Enterprise Fund was established in July 1997 by the merger of separate HSBC sponsored funds for the East and West Midlands to create a £6.4m fund.
The Fund, which was able to make initial investments of up to £250,000, is now closed. The Fund supported 39 businesses across a wide range of sectors and stages, including start-ups and management buy-outs.
The Fund, which has achieved particular success in software and manufacturing, has delivered a return on investment of 17% since the current Midven management team has been involved in its operation. Generating these return levels over such a long period demonstrates that our approach of working closely with companies delivers long-term growth and value. Note: average returns from funds categorised as 'venture' in the period 1996 to 2010 were -0.3% (source: BVCA).
The Fund was created with funding from HSBC, The European Investment Fund, now defunct Training Enterprise Councils and private individuals.


text:
Serbia SEE Energy Mining News|SEE Energy News|Montenegro: Krnovo wind farm produced 9, 907 MWh of electricity in June
Montenegro: Krnovo wind farm produced 9, 907 MWh of electricity in June
Published on 2. September 2019. , SEE Energy News
According to the data published by Montenegrin electricity market operator COTEE, the country's sole wind farm Krnovo produced 9,907 MWh of electricity in June, lower than in the previous month, when it produced 13,311 MWh.
Krnovo wind farm had the largest contribution to Montenegrin renewable energy production within support scheme, which amounted to 19.4 GWh in June, compared to 28.4 GWh in the previous month. In 2018, Krnovo wind farm produced a total of 161,615 MWh of electricity and 112,024 MWh so far in 2019.
Krnovo wind farm has power output of 72 MW, and it is expected to produce between 200 and 230 GWh of electricity per year, which is about 8 % of the national output. The cost of the project was 120 million euros and it was partially financed through loans provided by the German KfW Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The wind farm was put into operation in November 2017. In January 2018, UAE-based company Masdar acquired 49 % stake in Krnovo wind farm. French Akuo Energy holds the remaining stake.
Montenegro's second wind farm Mozura is expected to enter commercial operation in September.


Submitted by editor on 4 October 2018. Get the paper!
One of the unifying approaches in ecology is to search for common strategies, that is, types of mechanisms and responses to environmental factors and disturbances. Plant strategies to persist in fire-prone ecosystems (and the traits involved) are nowadays quite well know. However, less is known about fire strategies in animals, despite many fire-prone ecosystems harbour a very rich fauna (e.g., savannas). This difference in knowledge is probably due to the intrinsic differences between plants (immobile) and animals (mobile). In this paper I wanted to emphasize the similarities between plants and animals in relation to the mechanisms for living in fire-prone ecosystems. To do so, I propose a very simple classification of fire strategies that should be valid for both plants and animals (Table 1; see the original paper for a detailed description of each strategy).
The advantage of having a unified framework of fire strategies include: (1) we can learn how species respond to fire from a great diversity of life forms; (2) animal and plant ecologists can benefit from shared expertise in fire responses (some common strategies in plants may be overlooked in animals, or vice-versa); (3) we could better predict changes in plant-animal interactions with fire regime changes, and (4) we could better assess and generalize the effects of fire on biodiversity. I hope this framework facilitates finding knowledge gaps and directing future research for gaining a better understanding of the role of fire on biodiversity.
Table 1. Mechanisms of species response to fire (strategy), their fire dynamics and persistence scale, and the prevalence for animals and plants in fire prone ecosystems (low, moderate, and high). The last column refers to the fire characteristics where this strategy is most likely to occur ('high' and 'low' refers to fire intensity).
The rhea (Rhea americana) has a cryptic colouration in postfire environments, when sitting in the ground, the neck cannot be differentiated from a burned stem (Photo: JG Pausas).
Charaxes jasius colonizing the middle of a burnt area 10 days after the wildfire that burned with very high intensity in NE Spain (note that only thick branches remained). (Photo: JG Pausas).
For more information in this research and other topics related to fire ecology see the web (https://www.uv.es/jgpausas/index.htm) and blog (http://jgpausas.blogs.uv.es/) of the author, or follow him on twitter (https://twitter.com/jgpausas).


Michelle Walsh, VOX's Director of Cinemas, led the redesign project in conjunction with the VOX eCommerce and IT teams.
The first phase of development lasted almost 12-months and coincided with a major online and offline rebrand project for VOX. A phased roll-out was combined with Can Factory's agile development approach to allow VOX to make incremental improvements.
The decision was taken to make the initial focus on the migration of existing iOS apps that continues to account for 31% of VOX's online sales. The party started with the relaunch of VOX's new iOS app in April 2016.
Simultaneously Can Factory worked with VOX's eCommerce and IT teams to coordinate the delivery of the Can Factory developed responsive web application. The new site launched shortly afterwards in June 2016 and was followed by the release of the VOX Android app, which were both designed and developed by Can Factory.
A key objective for VOX was to implement a new platform that will scale to support the needs of VOX's aggresive growth strategy in the Middle East & Africa. VOX Cinemas will expand to operate 600 screens across 50 locations in the Middle East by 2020. Can Factory worked closely with the Head of IT, Thomas Joseph and his team to scope a stable and scalable cloud-based solution to host the new application.
As a result of these combined improvements, VOX's new responsive website and mobile apps have already resulted in significant increases to both revenue and traffic.
"The project to transition all of our online customer facing systems was a huge success. Our new responsive website has delivered significant gains in conversion rates and visits, as well as major improvements in stability" confirms Walsh. "The system has resulted in a 65% growth in revenue from online transactions and a 35% increase in traffic. Conversion rates have increased by 18%, a key stat that VOX will look to further improve in 2017 with a host of new releases planned with Can Factory".
Can Factory are looking forward to helping VOX to build on their position as an industry leader, as well as ensuring continued growth of online conversion rates, visits and most importantly happy movie-goers.


Final exams are a source of stress for students everywhere, but staying calm can improve scores.
I know it might be hard to believe, since sometimes it feels like the semester just started yesterday, but make no mistake that final exams are upon us once again. With that in mind, I think we can all agree that this time of the semester can get very chaotic and can inspire a lot of stress. And so, in an effort to try to assist in handling that stress, here are some study tips, resources for wellness and bits of advice to make final exam time move a little more smoothly.
Let's start with some study tips.
The first is simply spending time with the information. However, you need to avoid burn-out, as well, so doing it efficiently, effectively and responsibly is key. For example, studying for 15 minutes then stepping away for five minutes can help break up the stress and keep your energy up. Also, do not study for more than two hours at a time without taking an extended (30-minute to one-hour) break in between.
Another way to study effectively is by practicing probability and categorization. Multiple choice tests often have questions where at least two, if not all incorrect answers, can be removed from consideration immediately. If you do not know the answer, you can try to determine what the answer is not, thereby increasing the probability that you could find what the correct answer would be. Likewise, you can categorize information into areas or common topics and concentrate on one at a time. This will help you make stronger associations between pieces of information.
And, of course, something we're all familiar with: flashcards. When studying information for memorization purposes, the key is to recall the information in a "like" manner, as you will need to on an exam. Use flashcards where one side has a question and the other side has the answer and related information. If you have been taking practice tests, try to write the question in a similar style. Pairing this with the categorization method is also very useful. Run through flashcards of one section once and then shuffle and repeat, then the next section twice, shuffling and repeating between the first and second review, and so on.
Now this one is my personal favorite: Review by hand-writing notes. Doing so helps with memorizing and internalizing information. It's as simple as writing down every key concept and explanation, every key term and definition, etc., in a list, and then do it again a few times per day, trying to complete more of the notes from memory each time.
Finally, just do what works for you, and avoid things that don't work to your benefit. If one of these strategies works the best, focus on that. If none work, but you have another method that does, be sure to implement that one, instead.
And the most important thing to remember is to keep calm. Don't psych yourself out. Not everyone is a natural test taker, but stressing out during study sessions will make retaining information more difficult. Just immerse yourself in the process rather than the result.
While you're studying, remember that Duquesne has resources available to students who might feel overwhelmed, such as the Counseling and Wellbeing Center located in 636 Fisher Hall.
Ashley James, the mental health case manager/intake coordinator of the center, notes that preparing for finals is a semester-long process wherein problems are best solved if identified and dealt with early. That preparedness, in turn, plays a crucial role in managing the anxiety that these exams cause.
I was also referred to the handout available at the center entitled "Handle Your Fear of Finals," written by Marla Somova, the center's former Associate Director. This handout guides readers in managing their stress by differentiating between realistic and unrealistic fears, determining exact fears, identifying what we tell ourselves that might be stressful, visualizing a positive outcome, and finally, being able to relax through mindfulness and meditation.
This handout can be obtained by request through the Counseling and Wellbeing Center, or via email at jamesa3@duq.edu.
So if finals week or any preparation for it gets to be too much, there are people on campus trained to support and assist students.
Managing stress can certainly take some of the pressure off final exams, and many students find that having a plan of study and an outlet for their anxiety works well.
For example, Max Belger, a junior integrated marketing and communications major, describes a method that assists him in organizing and de-stressing.
Similarly, Jamie Palmieri, a freshman physical therapy major, has found an effective stress-relieving method that works for her.
Most importantly, remember that you're not alone, and don't worry: We'll have a well-earned break very soon. Until then, be safe and responsible as you prepare for and take your tests. And above all, remember that each final exam takes you one step closer to success in your future.


But the LORD reigns forever, executing judgment from his throne.
But the LORD will remain and sit enthroned forever; He has prepared and established His throne for judgment.
But the Lord of eternity, our mighty God, lives and reigns forever! He sits enthroned as King ready to render his verdicts and judge all with righteousness.


Are you saying your looking for a good kd or are you looking for members to join you?
too lazy to find one yourself?
try chocolate, we will have you!
chocolate doesnt compromise, all good players!
Rebirth is good, always looking for good players.
Don't you want some CHOCOLATE?
Hmm.. I hear that Bloodlust kingdom or whatever its called is pretty badass.


If you are experiencing issues with printing, including only getting the title page when you print your purchased sheet music, we recommend upgrading your version of Adobe Flash to the latest version, available here.
Once you've updated Adobe Flash, you can try printing again. You can find steps to print your music here.
If you still encounter issues with Adobe Flash, we would suggest visiting the Adobe Flash Player Help page to further troubleshoot your specific issue.
Why am I only getting the title and first page of my music to print?


text:
Cancrincola abbreviata är en kräftdjursart som beskrevs av Humes 1957. Cancrincola abbreviata ingår i släktet Cancrincola och familjen Cancrincolidae. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Hoppkräftor
abbreviata

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


It is saturday night, you are hitting up the club with your best girls and you turn to your closet looking for the perfect dress. What do you hope to find? If you are looking for something that is very "now" then the pink and white dress is what you'd hope would be hanging in your own closet. The olive green color is unique and will make you stand out from all the lbds in the room. The design of the dress, with its wrap that hugs around a miniskirt, and turtle neck but with bare shoulders is sure to keep everyone looking at you this weekend.


text:
Q: How can I change the default color of the button on iPhone? How can I change the default color of the button on iPhone?

A: I came across this post that explains how to do this without images and completely in code.
http://www.cimgf.com/2010/01/28/fun-with-uibuttons-and-core-animation-layers/
Hope that helps.

A: A common technique is to use an image for the background. Actually you can use a stretchable image:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
    UIImage *blueImage = [UIImage imageNamed:@"blueButton.png"];
    UIImage *blueButtonImage = [blueImage stretchableImageWithLeftCapWidth:12 topCapHeight:0];
    [myButton setBackgroundImage:blueButtonImage forState:UIControlStateHighlighted];
}

The original image:

The end result:

A: Assuming you mean UIButton, you can only change the title color using setTitleColor:forState:.
You can't change the background color or the shape. You have to create your own control for that.

A: I started this thread on iphonedevsdk.com.
Hopefully we'll get an answer there if not here.

A: A great way to customize UIButtons is by directly manipulating the Core Animation Layers. You can find a good tutorial on "Cocoa is My Girlfriend"
http://www.cimgf.com/2010/01/28/fun-with-uibuttons-and-core-animation-layers/

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
A new century brings Ragtime to the fore
April 25, 2018 ·	by talkinghistory2013 ·	in 20th century, Music, United States	· Leave a comment
Ragtime became central to the development of jazz in both America and Britain around the turn of the century. The term 'ragtime' comes from the syncopated or 'ragged' rhythm and had its origins in the African-American communities in cities such as St. Louis. One of the first pioneers and composers of ragtime was Ernest Hogan. He was the first composer to have his ragtime pieces (or "rags") published as sheet music, beginning with the song "LA Pas Ma LA" published in 1895. More important, though, could be the fact that he has been credited for coining the term ragtime. Ben Harney, another Kentucky native, has often been credited for introducing the music to the mainstream public. His first ragtime composition, "You've Been a Good Old Wagon but You Done Broke Down", helped popularize the style. However – the composition was published in 1895, a few months after Ernest Hogan.
Nun-the-less – it is neither of these that keep Ragtime in our memory. That composer is Scott Joplin who became famous through the publication of the "Maple Leaf Rag" in 1899 and was followed by "The Entertainer" in 1902. Despite this Scott, and many others of the time, were later forgotten by all but a small, dedicated community of ragtime aficionados. It was not until a major ragtime revival in the early 1970s that brought them to the fore.
So what's happening in Britain at this time? Well – not too much with regard to day-to-day music it would appear. Many of the earliest parlour songs were transcriptions for voice and keyboard of other music. Thomas Moore's Irish Melodies, for instance, were traditional "folk" tunes with new lyrics by Moore. Many arias from Italian operas, particularly those of Bellini and Donizetti, had become parlour songs, with texts either translated or replaced by new lyrics. Various other genres were also performed in the parlour, including patriotic selections, religious songs, and pieces written for the musical stage. However – excerpts from blackface minstrels, arranged for voice and keyboard, were particularly popular. Also we we have a handful of the better-known songs, such as Schubert's "Serenade", that became part of the parlour repertory. Lyrics written for parlour songs often have sentimental themes, such as love songs or poetic meditations. We'll come to these at a later time.
However – the following has been tracked down as being the top 10 pieces in 1901 to 1910. Starting at 10th best – and heading to number one – we have:
Arthur Collins (1902) we have 'Bill Bailey, Won't You Please Come Home'.
Harry MacDonough with Miss Walton (1909)'Shine on Harvest Moon'.
Hayden Quartet (1903) 'In the Good Old Summer Time'.
Bill Murray in 1905 'Yankee Doodle Boy'.
Billy Murray (1904) 'Meet Me in St. Louis, Louis'.
Byron Harlan (1907) 'School Days (When We Were a Couple of Kids)'.
Bill Murray (1905) 'Give my Regards to Broadway'
Hayden Quartet (1908) 'Take me out to the ball game'.
Hayden Quartet (1904) 'Sweet Adeline (You're the Flower of My Heart)'.
And at number one for the years 1901 to 1910 we have:
Bill Murray (1906) 'You're a Grand Old Flag (aka 'The Grand Old Rag')'.
← A great gardener dies
The Chernobyl Disaster of April 1986 →


We get pleasure from an incredibly good popularity amongst our customers for our superb merchandise high-quality, aggressive rate as well as the most effective support for New Products In Market , new products in market , latest products in market , We welcome new and old prospects from all walks of everyday living to get hold of us for future company relationships and mutual achievements!
"We've been committed to offering easy,time-saving and money-saving one-stop purchasing service of consumer for New Products In Market , new products in market , latest products in market , Now we have more than 10 years experience of production and export business. We always develop and design kinds of novel solutions to meet the market demand and help the guests continuously by updating our products. We've been specialized manufacturer and exporter in China. Wherever you are be sure to join us and together we will shape a bright future in your business field!


text:
<?php
App::uses('AppController', 'Controller');

App::import('Controller', 'Users');

/**
 * Lotes Controller
 */
class LotesController extends AppController {

    function beforeFilter() {
        $this->set('title_for_layout', 'Lotes');
    }

    public function isAuthorized($user) {
        $Users = new UsersController;
        return $Users->validaAcesso($this->Session->read(), $this->request->controller);
        return parent::isAuthorized($user);
    }

    /**
     * index method
     */
    public function index() {

        $dadosUser = $this->Session->read();
        $this->Lote->recursive = 0;
        $this->Paginator->settings = array(
            'conditions' => array('empresa_id' => $dadosUser['empresa_id']),
            'order' => array('descricao' => 'asc')
        );
        $this->set('lotes', $this->Paginator->paginate('Lote'));

    }

    /**
     * view method
     */
    public function view($id = null) {

        $this->Lote->id = $id;
        if (!$this->Lote->exists($id)) {
            $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não encontrado.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
            $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
        }

        $dadosUser = $this->Session->read();
        $empresa_id = $dadosUser['empresa_id'];

        $lote = $this->Lote->read(null, $id);
        if ($lote['Lote']['empresa_id'] != $empresa_id) {
            $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não encontrado.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
            $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
        }

        $this->set('lote', $lote);

    }

    /**
     * add method
     */
    public function add() {

        $dadosUser = $this->Session->read();
        $empresa_id = $dadosUser['empresa_id'];
        $this->set(compact('empresa_id'));
        $user_id = $dadosUser['Auth']['User']['id'];
        $this->set(compact('user_id'));

        $opcoes = array('S' => 'SIM', 'N' => 'NÃO');
        $this->set('opcoes', $opcoes);

        if ($this->request->is('post')) {
            $this->Lote->create();
            if ($this->Lote->save($this->request->data)) {
                $this->Session->setFlash('Lote adicionado com sucesso!', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_sucesso'));
                $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
            } else {
                $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não foi salvo. Por favor tente novamente.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
            }
        }

    }

    /**
     * edit method
     */
    public function edit($id = null) {

        $this->Lote->id = $id;
        if (!$this->Lote->exists($id)) {
            $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não encontrado.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
            $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
        }

        $dadosUser = $this->Session->read();
        $empresa_id = $dadosUser['empresa_id'];
        $user_id = $dadosUser['Auth']['User']['id'];
        $this->set(compact('user_id'));

        $opcoes = array('S' => 'SIM', 'N' => 'NÃO');
        $this->set('opcoes', $opcoes);

        $lote = $this->Lote->read(null, $id);
        if ($lote['Lote']['empresa_id'] != $empresa_id) {
            $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não encontrado.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
            $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
        }

        if ($this->request->is('post') || $this->request->is('put')) {
            $this->Lote->id = $id;
            $this->request->data['Lote']['modified'] = date("Y-m-d H:i:s");
            if ($this->Lote->save($this->request->data)) {
                $this->Session->setFlash('Lote alterado com sucesso.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_sucesso'));
                $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
            } else {
                $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não foi alterado. Por favor tente novamente.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
            }
        } else {
            $this->request->data = $lote;
        }

    }

    /**
     * delete method
     */
    public function delete($id = null) {

        $this->Lote->id = $id;
        if (!$this->Lote->exists()) {
            $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não encontrado.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
            $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
        }

        $this->request->onlyAllow('post', 'delete');
        if ($this->Lote->delete()) {
            $this->Session->setFlash('Lote deletado com sucesso.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_sucesso'));
            $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));
        }
        $this->Session->setFlash('Registro não foi deletado.', 'default', array('class' => 'mensagem_erro'));
        $this->redirect(array('action' => 'index'));

    }

}

?>


Jacy Douglas is a middle school English teacher at Parkside School in rural Cullman County, Alabama. Last year, she and co-worker decided to decorate their classrooms like Hogwarts houses from Harry Potter movie.
Their students loved it so they decided to take a step further and started to theme their whole hallway this year. They hired a local artist to paint murals with 3D elements giving their students fully immersive experience.
Other than the murals, the makeover has been done by just the two of them, using inexpensive materials and donated items. Since the transformation, they noticed a significant decrease in student discipline referrals and a huge interest among their students in reading books.
The project was done entirely with funds raised by their "5K race," and out of teachers' own money. Their principal has also been very supportive on this project. Scroll down to see the amazing transformation of the school into Hogwarts.


text:
package com.google.javascript.jscomp;

import com.google.common.base.Preconditions;
import com.google.common.base.Supplier;
import com.google.common.collect.Sets;
import com.google.javascript.rhino.Node;
import com.google.javascript.rhino.Token;

import junit.framework.TestCase;

import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;

/**
 * Inline function tests.
 * @author johnlenz@google.com (John Lenz)
 */
public class FunctionArgumentInjectorTest extends TestCase {

  // TODO(johnlenz): Add unit tests for:
  //    inject
  //    getFunctionCallParameterMap

  private static final Set<String> EMPTY_STRING_SET = Collections.emptySet();

  public void testFindModifiedParameters1() {
    assertEquals(Sets.newHashSet(),
        FunctionArgumentInjector.findModifiedParameters(
            parseFunction("function (a){ return a==0; }")));
  }

  public void testFindModifiedParameters2() {
    assertEquals(Sets.newHashSet(),
        FunctionArgumentInjector.findModifiedParameters(
            parseFunction("function (a){ b=a }")));
  }

  public void testFindModifiedParameters3() {
    assertEquals(Sets.newHashSet("a"),
        FunctionArgumentInjector.findModifiedParameters(
            parseFunction("function (a){ a=0 }")));
  }

  public void testFindModifiedParameters4() {
    assertEquals(Sets.newHashSet("a", "b"),
        FunctionArgumentInjector.findModifiedParameters(
            parseFunction("function (a,b){ a=0;b=0 }")));
  }

  public void testFindModifiedParameters5() {
    assertEquals(Sets.newHashSet("b"),
        FunctionArgumentInjector.findModifiedParameters(
            parseFunction("function (a,b){ a; if (a) b=0 }")));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments1() {
    // Parameters with side-effects must be executed
    // even if they aren't referenced.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){}; foo(goo(),goo());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a", "b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments2() {
    // Unreferenced parameters without side-effects
    // can be ignored.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){}; foo(1,2);",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments3() {
    // Referenced parameters without side-effects
    // don't need temps.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){a;b;}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments4() {
    // Parameters referenced after side-effect must
    // be assigned to temps.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){a;goo();b;}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments5() {
    // Parameters referenced after out-of-scope side-effect must
    // be assigned to temps.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){x = b; y = a;}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments6() {
    // Parameter referenced after a out-of-scope side-effect must
    // be assigned to a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){x++;a;}; foo(x);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments7() {
    // No temp needed after local side-effects.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){var c; c=0; a;}; foo(x);",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments8() {
    // Temp needed for side-effects to object using local name.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){var c = {}; c.goo=0; a;}; foo(x);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments9() {
    // Parameters referenced in a loop with side-effects must
    // be assigned to temps.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){while(true){a;goo();b;}}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a", "b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments10() {
    // No temps for parameters referenced in a loop with no side-effects.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){while(true){a;true;b;}}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments11() {
    // Parameters referenced in a loop with side-effects must
    // be assigned to temps.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){do{a;b;}while(goo());}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a", "b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments12() {
    // Parameters referenced in a loop with side-effects must
    // be assigned to temps.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){for(;;){a;b;goo();}}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a", "b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments13() {
    // Parameters referenced in a inner loop without side-effects must
    // be assigned to temps if the outer loop has side-effects.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){for(;;){for(;;){a;b;}goo();}}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a", "b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments14() {
    // Parameters referenced in a loop must
    // be assigned to temps.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b){goo();for(;;){a;b;}}; foo(x,y);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a", "b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments20() {
    // A long string referenced more than once should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;a;}; foo(\"blah blah\");",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments21() {
    // A short string referenced once should not have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;a;}; foo(\"\");",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments22() {
    // A object literal not referenced.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){}; foo({x:1});",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
    // A object literal referenced, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;}; foo({x:1});",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
    // A object literal, referenced more than once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;a;}; foo({x:1});",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments23() {
    // A array literal, not referenced.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){}; foo([1,2]);",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
    // A array literal, referenced once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;}; foo([1,2]);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
    // A array literal, referenced more than once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;a;}; foo([1,2]);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments24() {
    // A regex literal, not referenced.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){}; foo(/mac/);",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
    // A regex literal, referenced once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;}; foo(/mac/);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
    // A regex literal, referenced more than once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;a;}; foo(/mac/);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments25() {
    // A side-effect-less constructor, not referenced.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){}; foo(new Date());",
        "foo",
        EMPTY_STRING_SET);
    // A side-effect-less constructor, referenced once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;}; foo(new Date());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
    // A side-effect-less constructor, referenced more than once, should have
    // a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;a;}; foo(new Date());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments26() {
    // A constructor, not referenced.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){}; foo(new Bar());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
    // A constructor, referenced once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;}; foo(new Bar());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
    // A constructor, referenced more than once, should have a temp.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){a;a;}; foo(new Bar());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArguments27() {
    // Ensure the correct parameter is given a temp, when there is
    // a this value in the call.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a,b,c){}; foo.call(this,1,goo(),2);",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("b"));
  }

  public void testMaybeAddTempsForCallArgumentsInLoops() {
    // A mutable parameter referenced in loop needs a
    // temporary.
    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){for(;;)a;}; foo(new Bar());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));

    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){while(true)a;}; foo(new Bar());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));

    testNeededTemps(
        "function foo(a){do{a;}while(true)}; foo(new Bar());",
        "foo",
        Sets.newHashSet("a"));
  }

  private void testNeededTemps(
      String code, String fnName, Set<String> expectedTemps) {
    Node n = parse(code);
    Node fn = findFunction(n, fnName);
    assertNotNull(fn);
    Node call = findCall(n, fnName);
    assertNotNull(call);
    Map<String, Node> args =
      FunctionArgumentInjector.getFunctionCallParameterMap(
          fn, call, getNameSupplier());

    Set<String> actualTemps = Sets.newHashSet();
    FunctionArgumentInjector.maybeAddTempsForCallArguments(
        fn, args, actualTemps, new ClosureCodingConvention());

    assertEquals(expectedTemps, actualTemps);
  }

  private static Supplier<String> getNameSupplier() {
    return new Supplier<String>() {
      int i = 0;
      public String get() {
        return String.valueOf(i++);
      }
    };
  }

  private static Node findCall(Node n, String name) {
    if (n.getType() == Token.CALL) {
      Node callee;
      if (NodeUtil.isGet(n.getFirstChild())) {
        callee = n.getFirstChild().getFirstChild();
        Node prop = callee.getNext();
        // Only "call" is support at this point.
        Preconditions.checkArgument(prop.getType() == Token.STRING &&
            prop.getString().equals("call"));
      } else {
        callee = n.getFirstChild();
      }

      if (callee.getType() == Token.NAME
          && callee.getString().equals(name)) {
        return n;
      }
    }

    for (Node c : n.children()) {
      Node result = findCall(c, name);
      if (result != null) {
        return result;
      }
    }

    return null;
  }

  private static Node findFunction(Node n, String name) {
    if (n.getType() == Token.FUNCTION) {
      if (n.getFirstChild().getString().equals(name)) {
        return n;
      }
    }

    for (Node c : n.children()) {
      Node result = findFunction(c, name);
      if (result != null) {
        return result;
      }
    }

    return null;
  }

  private static Node parseFunction(String js) {
    return parse(js).getFirstChild();
  }

  private static Node parse(String js) {
    Compiler compiler = new Compiler();
    Node n = compiler.parseTestCode(js);
    assertEquals(0, compiler.getErrorCount());
    return n;
  }
}


GPL, GTL, GTR, rFactor, F1 GP, Race, etc.
NFS, TDU, Sega Rally, Race Driver, Outrun, FlatOut, Juiced, etc.
Hier kann über alle anderen Spiele diskutiert werden.
You can discuss about all other games here.
Screenshots and videos for any type of game.